(As usual, contains spoilers) "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." is one of the more memorable lines from this documentary style period piece about the Israeli response to the tragedy at the 1972 Munich games. The world watched in horror as "Black September" took 11 Israeli athletes hostage in 1972 and then murdered them as the terrorist group escaped.
Avner (Eric Bana Troy) is a Israeli agent called on to defend the honor of his country following the murder of the Olympians. He and 4 other agents are given 11 names of "Black September" operatives to assassinate in response to the killings in Germany.
Munich speaks to several different issues surrounding the current Middle Eastern problems. Most notably is it's clear assertion that violence has no end. "For every one that we kill, there is another who takes his place, another more terrible than the last." For each terrorist that the team finds and kills there is also a retaliatory action taken against Israeli civilians: hijacking, bombings, shootings, etc. The message here is that violence begets violence. But what have we learned from the Israeli pulling out of the Gaza strip? Apparently peaceful compromise begets violence as well.
As Avner begins to realize that there is no end to what he is doing. And it becomes clear that what was once for honor becomes duty and then deteriorates into meaninglessness.
This was a very violent movie. A very large majority of the violence was necessary and understandable. An exception would be a scene near the end where Mr. Spielberg gratuitously meshes a scene of violence with a sexually charged scene, very disturbing and quite an unnecessary choice.
Also, be prepared for a long movie. Nearly three hours of vengeance seemed a bit much. The period was expertly captured. With large sweeping shots it was clear that everything was controlled: cars, extras, posters, building facades; The acting was fantastic. Bana shined in an accent that never wavered and was excellently supported by the unknowns in his team. The script was well written and it was fascinating to watch the characters change as they become desensitized to what they were doing. Technically exquisite.
One particularly poignant scene was between Avner and a Palestinian agent both discussing why they do what they do. This conversation raised the question: What makes one cause honorable and another dishonorable. What makes one group's interest reasonable and another's outrageous. What makes one country's killers heroes and another's dogs? These are questions that I have yet to answer.
The final shot foreshadows the fact that the terrorism that we were watching would quickly find itself on American soil all too soon.
If you can handle realistic violence (and a brief scene of nudity) this movie is very compelling and definitely worth seeing. 3.75 stars out of 5. And that's just my opinion.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
The Pinhead in Pinstripes
Oh, I suppose that should say idiot. The self-proclaimed idiot, Johnny Damon, is headed to New York. Four years $52 million.
Now he joins the likes of the traitors such as Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens. Isn't it interesting that the Yankees can't seem to build their own players? No no, other teams groom them and then the Yankees come and steal them away with their bread and circuses. Well, Damon, if money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive!
Hey! Larry! Great job! Damon starts off asking for 7 years 84 million, you offer 4 years 40 million and he's stolen out from under you by the Bronx Bums for 4/52? Isn't it clear that he wanted time and not necessarily money?! Give him something to think about! How about 5 years 50 million?! 4/48 (ask for a hometown discount!) Something!
Johnny stand up to your stupid agent, he's only in it for the money, just like you. Oh, wait! That's it! This is a trick, a rouse! This is Damon's way of sticking it to the Evil Empire. He's agreed in principle! He hasn't signed anything! Larry and Johnny got together and said we need to get back at them for the A-Fraud deal! Just before he's gonna sign his cell phone rings and Johnny agrees to a 5 year 50 million dollar deal with the Sox screwing the Yankees!
Yeah right.
When interviewed, Johnny said "George [Steinbrener] has a policy of getting the best players and they pursued me pretty strongly." (If that doesn't sound like Damon just throw in a couple dozen "ums" and you'll hear it.) Alright Johnny, yeah, boost your ego. Are you forgetting about the "best players" named Mark Bellhorn, Allen Embry, Womack, Bueller?
"I love the Boston fans" says Damon. "That's why I told them to #$@% off by signing with the team they hate even the sound of."
Damon gave himself away as to how he feels when he said "We're going to bring another championship to them" Them! not "we're gonna win another championship." Not "I'm going to bring another championship to New York." No, "to them!"
Damon continued proving that he is an idiot when, after the Yankees made the offer, he called the Manager Tito Francona, someone with no bargaining power. Instead of Larry Lucchino or either of the no-name two headed monster GM's. In fact, the Red Sox have recently said that they were not made aware of this deal at all last night.
Oh well. Johnny, Enjoy covering that cavernous center field and requiring two cut off men just to get the ball back to the infield. Enjoy being clean shaven and having short hair (no more "Jesus" comments for you) Enjoy going from a SuperStar in Boston to "that-guy-with-no-arm-in-center-field" in New York.
Apu, am I vindicated yet? Am I correct in saying that this team is being gutted? Enjoy struggling with a mediocre team that will finish in third and miss the playoffs next year. I'm out. I'm done. Maybe I'll route for the Red Sox of the west the L.A. Dodgers. They've got Grady Little, Billy Mueller, Nomah, and Derek Lowe.
If Theo were still here, this wouldn't be happening. But that's just my opinion!
Now he joins the likes of the traitors such as Wade Boggs and Roger Clemens. Isn't it interesting that the Yankees can't seem to build their own players? No no, other teams groom them and then the Yankees come and steal them away with their bread and circuses. Well, Damon, if money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive!
Hey! Larry! Great job! Damon starts off asking for 7 years 84 million, you offer 4 years 40 million and he's stolen out from under you by the Bronx Bums for 4/52? Isn't it clear that he wanted time and not necessarily money?! Give him something to think about! How about 5 years 50 million?! 4/48 (ask for a hometown discount!) Something!
Johnny stand up to your stupid agent, he's only in it for the money, just like you. Oh, wait! That's it! This is a trick, a rouse! This is Damon's way of sticking it to the Evil Empire. He's agreed in principle! He hasn't signed anything! Larry and Johnny got together and said we need to get back at them for the A-Fraud deal! Just before he's gonna sign his cell phone rings and Johnny agrees to a 5 year 50 million dollar deal with the Sox screwing the Yankees!
Yeah right.
When interviewed, Johnny said "George [Steinbrener] has a policy of getting the best players and they pursued me pretty strongly." (If that doesn't sound like Damon just throw in a couple dozen "ums" and you'll hear it.) Alright Johnny, yeah, boost your ego. Are you forgetting about the "best players" named Mark Bellhorn, Allen Embry, Womack, Bueller?
"I love the Boston fans" says Damon. "That's why I told them to #$@% off by signing with the team they hate even the sound of."
Damon gave himself away as to how he feels when he said "We're going to bring another championship to them" Them! not "we're gonna win another championship." Not "I'm going to bring another championship to New York." No, "to them!"
Damon continued proving that he is an idiot when, after the Yankees made the offer, he called the Manager Tito Francona, someone with no bargaining power. Instead of Larry Lucchino or either of the no-name two headed monster GM's. In fact, the Red Sox have recently said that they were not made aware of this deal at all last night.
Oh well. Johnny, Enjoy covering that cavernous center field and requiring two cut off men just to get the ball back to the infield. Enjoy being clean shaven and having short hair (no more "Jesus" comments for you) Enjoy going from a SuperStar in Boston to "that-guy-with-no-arm-in-center-field" in New York.
Apu, am I vindicated yet? Am I correct in saying that this team is being gutted? Enjoy struggling with a mediocre team that will finish in third and miss the playoffs next year. I'm out. I'm done. Maybe I'll route for the Red Sox of the west the L.A. Dodgers. They've got Grady Little, Billy Mueller, Nomah, and Derek Lowe.
If Theo were still here, this wouldn't be happening. But that's just my opinion!
Monday, December 19, 2005
The true meaning of Christmas: stuff!
Ok, some people have been protesting Walmart because a search for the term "Christmas" on their site brought customers to a page titled "Holiday." However, a search for any other winter holiday (IA Hanukkah or Kwanzaa) you are brought to a page that is titled with those holidays.
When a customer emailed to complain about this, she received the following email:
Walmart claimed that this was an unauthorized email from a temporary employee and labeled it as inappropriate.
All of this is neither here nor there. I don't really care about the above, I'm writing about the reaction:
"About 50 protesters took part in Saturday's demonstration, organized by religious leaders. Dick Otterstad of the Church of the Divide donned a Santa Claus costume and greeted shoppers with the message: Don't forget about the meaning of Christmas."
I don't really think I have to say anything more about this! Maybe I do side with Wilcox when it comes to using situations like this to simply find another way to be different than the culture that surrounds me. "So don't blame me for what these nitwits say (or do!) Hey, they don't speak for me!"
Their opinion is not just my opinion!
When a customer emailed to complain about this, she received the following email:
"Walmart is a world wide organization and must remain conscious of this. The majority of the world still has different practices other than "Christmas" which is an ancient tradition that has its roots in Siberian shamanism. The colors associated with "Christmas" red and white are actually a representation of of the aminita mascera mushroom. Santa is also borrowed from the Caucuses, mistletoe from the Celts, yule log from the Goths, the time from the Visigoth and the tree from the worship of Baal. It is a wide wide world."
Walmart claimed that this was an unauthorized email from a temporary employee and labeled it as inappropriate.
All of this is neither here nor there. I don't really care about the above, I'm writing about the reaction:
"About 50 protesters took part in Saturday's demonstration, organized by religious leaders. Dick Otterstad of the Church of the Divide donned a Santa Claus costume and greeted shoppers with the message: Don't forget about the meaning of Christmas."
I don't really think I have to say anything more about this! Maybe I do side with Wilcox when it comes to using situations like this to simply find another way to be different than the culture that surrounds me. "So don't blame me for what these nitwits say (or do!) Hey, they don't speak for me!"
Their opinion is not just my opinion!
Friday, December 16, 2005
Rapid Rants
Rant one: Brokeback Mountain. "The first cowboy movie where the good guy gets it in the end." Yup, this is a gay cowboy movie. I'm just going to warn you all now, that anyone who doesn't got to this movie may be berated as to why they didn't go. Don't like romance movies? Don't like westerns? Don't like movies where a guy leaves his wife and kids to be with his gay lover? Be prepared to be labeled as a homophobe!
People will tell you that this movie has the critics raving! Of course it does! The critics can't afford to go against this film! Would you wanna be blacklisted? What about this: If this movie was a love story between a guy and a girl, would it receive this same hype? Award nominations? Media coverage? (I'll give you a hint: no!)
Ask anyone who claims that you are a homophobe if you didn't go to this film the following: Did you see "Friday Night Lights? No? What are you a Footballphobe? Or did the film just not interest you?" Don't let anyone guilt you into seeing a movie that you have no interest in seeing!
One more thing about this film: If you aren't seeing it because of your value system, don't let anybody make you feel guilty about that either. I don't support movies that encourage people to disregard responsibility, no matter what it is. Bridges of Madison County, The American President, or Titanic.
Second: Oh secular tree, oh secular tree, how lovely are your branches. What's with the holiday tree thing? Does any other celebration in December use a tree? No. It's like saying that it's not an soccer ball, it's a game ball. Ever play the game Ping Pong with a "game ball?" what about billiards. Let's play that with our "game ball."
I wanna know what the ACLU will do when someone finally discovers that the word "Holiday" is a compound word consisting of "Holy" and "Day"? Happy Seculaday.
(On a humorous side, there is a sign at a tree sellers place in Texas that says "Fresh Cut Holiday Trees" in English, but the Spanish still says "Navidad" which means "Christmas!")
That and the Brits must think we're nuts! To them "holiday" is a vacation. We have vacation trees in our living rooms! Oh my!
Finally: AOL: Amish Online. A 75 year old Amish widower was bilked out of over $65,000 because a he was afraid that his church community would discover that he'd gone to a prostitute. The prostitute said that if he didn't pay her money that pictures of their "interaction" would appear on the internet. The internet? Alright, so this Amish man not only thought that people from his parish would not only be on the internet, but he also thought they'd locate the pornographic photographs he was featured in! Anybody else see something wrong there?
But wait, it gets better. The prostitute was caught when the Amish man's deacon came up with a scheme. The next time she demanded money, the deacon went with our widower and they got her to admit what the money was for: Blackmail. Here's the kicker: The deacon was wearing a small digital camera with a wireless transmitter! When did the Amish find technology?! Something just ain't right there!
Sorry it's been so long since you've heard just my opinion.
People will tell you that this movie has the critics raving! Of course it does! The critics can't afford to go against this film! Would you wanna be blacklisted? What about this: If this movie was a love story between a guy and a girl, would it receive this same hype? Award nominations? Media coverage? (I'll give you a hint: no!)
Ask anyone who claims that you are a homophobe if you didn't go to this film the following: Did you see "Friday Night Lights? No? What are you a Footballphobe? Or did the film just not interest you?" Don't let anyone guilt you into seeing a movie that you have no interest in seeing!
One more thing about this film: If you aren't seeing it because of your value system, don't let anybody make you feel guilty about that either. I don't support movies that encourage people to disregard responsibility, no matter what it is. Bridges of Madison County, The American President, or Titanic.
Second: Oh secular tree, oh secular tree, how lovely are your branches. What's with the holiday tree thing? Does any other celebration in December use a tree? No. It's like saying that it's not an soccer ball, it's a game ball. Ever play the game Ping Pong with a "game ball?" what about billiards. Let's play that with our "game ball."
I wanna know what the ACLU will do when someone finally discovers that the word "Holiday" is a compound word consisting of "Holy" and "Day"? Happy Seculaday.
(On a humorous side, there is a sign at a tree sellers place in Texas that says "Fresh Cut Holiday Trees" in English, but the Spanish still says "Navidad" which means "Christmas!")
That and the Brits must think we're nuts! To them "holiday" is a vacation. We have vacation trees in our living rooms! Oh my!
Finally: AOL: Amish Online. A 75 year old Amish widower was bilked out of over $65,000 because a he was afraid that his church community would discover that he'd gone to a prostitute. The prostitute said that if he didn't pay her money that pictures of their "interaction" would appear on the internet. The internet? Alright, so this Amish man not only thought that people from his parish would not only be on the internet, but he also thought they'd locate the pornographic photographs he was featured in! Anybody else see something wrong there?
But wait, it gets better. The prostitute was caught when the Amish man's deacon came up with a scheme. The next time she demanded money, the deacon went with our widower and they got her to admit what the money was for: Blackmail. Here's the kicker: The deacon was wearing a small digital camera with a wireless transmitter! When did the Amish find technology?! Something just ain't right there!
Sorry it's been so long since you've heard just my opinion.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
December "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll question for the week of December 26th-January 4th
Question: What aspect of life does your New Year's Resolution deal with?
Results:
Poll question for the week of December 19th-December 25th
Question:Other than the true meaning, what is your favorite aspect of Christmas?
Results:
Poll question for the week of December 12th-December 18th
Question:What type of Christmas tree do you have?
Results:
Poll question for the week of December 5th-December 11th
Question: When do you shop for your Christmas presents?
Results:
Question: What aspect of life does your New Year's Resolution deal with?
Results:
Spiritual (Prayer, Evangelism, Reading, Pilgrimage)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (50%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (50%)
Poll question for the week of December 19th-December 25th
Question:Other than the true meaning, what is your favorite aspect of Christmas?
Results:
Brotherhood among strangers
- 1 vote (14.3%)
- 2 votes (28.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (28.3%)
- 1 vote (14.3%)
- 1 vote (14.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll question for the week of December 12th-December 18th
Question:What type of Christmas tree do you have?
Results:
A real tree with white lights and mostly store bought ornaments
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (50%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll question for the week of December 5th-December 11th
Question: When do you shop for your Christmas presents?
Results:
I shop all year 'round!
- 2 votes (28.6%)
- 0 vote (0%)
- 4 votes (57.1%)
- 1 vote (14.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The MVP of the AFC?
Who should the MVP of the AFC be?
Well, most of you think that I'm going to taut the greatness of Tom Brady. Now, while I could make an argument as to why Brady could be the MVP that is not the intention of this post.
The rumors are flying that, should the Indianapolis Colts complete this season 16-0 that Peyton Manning should be the MVP. I highly disagree!
Do you recall any of my arguments regarding the MLB MVP debacle? The question you have to ask when determining MVP is "how would the team be doing if this person was not on it?"
Let's look at the poor, poor talent that surrounds Peyton on the Colts: For Wide Receiver, he only has Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Brandon Stokley. Running Back? Edgerrin James and Dominic Rhodes. Tight End: Dallas Clark. Not to mention Mike Vanderjaqt as the Colts kicker. With such defensive names as Dwight Freeney, Dexter Reid, and Robert Mathis! Man, with nobodies like that on his team, how do they keep winning?!
My word! You could put Jake Delhomme or Kyle Orton on that team and they'd be undefeated! MVP my BLT!
No, the MVP of the AFC should not be Peyton Manning. But here are a few good candidates:
Tom Brady: New England Patriots. Ok, I'll get him out of the way. Yes, his team is currently 7-5 and will either end the season 11-5 or 10-6 and will go to the playoffs. Why should Brady be considered? Because nearly everyone on his team is injured and yet they still lead their division (as weak as the AFC East may be.) Heath Evans? Hank Poteat? Where is Earthwind Morland (That's his real name, I didn't make that up)? With two rookies on his blind side and 0 defense Brady has hoisted the Patriots on his shoulders and is carrying them to the postseason!
Carson Palmer: Cincinnati Bengals. He leads the league with TD passes. 2nd highest passer ratings in the NFL. 2nd most passing yards. And his team has erupted to lead the division (2nd in the AFC to the "cake walk" schedule Colts) after a decade of sub .500 seasons! No really standout receivers. The Bengals don't have a lot of superstars. He is carrying his team right now!
LaDanian Tomlinson: San Diego Chargers. This player truly is my favorite for MVP. He leads the NFL in touchdowns with 19 (17 rushing, 2 receiving, and he's even tossed 2 touchdowns)! 2nd in the AFC in total rushing. (1st is Edgerin, again helping the Colts be undefeated and taking away from Peyton's MVP points) Averages 97.7 yrds per game. 2nd most 20+ yard carries in the AFC. Averages 3rd most carries per game. Highest average yards per carry for backs averaging 20 or more carries per game. This man is carrying his team!
Manning MVP? Not likely! But hey, that's just my opinion.
Well, most of you think that I'm going to taut the greatness of Tom Brady. Now, while I could make an argument as to why Brady could be the MVP that is not the intention of this post.
The rumors are flying that, should the Indianapolis Colts complete this season 16-0 that Peyton Manning should be the MVP. I highly disagree!
Do you recall any of my arguments regarding the MLB MVP debacle? The question you have to ask when determining MVP is "how would the team be doing if this person was not on it?"
Let's look at the poor, poor talent that surrounds Peyton on the Colts: For Wide Receiver, he only has Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Brandon Stokley. Running Back? Edgerrin James and Dominic Rhodes. Tight End: Dallas Clark. Not to mention Mike Vanderjaqt as the Colts kicker. With such defensive names as Dwight Freeney, Dexter Reid, and Robert Mathis! Man, with nobodies like that on his team, how do they keep winning?!
My word! You could put Jake Delhomme or Kyle Orton on that team and they'd be undefeated! MVP my BLT!
No, the MVP of the AFC should not be Peyton Manning. But here are a few good candidates:
Tom Brady: New England Patriots. Ok, I'll get him out of the way. Yes, his team is currently 7-5 and will either end the season 11-5 or 10-6 and will go to the playoffs. Why should Brady be considered? Because nearly everyone on his team is injured and yet they still lead their division (as weak as the AFC East may be.) Heath Evans? Hank Poteat? Where is Earthwind Morland (That's his real name, I didn't make that up)? With two rookies on his blind side and 0 defense Brady has hoisted the Patriots on his shoulders and is carrying them to the postseason!
Carson Palmer: Cincinnati Bengals. He leads the league with TD passes. 2nd highest passer ratings in the NFL. 2nd most passing yards. And his team has erupted to lead the division (2nd in the AFC to the "cake walk" schedule Colts) after a decade of sub .500 seasons! No really standout receivers. The Bengals don't have a lot of superstars. He is carrying his team right now!
LaDanian Tomlinson: San Diego Chargers. This player truly is my favorite for MVP. He leads the NFL in touchdowns with 19 (17 rushing, 2 receiving, and he's even tossed 2 touchdowns)! 2nd in the AFC in total rushing. (1st is Edgerin, again helping the Colts be undefeated and taking away from Peyton's MVP points) Averages 97.7 yrds per game. 2nd most 20+ yard carries in the AFC. Averages 3rd most carries per game. Highest average yards per carry for backs averaging 20 or more carries per game. This man is carrying his team!
Manning MVP? Not likely! But hey, that's just my opinion.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
A couple of queries
John Kerry: Mr. Kerry, could you please explain to me the difference between a "Artificial withdrawal date" and an "Estimated timetable for success." Because they sound an awful lot like the same thing to me!
Larry Luccino: Mr. Luccino, please tell me that what I heard about you thinking of trading Manny Ramirez to the Angels for three prospects isn't true. Because if it is, here's my question: Why would you trade the best right handed hitter in the American League to a team for prospects when you traded ours away already? If you wanted prospects why didn't you keep the ones we had!?
Me: Question: Why is it that I have a hard time believing an actor or actress who is known to be gay when they are playing a straight part, but not such a hard time believing an actor or actress who is straight playing a gay part? Example: Anne Heche in Six Days Seven Nights vs Oliver Platt in Three to Tango.
Everyone: The Queen of Hearts posed an excellent question this morning. She asked: "Do you think Solomon knew about his parents?" (Solomon being the child of David and Bathsheba after David had Uriah killed). So, what do you think? Did he?
Well, even though it doesn't look like it, but even in this post something is exposed and it's just my opinion.
Larry Luccino: Mr. Luccino, please tell me that what I heard about you thinking of trading Manny Ramirez to the Angels for three prospects isn't true. Because if it is, here's my question: Why would you trade the best right handed hitter in the American League to a team for prospects when you traded ours away already? If you wanted prospects why didn't you keep the ones we had!?
Me: Question: Why is it that I have a hard time believing an actor or actress who is known to be gay when they are playing a straight part, but not such a hard time believing an actor or actress who is straight playing a gay part? Example: Anne Heche in Six Days Seven Nights vs Oliver Platt in Three to Tango.
Everyone: The Queen of Hearts posed an excellent question this morning. She asked: "Do you think Solomon knew about his parents?" (Solomon being the child of David and Bathsheba after David had Uriah killed). So, what do you think? Did he?
Well, even though it doesn't look like it, but even in this post something is exposed and it's just my opinion.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The ACLfUture
The ACLU is getting involved in many holiday issues as the Christmas season roles around. Many Christmas trees are being called "holiday trees" as they stand next to the "holiday candle holder."
How does the ACLU decide which side of an argument they are going to defend. Shouldn't they really defend both sides? They are the American Civil Liberties Union. Well, it's my civil liberty to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree! In fact, I'm offended by people calling them holiday trees. So I demand that the "Reverend" Al Sharpton speak out about my rights!
That's always what it seems to be though: The ACLU jumps in when people are "offended" (or when it's against the church. EI the teacher in the private Catholic school who got pregnant and then got fired for violating the statement of conduct that she signed. They jumped all over that one (although, they are secretly ill over the fact that this unmarried woman is actually keeping the baby!))
Well let's see what people are offended by: The British-Americans are offended by our calling potato chips "chips." European-Americans are offended by our calling American Football "Football." Chinese-Americans are offended by what we call "Chinese food." So what does our future look like?
"Oh my! I was on my cooshy long chair (People named Sophia are offended at the name Sofa) watching 11 grown men in close fitting uniforms throw each other on the ground ("Football" is no longer a legal name). In fact it was the Washington Aboriginal Americans (Can't say Redskins) vs the Oakland Counter Cultural Seafaring Alternative Money Getters (Raiders is certainly out!). I was eating some thinly sliced deep fried potato slices (can't use "chips") when I started to asphyxiate! (New York Yankees fans have patented the term "Choke") I called the emergency number (Families of the victims of 9/11 sued) and some EMTs (for some reason, no one is upset about that one) from the hospital that is named after the person affiliated with the church (The names of saints are no longer allowed to be spoken) came to help. They administered the Heim maneuver (Heimlich was too German offending WWII veterans and survivors of the holocaust) and I could breath again! Afterwards, they commented on my holiday decorations, my inflatable snowpeople (no more "snowmen") and my lifesized Big Red Suited Gift Giver (Santa Claus was originally St. Nick... The church is a no-no!)"
Hurray for the ACLU, making everything generic!
(Required legal disclaimer: Just my opinion)
How does the ACLU decide which side of an argument they are going to defend. Shouldn't they really defend both sides? They are the American Civil Liberties Union. Well, it's my civil liberty to call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree! In fact, I'm offended by people calling them holiday trees. So I demand that the "Reverend" Al Sharpton speak out about my rights!
That's always what it seems to be though: The ACLU jumps in when people are "offended" (or when it's against the church. EI the teacher in the private Catholic school who got pregnant and then got fired for violating the statement of conduct that she signed. They jumped all over that one (although, they are secretly ill over the fact that this unmarried woman is actually keeping the baby!))
Well let's see what people are offended by: The British-Americans are offended by our calling potato chips "chips." European-Americans are offended by our calling American Football "Football." Chinese-Americans are offended by what we call "Chinese food." So what does our future look like?
"Oh my! I was on my cooshy long chair (People named Sophia are offended at the name Sofa) watching 11 grown men in close fitting uniforms throw each other on the ground ("Football" is no longer a legal name). In fact it was the Washington Aboriginal Americans (Can't say Redskins) vs the Oakland Counter Cultural Seafaring Alternative Money Getters (Raiders is certainly out!). I was eating some thinly sliced deep fried potato slices (can't use "chips") when I started to asphyxiate! (New York Yankees fans have patented the term "Choke") I called the emergency number (Families of the victims of 9/11 sued) and some EMTs (for some reason, no one is upset about that one) from the hospital that is named after the person affiliated with the church (The names of saints are no longer allowed to be spoken) came to help. They administered the Heim maneuver (Heimlich was too German offending WWII veterans and survivors of the holocaust) and I could breath again! Afterwards, they commented on my holiday decorations, my inflatable snowpeople (no more "snowmen") and my lifesized Big Red Suited Gift Giver (Santa Claus was originally St. Nick... The church is a no-no!)"
Hurray for the ACLU, making everything generic!
(Required legal disclaimer: Just my opinion)
Friday, November 25, 2005
Two sports discriminations
Sportsline: NBA. Take a look at this article. This (like Titanic) is being marketed as historically accurate and yet no one in the know (or out, for that matter) has ever heard of a "Negro Basketball League."
I think this is somewhat belittling to the Negro Baseball League, where people really did have to struggle to break the color barrier. This was not an issue in basketball! But someone has now fabricated a race issue. (Like we don't have enough issues already!)
Hey, if you have a cool idea: "Let's make some old tyme looking logos and sell them on clothing" Great! But don't try to pawn it off as though it's historical.
Sportsline: Illinois. Here's one that hits close to home. Here is a boy who wants to bowl on his high school team. The problem? The team is a girls team. There is no boys team. Fine, no boys on girls teams. Here's the real problem: Girls are allowed to play on the boys teams. That's right. If there is no girls team offered in a sport that a girl wants to play, the girls are allowed on the team. Not so for the boys!
Why does this hit so close to home? A girl was allowed to wrestle, yes, wrestle, on the boys team in my high school, but boys were not allowed to compete in any girls teams!
The boy who hopes to bowl faces suspension if he even shows up to tryouts for the bowling team. Where is the ACLU now? Oh, it's a white male being discriminated against... They aren't interested in that.
Well, there it is: Just my opinion
I think this is somewhat belittling to the Negro Baseball League, where people really did have to struggle to break the color barrier. This was not an issue in basketball! But someone has now fabricated a race issue. (Like we don't have enough issues already!)
Hey, if you have a cool idea: "Let's make some old tyme looking logos and sell them on clothing" Great! But don't try to pawn it off as though it's historical.
Sportsline: Illinois. Here's one that hits close to home. Here is a boy who wants to bowl on his high school team. The problem? The team is a girls team. There is no boys team. Fine, no boys on girls teams. Here's the real problem: Girls are allowed to play on the boys teams. That's right. If there is no girls team offered in a sport that a girl wants to play, the girls are allowed on the team. Not so for the boys!
Why does this hit so close to home? A girl was allowed to wrestle, yes, wrestle, on the boys team in my high school, but boys were not allowed to compete in any girls teams!
The boy who hopes to bowl faces suspension if he even shows up to tryouts for the bowling team. Where is the ACLU now? Oh, it's a white male being discriminated against... They aren't interested in that.
Well, there it is: Just my opinion
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Stop the politics, it's making me dizzy!
Isn't it amazing that two politicians can both speak the truth and the public still doesn't know what to believe?! Here is the situation:
Once again our politicians in Washington who are "dedicated to bi-partisan politics" are hurtling boulders at each other regarding the war in Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney was quoted yesterday as saying, "Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein, These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities."
Outspoken (current) opponent to the war (he may change his mind later, we don't really know) John Kerry responded by saying, "That is just plain, flat, not true, we did not see the same intelligence and I challenge the vice president, I challenge him to answer the fundamental questions from the facts."
Stop the spinning please, I'd like to get off...
Who lied? Neither. Cheney spoke the truth when he said, "These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials." And Kerry spoke the truth when he said, "we did not see the same intelligence." A brilliant spin by Kerry. Answering "I didn't see it" to "You had access to it" implies that he didn't really have access. Truth is, he did and he couldn't be bothered to view it. Why? The intelligence had nothing to do with it, it was a political move. The atmosphere of the country was to hit Iraq and hit 'em hard. So that's how they voted. It was just before an election. If you didn't vote to go to war you were branded as unpatriotic! Now the atmosphere has slid to an anti-war majority, so what do the panderers do? They switch their views as well! They claim purposeful misleading! It doesn't matter that he had access, he never read it!
What responsibleible leadership! I can't wait for this man to run for president again!
But, as you all know, this is just my opinion.
Once again our politicians in Washington who are "dedicated to bi-partisan politics" are hurtling boulders at each other regarding the war in Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney was quoted yesterday as saying, "Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein, These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical capabilities."
Outspoken (current) opponent to the war (he may change his mind later, we don't really know) John Kerry responded by saying, "That is just plain, flat, not true, we did not see the same intelligence and I challenge the vice president, I challenge him to answer the fundamental questions from the facts."
Stop the spinning please, I'd like to get off...
Who lied? Neither. Cheney spoke the truth when he said, "These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence materials." And Kerry spoke the truth when he said, "we did not see the same intelligence." A brilliant spin by Kerry. Answering "I didn't see it" to "You had access to it" implies that he didn't really have access. Truth is, he did and he couldn't be bothered to view it. Why? The intelligence had nothing to do with it, it was a political move. The atmosphere of the country was to hit Iraq and hit 'em hard. So that's how they voted. It was just before an election. If you didn't vote to go to war you were branded as unpatriotic! Now the atmosphere has slid to an anti-war majority, so what do the panderers do? They switch their views as well! They claim purposeful misleading! It doesn't matter that he had access, he never read it!
What responsibleible leadership! I can't wait for this man to run for president again!
But, as you all know, this is just my opinion.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Newsflash: Parents no longer allowed to parent!
Alright, for years we've been told that spanking our children is baaaaad. It can cause irreparable damage to their psyche and emotions! Who knows how they might end up? They could grow up to be (gasp) strange, like me! (On a side note, good for the Canadian Supreme Court for upholding a law allowing parents to spank their children as long as they are between the ages of 2 and 12.)
So, we've been told that we need to find different ways to discipline and punish our children. For example: Rewards for behavior that used to be expected. "Oh, you cleaned your room! Excellent, here's a dollar." 100 years ago it was "Oh, you plowed the corn field! Excellent, you get to eat."
Here is what should be a shining example: A mother (Tasha Henderson) in Oklahoma has a 14 year old girl who was causing problems. Ms. Henderson's daughter was mouthing off against her mother and teachers, she was getting bad grades, and she was being disruptive in school. Worried about where such behavior might lead her daughter, Ms. Henderson made her daughter stand at an intersection with a sign that read: "I don't do my homework and I act up in school, so my parents are preparing me for my future. Will work for food."
Brilliant!
Now, as I was reading this article, I was thinking, I wonder if it will be tomorrow or the next day when I hear that DSS is looking into this situation.
I didn't have to wait that long. The article went on to say, "While Henderson stood next to her daughter at the intersection, a passing motorist called police with a report of psychological abuse, and an Oklahoma City police officer took a report." It takes a village doesn't it? Yup, it takes a village of people who don't know what's going on in that home to declare that what was being done was wrong and detrimental to the child.
So, what can we learn from this? We can learn that punishment and discipline cannot be 1)Physically painful (no spanking) 2)Emotionally harmful (no humiliation) 3)Psychologically damaging (no reprimanding) 4)Effective! Why are we surprised that we cannot get control of the drug culture? Why are we surprised that we cannot curb teen pregnancies? Why are we surprised that we cannot keep our kids in school? Modern psychology says that we cannot discipline our children!
The article quoted a child-development professional: "Donald Wertlieb, a professor of child development at the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University, warned that such punishment could do extreme emotional damage. He said rewarding positive behavior is more effective.
"The trick is to catch them being good," he said. "It sounds like this mother has not had a chance to catch her child being good or is so upset over seeing her be bad, that's where the focus is."
"Catch them being good?" Catch them? Like they are sneaking around being good on the sly? Maybe the mother was focused on the bad because that was the majority of what was happening?! And look, this genius is teaching others how to rear children!
I've heard supposed professionals regarding potty training go so far as to say, "don't rush them. When they are ready to be potty trained, they will let you know." Yeah, and in the mean time you've got a 7 year old wearing diapers! There is a reason that adults have children, so that children can learn to be adults! That will not happen if we let kids do their own thing! Am I the only one who's read "Lord of the Flies?"
Mudflaps mentioned during a discussion regarding this that he'd like to see the "statistics" of parents who are Child-development "professionals." We're all wagering that a majority of their kids are messed up! Hey, Pro, Question for ya: What's the difference between this and Oprah sending troubled teens to a Juvi jail or even an adult facility to see where they are headed? huh? As Abraxis said, "Why do judges get to dole out "creative punishments" if parents can't?"
What was the result of this "psychologically damaging" punishment? "Tasha Henderson said her daughter's attendance has been perfect and her behavior has been better since the incident...Coretha, a soft-spoken girl, acknowledged the punishment was humiliating but said it got her attention. "I won't talk back," she said quietly"
The article added, "There wasn't any criminal act involved that the officer could see that would require any criminal investigation," Master Sgt. Charles Phillips said. "DSS may follow up." DSS spokesman Doug Doe would not comment on whether an investigation was opened, but suggested such a case would probably not be a high priority." Well, I'm happy to hear that.
The preceding rant has been brought to you by: Just my opinion.
So, we've been told that we need to find different ways to discipline and punish our children. For example: Rewards for behavior that used to be expected. "Oh, you cleaned your room! Excellent, here's a dollar." 100 years ago it was "Oh, you plowed the corn field! Excellent, you get to eat."
Here is what should be a shining example: A mother (Tasha Henderson) in Oklahoma has a 14 year old girl who was causing problems. Ms. Henderson's daughter was mouthing off against her mother and teachers, she was getting bad grades, and she was being disruptive in school. Worried about where such behavior might lead her daughter, Ms. Henderson made her daughter stand at an intersection with a sign that read: "I don't do my homework and I act up in school, so my parents are preparing me for my future. Will work for food."
Brilliant!
Now, as I was reading this article, I was thinking, I wonder if it will be tomorrow or the next day when I hear that DSS is looking into this situation.
I didn't have to wait that long. The article went on to say, "While Henderson stood next to her daughter at the intersection, a passing motorist called police with a report of psychological abuse, and an Oklahoma City police officer took a report." It takes a village doesn't it? Yup, it takes a village of people who don't know what's going on in that home to declare that what was being done was wrong and detrimental to the child.
So, what can we learn from this? We can learn that punishment and discipline cannot be 1)Physically painful (no spanking) 2)Emotionally harmful (no humiliation) 3)Psychologically damaging (no reprimanding) 4)Effective! Why are we surprised that we cannot get control of the drug culture? Why are we surprised that we cannot curb teen pregnancies? Why are we surprised that we cannot keep our kids in school? Modern psychology says that we cannot discipline our children!
The article quoted a child-development professional: "Donald Wertlieb, a professor of child development at the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University, warned that such punishment could do extreme emotional damage. He said rewarding positive behavior is more effective.
"The trick is to catch them being good," he said. "It sounds like this mother has not had a chance to catch her child being good or is so upset over seeing her be bad, that's where the focus is."
"Catch them being good?" Catch them? Like they are sneaking around being good on the sly? Maybe the mother was focused on the bad because that was the majority of what was happening?! And look, this genius is teaching others how to rear children!
I've heard supposed professionals regarding potty training go so far as to say, "don't rush them. When they are ready to be potty trained, they will let you know." Yeah, and in the mean time you've got a 7 year old wearing diapers! There is a reason that adults have children, so that children can learn to be adults! That will not happen if we let kids do their own thing! Am I the only one who's read "Lord of the Flies?"
Mudflaps mentioned during a discussion regarding this that he'd like to see the "statistics" of parents who are Child-development "professionals." We're all wagering that a majority of their kids are messed up! Hey, Pro, Question for ya: What's the difference between this and Oprah sending troubled teens to a Juvi jail or even an adult facility to see where they are headed? huh? As Abraxis said, "Why do judges get to dole out "creative punishments" if parents can't?"
What was the result of this "psychologically damaging" punishment? "Tasha Henderson said her daughter's attendance has been perfect and her behavior has been better since the incident...Coretha, a soft-spoken girl, acknowledged the punishment was humiliating but said it got her attention. "I won't talk back," she said quietly"
The article added, "There wasn't any criminal act involved that the officer could see that would require any criminal investigation," Master Sgt. Charles Phillips said. "DSS may follow up." DSS spokesman Doug Doe would not comment on whether an investigation was opened, but suggested such a case would probably not be a high priority." Well, I'm happy to hear that.
The preceding rant has been brought to you by: Just my opinion.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Angry sports rants
Sportsline: New England. So, the Patriots have a great starting 11! ~on the injured list! And yet they keep winning... (hurray for Heath Evans and Hank Poteat!)
Sportsline: Philadelphia. "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has come to the defense of T.O. It's about time! I feel so sorry for the multi millionaire baby who is bad mouthing his teammates behind his back. Seems to me that the good "reverend" has selected the wrong side of this argument. I thought he was all about unity among the African American people. Last I checked it was T.O. backstabbing Donavan McNabb, not the other way around!
Sportsline: Indianapolis. What a powerhouse Indianapolis is! 9-0! Can you imagine?! Let's see who they've played! Houston twice, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Tennessee, San Franciso, St. Louis, and New England! Wow, 2 teams that are over .500! A cumulative win/loss total of 26-55 (A win percentage of .321, an average of 2.8 wins for each team 9 games into the season!) What a strong team!
Sportsline: The Debate. What's funny is that when people talk about Indy and they try to rebut my contention that they aren't all that they are cracked up to be, they often say, "well, you can only play your schedule. You can't penalize them for their schedule." But when it comes to MLB MVP those people never say, "Well, you can only play your position, you can't penalize him for his position."
Sportsline: MVP. For those of you who aren't bored with my A-Rod vs Ortiz stats proving that Ortiz should have won, here is some more: Both the Red Sox and the Yankees played 20 games where they won by 6 runs or more. In those games A-Rod batted .549 and drove in 35% of his RBIs for the season. Ortiz batted .277 and drove in 22% of his RBI. In games that were decided by 1 or 2 runs or went into extra innings (both teams played 65 of these games) A-Rod batted a measley .243 and drove in only 29% of his RBIs. Ortiz batted .321 and drove in 42% (almost half!) of his RBIs. It is so clear that A-Rod is great when there is no pressure. A-Rod is to baseball as Peyton is to football!
Sportsline: Philadelphia. "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has come to the defense of T.O. It's about time! I feel so sorry for the multi millionaire baby who is bad mouthing his teammates behind his back. Seems to me that the good "reverend" has selected the wrong side of this argument. I thought he was all about unity among the African American people. Last I checked it was T.O. backstabbing Donavan McNabb, not the other way around!
Sportsline: Indianapolis. What a powerhouse Indianapolis is! 9-0! Can you imagine?! Let's see who they've played! Houston twice, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Tennessee, San Franciso, St. Louis, and New England! Wow, 2 teams that are over .500! A cumulative win/loss total of 26-55 (A win percentage of .321, an average of 2.8 wins for each team 9 games into the season!) What a strong team!
Sportsline: The Debate. What's funny is that when people talk about Indy and they try to rebut my contention that they aren't all that they are cracked up to be, they often say, "well, you can only play your schedule. You can't penalize them for their schedule." But when it comes to MLB MVP those people never say, "Well, you can only play your position, you can't penalize him for his position."
Sportsline: MVP. For those of you who aren't bored with my A-Rod vs Ortiz stats proving that Ortiz should have won, here is some more: Both the Red Sox and the Yankees played 20 games where they won by 6 runs or more. In those games A-Rod batted .549 and drove in 35% of his RBIs for the season. Ortiz batted .277 and drove in 22% of his RBI. In games that were decided by 1 or 2 runs or went into extra innings (both teams played 65 of these games) A-Rod batted a measley .243 and drove in only 29% of his RBIs. Ortiz batted .321 and drove in 42% (almost half!) of his RBIs. It is so clear that A-Rod is great when there is no pressure. A-Rod is to baseball as Peyton is to football!
Most Victimized Position
Well, it's official. The AL MVP is the New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. He narrowly eked out the win by less than 25 points over the Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz.
"Why?" you ask? Why would A-fraud win over Big Papi? Let's look at the stats:
RBI 148 (Lead MLB)........130 (4th MLB)
Runs Scored 119...............124
Doubles 40.......................29
Walks 102........................91
Strike Outs 124................130
OBP .397....................... .421
Slugging .604................ .610
Batting Avg .300............. .321
Fielding % .976.............. .971
DPs Turned 10.................26
RBI 8th+ 20 (Lead MLB)..7
HRs 8th+ 9 (Lead MLB)...2
KO 8th+ 11......................14
ExInning HR 2.................0
ExInning RBI 4................0
ExInning AB 4.................4
ExInning Walks 1.............0
ExInning KO 1.................2
So clearly, David Ortiz was a more powerful offensive weapon. What's the difference then? David Ortiz doesn't play the field. So, in reality, Big Papi is being penalized for doing his job. I don't think that A-Fraud should get the MVP because he doesn't pitch. Oh, it's not his job to pitch? Well, that's too bad for him! Do you see the stupidity?! I do! Here are some of the stellar defenders who won in the past:
2004 Vladimir Guerrero Anaheim RF
2000 Jason Giambi Oakland 1B
1998 Juan Gonzalez Texas OF
1995 Mo Vaughn Boston 1B
1994 Frank Thomas Chicago 1B
1993 Frank Thomas Chicago 1B
Now, where do you put the people who can't play the field? Oh YEAH, RF and 1B!
When it all comes down to it, David is better at the plate, not only on an overall basis, but also when it counted most! David led the AL in RBIs that put his team ahead with 34, and he was first in game-winning RBIs with 21, (nine of which came from the seventh inning on.) 19 of his 47 home runs came in the seventh inning or later, eight from the ninth inning on. He also broke the Boston record for most HRs in the last month of the season with 11, (and drove in 30 runs during that time.) His numbers for August were the same, 11 and 30.
So, because David did what he was told, and did it better than anyone, he doesn't deserve the MVP.
Here's another kicker: A-Fraud wasn't even the MVP of the Yankees! How does one determine this? You think, "Who, if removed from the team, would have the most adverse effect on the winning percentage of that team." For the Red Sox? Clearly David, the most feared hitting in the AL (Maybe second only to Pujols in MLB) For the Yankees? My money's on Mariano Rivera. Or even Jeter. Or Matsui when his bat's working. But not A-Fraud.
So there you have it. A DH will never ever win the MVP and that's a bit more than just my opinion.
"Why?" you ask? Why would A-fraud win over Big Papi? Let's look at the stats:
- David Ortiz..........A-Fraud
RBI 148 (Lead MLB)........130 (4th MLB)
Runs Scored 119...............124
Doubles 40.......................29
Walks 102........................91
Strike Outs 124................130
OBP .397....................... .421
Slugging .604................ .610
Batting Avg .300............. .321
Fielding % .976.............. .971
DPs Turned 10.................26
RBI 8th+ 20 (Lead MLB)..7
HRs 8th+ 9 (Lead MLB)...2
KO 8th+ 11......................14
ExInning HR 2.................0
ExInning RBI 4................0
ExInning AB 4.................4
ExInning Walks 1.............0
ExInning KO 1.................2
So clearly, David Ortiz was a more powerful offensive weapon. What's the difference then? David Ortiz doesn't play the field. So, in reality, Big Papi is being penalized for doing his job. I don't think that A-Fraud should get the MVP because he doesn't pitch. Oh, it's not his job to pitch? Well, that's too bad for him! Do you see the stupidity?! I do! Here are some of the stellar defenders who won in the past:
2004 Vladimir Guerrero Anaheim RF
2000 Jason Giambi Oakland 1B
1998 Juan Gonzalez Texas OF
1995 Mo Vaughn Boston 1B
1994 Frank Thomas Chicago 1B
1993 Frank Thomas Chicago 1B
Now, where do you put the people who can't play the field? Oh YEAH, RF and 1B!
When it all comes down to it, David is better at the plate, not only on an overall basis, but also when it counted most! David led the AL in RBIs that put his team ahead with 34, and he was first in game-winning RBIs with 21, (nine of which came from the seventh inning on.) 19 of his 47 home runs came in the seventh inning or later, eight from the ninth inning on. He also broke the Boston record for most HRs in the last month of the season with 11, (and drove in 30 runs during that time.) His numbers for August were the same, 11 and 30.
So, because David did what he was told, and did it better than anyone, he doesn't deserve the MVP.
Here's another kicker: A-Fraud wasn't even the MVP of the Yankees! How does one determine this? You think, "Who, if removed from the team, would have the most adverse effect on the winning percentage of that team." For the Red Sox? Clearly David, the most feared hitting in the AL (Maybe second only to Pujols in MLB) For the Yankees? My money's on Mariano Rivera. Or even Jeter. Or Matsui when his bat's working. But not A-Fraud.
So there you have it. A DH will never ever win the MVP and that's a bit more than just my opinion.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
It all makes sense now!
The question is, why haven't we heard it?!
What makes sense, you ask? The French rioters are Muslim!
This is an attack on France! This is a Jihad! This is a reaction to several things that France has done and Europe (as well as the "let's sit down and talk to the terrorists" Americans) needs to learn a very valuable lesson from this!
How can this be true?! The media isn't saying this. They've only said it's a race issue, a class issue, it's about those teens who were electrocuted. Alright, but what about this:
Sidi Brahim was sentenced in Paris yesterday for his part in the riots. Who? Sidi Brahim? Is that French? Xavier, Pierre, Francios, Marc, Jean, Sidi... Hmmm, which one of these doesn't belong? Benoit, Fillion, Dubois, Croteaux, Brahim... Interesting.
How about this: The rioters are primarily "French citizens, the second and third generation offspring of North African immigrants who began pouring into France in the 1970s. (Cite)" North Africa is primarily Islamic.
The riots are in the suburbs of Paris, primarily in the area known as Bondy. If my evidence that most of the residents are from North Africa and North Africa is primarily Muslim wasn't enough to sway you, how about this demographic info: "In overwhelmingly Catholic France, about 70% of Bondy's residents are Muslim. (Cite)"
Alright, now we know, these rioters (who, as far as I understand it, have made no demands and have not offered any information in regards to what would persuade them to cease their destruction) are Mulsims and this activity is a bit extreme were it solely about the two unfortunate deaths. So, what can we learn?
Well, France has passed the law banning any and all religious symbols from their schools. This includes Stars of David, crosses, crucifixes, crescents, swastikas, turbans, pentagrams, and the like. Clearly moving towards a neo-secular society. For people as religious as most Muslims, this was probably not something they agreed with.
However, France as not only stayed out of the conflict in the middle east, they have actively denounced it. Wouldn't it make sense that these two actions would cancel each other out and people who follow the tenants of Islam would focus their aggression elsewhere? It would if you followed western logic.
The thing is, neither of these two things have anything to do with why extremist Muslims hate the west. Anyone know why? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Because we are not Muslim nations.
Even if France was bold enough to literally fight on behalf of the Muslims in Iraq (of course, that might make the conflict shorter.) it wouldn't matter if the French government remained secular.
Wanna see something scary? Check out this book!
So now we have riots in Paris, trains in Spain, buses and the underground in London, schools in Russia, buildings in New York City, shops and markets and buses in Jerusalem, road side bombs in Iraq, the Pentagon in Washington DC, a thwarted attempt in Australia, Hotels in Indonesia, Warships in Yemen, and Embassies all around the world! Does that seem like a movement that is only extremists or a campaign that will end if we sit down and talk to them, give them a little bit of what they want? We must not give in! I hope this occurrence ousts Chirac's administration and the French finally burn their white flags and elect a government that will not put up with such action and will join the rest of the world in fighting terrorism!
But, apart from the facts, all of this is just my opinion.
What makes sense, you ask? The French rioters are Muslim!
This is an attack on France! This is a Jihad! This is a reaction to several things that France has done and Europe (as well as the "let's sit down and talk to the terrorists" Americans) needs to learn a very valuable lesson from this!
How can this be true?! The media isn't saying this. They've only said it's a race issue, a class issue, it's about those teens who were electrocuted. Alright, but what about this:
Sidi Brahim was sentenced in Paris yesterday for his part in the riots. Who? Sidi Brahim? Is that French? Xavier, Pierre, Francios, Marc, Jean, Sidi... Hmmm, which one of these doesn't belong? Benoit, Fillion, Dubois, Croteaux, Brahim... Interesting.
How about this: The rioters are primarily "French citizens, the second and third generation offspring of North African immigrants who began pouring into France in the 1970s. (Cite)" North Africa is primarily Islamic.
The riots are in the suburbs of Paris, primarily in the area known as Bondy. If my evidence that most of the residents are from North Africa and North Africa is primarily Muslim wasn't enough to sway you, how about this demographic info: "In overwhelmingly Catholic France, about 70% of Bondy's residents are Muslim. (Cite)"
Alright, now we know, these rioters (who, as far as I understand it, have made no demands and have not offered any information in regards to what would persuade them to cease their destruction) are Mulsims and this activity is a bit extreme were it solely about the two unfortunate deaths. So, what can we learn?
Well, France has passed the law banning any and all religious symbols from their schools. This includes Stars of David, crosses, crucifixes, crescents, swastikas, turbans, pentagrams, and the like. Clearly moving towards a neo-secular society. For people as religious as most Muslims, this was probably not something they agreed with.
However, France as not only stayed out of the conflict in the middle east, they have actively denounced it. Wouldn't it make sense that these two actions would cancel each other out and people who follow the tenants of Islam would focus their aggression elsewhere? It would if you followed western logic.
The thing is, neither of these two things have anything to do with why extremist Muslims hate the west. Anyone know why? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Because we are not Muslim nations.
Even if France was bold enough to literally fight on behalf of the Muslims in Iraq (of course, that might make the conflict shorter.) it wouldn't matter if the French government remained secular.
Wanna see something scary? Check out this book!
So now we have riots in Paris, trains in Spain, buses and the underground in London, schools in Russia, buildings in New York City, shops and markets and buses in Jerusalem, road side bombs in Iraq, the Pentagon in Washington DC, a thwarted attempt in Australia, Hotels in Indonesia, Warships in Yemen, and Embassies all around the world! Does that seem like a movement that is only extremists or a campaign that will end if we sit down and talk to them, give them a little bit of what they want? We must not give in! I hope this occurrence ousts Chirac's administration and the French finally burn their white flags and elect a government that will not put up with such action and will join the rest of the world in fighting terrorism!
But, apart from the facts, all of this is just my opinion.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
November "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll of the week of November 28th-December 4th
Question: Which actress would make you probably not see a movie that you thought was going to be good before you heard who was starring?
Results:
Poll of the week of November 21st-November 27th
Question: Which actor would make you probably not see a movie that you thought was going to be good before you heard who was starring?
Results:
Poll of the week of November 14th-November 20th
Question: Which most expresses your thoughts regarding gay marriage in MA?
Results:
Poll of the week of November 7th-November 13th
Question: Concerning the British Royalty, what would you like to see happen?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 31st-November 6th
Question: Which is your favorite fast food joint?
Results:
Question: Which actress would make you probably not see a movie that you thought was going to be good before you heard who was starring?
Results:
Andie McDowell
- 2 votes (20%)
- 2 votes (20%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (20%)
- 4 votes (40%)
Poll of the week of November 21st-November 27th
Question: Which actor would make you probably not see a movie that you thought was going to be good before you heard who was starring?
Results:
Ben Affleck
- 2 votes (18.2%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
- 3 votes (27.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 4 votes (36.4%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll of the week of November 14th-November 20th
Question: Which most expresses your thoughts regarding gay marriage in MA?
Results:
There should be no public vote, the courts have ruled, 'nuff said.
- 5 votes (55.6%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (11.11%)
- 3 votes (33.3%)
Poll of the week of November 7th-November 13th
Question: Concerning the British Royalty, what would you like to see happen?
Results:
Charles and Camilla become King and Queen
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 5 votes (45.5%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 3 votes (27.3%)
Poll of the week of October 31st-November 6th
Question: Which is your favorite fast food joint?
Results:
Arby's
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 3 votes (27.3%)
- 2 votes (18.3%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
Friday, November 04, 2005
Movie Review: Stay
I must first say that if you liked Fight Club, Twelve Monkeys, or The Cell don't read this review.
Caution: If you want to see this movie, it must be viewed without knowing the entire synopsis (Much like Sixth Sense or Fight Club). However, it is impossible to review this movie without giving away some spoilers, so: If you plan on seeing this movie, do not read any further.
The thing that stands out most in this movie was it's transitions. There wasn't a single wipe, fade to black, or dissolve between the different scenes. There were a few hard cuts, but those were in places that were clearly carefully selected for their jarring effect. Some examples: the next scene first appears reflected in a silver balloon, one characters face is in the exact same place as the next character and the faces morph into one another, A door opens and we walk into the next scene that is in a completely different location. It was brilliant considering the concept behind the movie.
The acting was excellent. Ewan McGregor (Star Wars Episode I,II,III;Transpotting;Big Fish;etc) and Ryan Gosling (The Notebook) star in this psychological thriller where no one is sure what is real.
Ewan plays Sam, a phyciatrist who inherits a patient from a colleague. Ryan plays Henry, the patient (a tortured artist) who confides in Sam that he plans on killing himself on his 21st birthday (3 days away) at midnight because he'd done a "very bad thing." As Sam tries to unravel the mystery of why Henry will do this, where, and how to stop him, some odd things begin happening.
He visits Henry's mother, who is dead according to Henry and the police officer who treats Sam'w wounds that he received from Henry's dog (who was put down when Henry was 7). He is called Henry, confused for Henry, and experiencing major deja-vous!
The largest issues dealt with in this movie are art, death, and reality. Interestingly enough, at the conclusion of the movie, I was not the only person asking the question: "Why was this film made?" (This movie is a film, by the way. It succeeds in being artistic, and causes quite a bit of discussion). So, after discussing the film with Mupflaps and Abraxas we came up with this: It appeared that this movie had been made for no reason. If that were true, then art for no reason is pointless and worthless. But if that were true, then that is the message of the film, which makes it brilliant!
Other common threads of the film were that Henry wanted his suicide to be a piece of art, several characters were concerned with being remembered, and after a while you were never sure of what was real or not.
In the end, everything was satisfactorily explained in a twist that was sufficiently foreshadowed, yet not given away. (The twist did raise a few questions regarding how the story was told but not the overall content) (I don't even have to tell you how it ends!)
Overall, 3.5 stars out of 5. And that's just my opinion.
Caution: If you want to see this movie, it must be viewed without knowing the entire synopsis (Much like Sixth Sense or Fight Club). However, it is impossible to review this movie without giving away some spoilers, so: If you plan on seeing this movie, do not read any further.
The thing that stands out most in this movie was it's transitions. There wasn't a single wipe, fade to black, or dissolve between the different scenes. There were a few hard cuts, but those were in places that were clearly carefully selected for their jarring effect. Some examples: the next scene first appears reflected in a silver balloon, one characters face is in the exact same place as the next character and the faces morph into one another, A door opens and we walk into the next scene that is in a completely different location. It was brilliant considering the concept behind the movie.
The acting was excellent. Ewan McGregor (Star Wars Episode I,II,III;Transpotting;Big Fish;etc) and Ryan Gosling (The Notebook) star in this psychological thriller where no one is sure what is real.
Ewan plays Sam, a phyciatrist who inherits a patient from a colleague. Ryan plays Henry, the patient (a tortured artist) who confides in Sam that he plans on killing himself on his 21st birthday (3 days away) at midnight because he'd done a "very bad thing." As Sam tries to unravel the mystery of why Henry will do this, where, and how to stop him, some odd things begin happening.
He visits Henry's mother, who is dead according to Henry and the police officer who treats Sam'w wounds that he received from Henry's dog (who was put down when Henry was 7). He is called Henry, confused for Henry, and experiencing major deja-vous!
The largest issues dealt with in this movie are art, death, and reality. Interestingly enough, at the conclusion of the movie, I was not the only person asking the question: "Why was this film made?" (This movie is a film, by the way. It succeeds in being artistic, and causes quite a bit of discussion). So, after discussing the film with Mupflaps and Abraxas we came up with this: It appeared that this movie had been made for no reason. If that were true, then art for no reason is pointless and worthless. But if that were true, then that is the message of the film, which makes it brilliant!
Other common threads of the film were that Henry wanted his suicide to be a piece of art, several characters were concerned with being remembered, and after a while you were never sure of what was real or not.
In the end, everything was satisfactorily explained in a twist that was sufficiently foreshadowed, yet not given away. (The twist did raise a few questions regarding how the story was told but not the overall content) (I don't even have to tell you how it ends!)
Overall, 3.5 stars out of 5. And that's just my opinion.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Thoughts, points, and ramblings.
A long overdue multiple topic post. Here goes:
Ramble-line: Every Elevator. Why is it, that if elevators are not to be used in the case of an emergency, they all have the firefighter's key with instructions on how a firefighter is to use the elevator? If their in the building, it's probably an emergency.
Sportsline: The WNBA. Recently the MVP of the WNBA Finals revealed that she is, in fact, a lesbian. As if people would be surprised it ran on the front page of a lot of sports sections. What's interesting about this is that even when she has the greatest game of her career (including when they won the championship) those stories never ran higher than page 4! But we don't live in an oversexed culture...
Sportsline: Boston. This has nothing to do with Theo! Earlier, someone was saying that Larry Lucchino was brought in to get a new stadium built on the tax-payers buck and just how wonderful that was! I think this is the problem with living in a blue state, they often forget that all the money the government has was once the people's cash! If they want a new stadium, do what Kraft did: Build it yourself, don't swindle the people of Massachusetts so you can make a few million dollars a year!
Newsline: Boston The Attorney General Thomas Reilly has announced that he supports a bill that would give tuition breaks to illegal aliens! That's right, let's help felons go to state schools! This is yet another obvious pander for extreme left votes. Please sit up and pay attention. This man will be running for governor soon. Let's not forget what he's trying to do! And as much as we want it to be a grand scheme where people apply for this money and once they are found to be qualified they are arrested and sent back to whatever country they came from ~ It isn't! But here's the real kicker, the illegals supporting this bill were protesting that it wasn't enough money, they wanted more!
Ramble-line: Every Elevator. Why is it, that if elevators are not to be used in the case of an emergency, they all have the firefighter's key with instructions on how a firefighter is to use the elevator? If their in the building, it's probably an emergency.
Sportsline: The WNBA. Recently the MVP of the WNBA Finals revealed that she is, in fact, a lesbian. As if people would be surprised it ran on the front page of a lot of sports sections. What's interesting about this is that even when she has the greatest game of her career (including when they won the championship) those stories never ran higher than page 4! But we don't live in an oversexed culture...
Sportsline: Boston. This has nothing to do with Theo! Earlier, someone was saying that Larry Lucchino was brought in to get a new stadium built on the tax-payers buck and just how wonderful that was! I think this is the problem with living in a blue state, they often forget that all the money the government has was once the people's cash! If they want a new stadium, do what Kraft did: Build it yourself, don't swindle the people of Massachusetts so you can make a few million dollars a year!
Newsline: Boston The Attorney General Thomas Reilly has announced that he supports a bill that would give tuition breaks to illegal aliens! That's right, let's help felons go to state schools! This is yet another obvious pander for extreme left votes. Please sit up and pay attention. This man will be running for governor soon. Let's not forget what he's trying to do! And as much as we want it to be a grand scheme where people apply for this money and once they are found to be qualified they are arrested and sent back to whatever country they came from ~ It isn't! But here's the real kicker, the illegals supporting this bill were protesting that it wasn't enough money, they wanted more!
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Thank you, Theo!
It's official. Theo Epstien, the former General Manager for the Boston Red Sox has decided that he will not be returning to his post. This is the GM who made the now infamous Nomar trade so that the Red Sox could have a shot at the big prize for the first time in years! This is the young mind who has fostered a fantastic farm system, and then protected them from trades so that they would be available for the Red Sox in future seasons! Meaning he is smart enough not to sacrifice the future of the team for the fleeting present.
This is the man that Larry Lucchino let walk.
Was it the money? Was it the length of the contract? Nope, not according to Theo. It was a lack of trust.
Theo didn't have an agent and had agreed to confidentiality. Yet the Boston Globe (who owns 17% of the Boston Red Sox and many at the Globe proudly wear their World Series rings) was somehow printing "nondisclosed" information! And information that made Theo look like an idiot at that!
I completely understand that Theo could not work in an atmosphere where he is not trusted, where all of his deals must go through the president and CEO (AKA Non-baseball guy) Larry Lucchino, where he agrees to certain things that are not held to by the other party in the agreement.
Is it the Globe's fault for printing these articles of inside information in an effort to be the #1 paper in Boston (oh, wait, they already are!) Is it Larry's fault for leaking information to a paper in an effort to make the Red Sox look ok if Theo should walk? I'm inclined to blame the latter.
Here's the real kicker: Monday, Oct 31st, The Globe prints that Theo has agreed to a deal. Tuesday, Nov 1st, Theo walks.
But the leaking of information didn't have anything to do with it. Yeah, right! It was the last straw! When the Globe has information regarding Theo's agreement even before Theo does, there are some problems.
Oh, well. Theo you will be missed, as will all of the players who will not resign because you weren't here to woo them. And we will miss the prospects who will be traded because you weren't here to protect them. And we will be sorry to see the poor free agent signings that the Red Sox will over pay for because you weren't here to decide them.
Have fun with the Dodgers, or where ever you end up. The Red Sox will be feeling the loss of Theo for several years to come!
I'm beginning a "Let's Lose Lucchino" campaign. If you'd like to join, please add your name to this post. Or call the Red Sox and ask for Tom or John.
Thanks for the championship, Theo!
This is the man that Larry Lucchino let walk.
Was it the money? Was it the length of the contract? Nope, not according to Theo. It was a lack of trust.
Theo didn't have an agent and had agreed to confidentiality. Yet the Boston Globe (who owns 17% of the Boston Red Sox and many at the Globe proudly wear their World Series rings) was somehow printing "nondisclosed" information! And information that made Theo look like an idiot at that!
I completely understand that Theo could not work in an atmosphere where he is not trusted, where all of his deals must go through the president and CEO (AKA Non-baseball guy) Larry Lucchino, where he agrees to certain things that are not held to by the other party in the agreement.
Is it the Globe's fault for printing these articles of inside information in an effort to be the #1 paper in Boston (oh, wait, they already are!) Is it Larry's fault for leaking information to a paper in an effort to make the Red Sox look ok if Theo should walk? I'm inclined to blame the latter.
Here's the real kicker: Monday, Oct 31st, The Globe prints that Theo has agreed to a deal. Tuesday, Nov 1st, Theo walks.
But the leaking of information didn't have anything to do with it. Yeah, right! It was the last straw! When the Globe has information regarding Theo's agreement even before Theo does, there are some problems.
Oh, well. Theo you will be missed, as will all of the players who will not resign because you weren't here to woo them. And we will miss the prospects who will be traded because you weren't here to protect them. And we will be sorry to see the poor free agent signings that the Red Sox will over pay for because you weren't here to decide them.
Have fun with the Dodgers, or where ever you end up. The Red Sox will be feeling the loss of Theo for several years to come!
I'm beginning a "Let's Lose Lucchino" campaign. If you'd like to join, please add your name to this post. Or call the Red Sox and ask for Tom or John.
Thanks for the championship, Theo!
Monday, October 31, 2005
The intolerance of the tolerant
Here's something I never thought I would say: Good for you, Starbucks! That's right, I'm heartily patting the back of the "we sell coffee for $52 a gallon" leftwing loving, beatnik, WiFi, "we don't say large we say Grande" cafinee pushers. Why? Because they are being fair and balanced.
You may recall a post from September regarding Starbucks. They had on their cups a quote from a homosexual regarding their homosexuality and Baylor University (A Christian place of upper education) asked Starbucks to remove those cups from the cafe that was on their campus. Starbucks obliged. People were outraged.
The cups were part of Starbucks' "The Way I See it" Campaign. They have many quotes from many people covering many walks of life. Environmentalist, Economists, Homosexuals, Civil Rights Activists, Athletes and Politicians. If you'd like to read some, click here.
Well, then next quote that Starbucks will be adding to their cups will be one from Rick Warren's Best Seller "The Purpose Driven Life." (Cup #43, if you are looking for it) The quote is as follows, "You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance and our destiny." So good for Starbucks for offering both sides of the coin to truly foster discussion, which is the purpose of this campaign according to their press releases.
Not so good for their patrons. Margery Egan did a column asking Starbuck's patrons what they thought of the new quote. Most of them were outraged. "As an atheist, can I request a different cup?" As a straight person, can I? As a non Muslim may I request another cup? No, then I am being hateful and intolerant.
But aren't they being intolerant of Christianity? Aren't these the same people who pat themselves on the back for being "tolerant" of homosexuals, radical Muslims, terrorists, peaceniks, Pagans, Wiccans, and Communists? But they don't have to be tolerant of people who talk about God! Oh no! We'd be tolerant of drunk drivers and murderers before we'd be tolerant of people who talk about God!
Think about this: If these people were truly tolerant, they would not know what they were being tolerant of! Why? Because they wouldn't even notice it! Is anyone "tolerant" of women in the workplace? NO! Why not? Because there is no need to be "tolerant:" There is nothing wrong with it! The mere fact that people claim to be tolerant shows that they inherently know there is something wrong with what they are tolerating! But someone mentioning God... they won't tolerate that!
I encourage Starbuck's to continue putting controversial quotes on their cups. The more our society sees they aren't truly tolerant, the quicker we can move to a culture that acknowledges right and wrong!
The cups carry a disclaimer that the opinions "do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks." This post does represent the opinion of me. In fact, it's just my opinion.
You may recall a post from September regarding Starbucks. They had on their cups a quote from a homosexual regarding their homosexuality and Baylor University (A Christian place of upper education) asked Starbucks to remove those cups from the cafe that was on their campus. Starbucks obliged. People were outraged.
The cups were part of Starbucks' "The Way I See it" Campaign. They have many quotes from many people covering many walks of life. Environmentalist, Economists, Homosexuals, Civil Rights Activists, Athletes and Politicians. If you'd like to read some, click here.
Well, then next quote that Starbucks will be adding to their cups will be one from Rick Warren's Best Seller "The Purpose Driven Life." (Cup #43, if you are looking for it) The quote is as follows, "You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance and our destiny." So good for Starbucks for offering both sides of the coin to truly foster discussion, which is the purpose of this campaign according to their press releases.
Not so good for their patrons. Margery Egan did a column asking Starbuck's patrons what they thought of the new quote. Most of them were outraged. "As an atheist, can I request a different cup?" As a straight person, can I? As a non Muslim may I request another cup? No, then I am being hateful and intolerant.
But aren't they being intolerant of Christianity? Aren't these the same people who pat themselves on the back for being "tolerant" of homosexuals, radical Muslims, terrorists, peaceniks, Pagans, Wiccans, and Communists? But they don't have to be tolerant of people who talk about God! Oh no! We'd be tolerant of drunk drivers and murderers before we'd be tolerant of people who talk about God!
Think about this: If these people were truly tolerant, they would not know what they were being tolerant of! Why? Because they wouldn't even notice it! Is anyone "tolerant" of women in the workplace? NO! Why not? Because there is no need to be "tolerant:" There is nothing wrong with it! The mere fact that people claim to be tolerant shows that they inherently know there is something wrong with what they are tolerating! But someone mentioning God... they won't tolerate that!
I encourage Starbuck's to continue putting controversial quotes on their cups. The more our society sees they aren't truly tolerant, the quicker we can move to a culture that acknowledges right and wrong!
The cups carry a disclaimer that the opinions "do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks." This post does represent the opinion of me. In fact, it's just my opinion.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The illegitimate victors
A loud congratulations goes out to the MLB umpires for winning the 2005 World Series! Oh, and to the Chicago White Sox for being the chosen team of MLB to be crowned the victor.
Alright, I'll be honest. The White Sox won yesterday without the help of the men in black! This may have been their first such victory since game 3 of the ALCS (and perhaps only their second time completing this feat in the post season.) Of course, a team should win 11 games without any outside assistance to be considered the champions, not 2.
Here is a review of some of the interesting events in the White Sox post season.
The key play to the post season was during game 2 of the ALCS when Peirzinski illegally took first base after striking out, and illegally being allowed to stay there. Had the umpires been unbiased and made the right call, chances are good (based on the pitching match ups vs which part of the line-ups were about to appear in extra innings) that the LA Angels of Anaheim would have won that game, taking an 2-0 lead in the series. Had everything progressed as it did (minus umpire interference) the Angels would have taken game 4 as well. Leading 3-1. Truly, the White Sox did not even deserve to be in the World Series.
Some have argued that they basically swept all three teams they faced, dropping 1 to the Angels during that feat. So why would a team that appears to be such a power house require any assistance from MLB to win? Here's why: The White Sox faced off against the Red Sox and the Angels 14 total times during the regular season. They went 7-7 during those match ups (3-4 vs the Red Sox and 4-3 vs the Angels.) They were out scored 61-64 (36-36 vs Boston, 25-28 vs LA/Anaheim). MLB could not be sure that the White Sox were sure to win! In fact, chances were good that they would not get past both teams!
But, the record books will forever record the Chicago White Sox victors of the 2005 MLB World Series. Just as the record books record the Cincinnati Reds the victors of the 1919 World Series against a Chicago White Sox team that took money to throw the 9 game series. Are the Reds legitimate champions? If (as I would argue, the evidence exposes) the White Sox received undue assistance from the umpires/MLB, are they legitimate victors? I don't think so.
There is it: Just my opinion
Alright, I'll be honest. The White Sox won yesterday without the help of the men in black! This may have been their first such victory since game 3 of the ALCS (and perhaps only their second time completing this feat in the post season.) Of course, a team should win 11 games without any outside assistance to be considered the champions, not 2.
Here is a review of some of the interesting events in the White Sox post season.
The key play to the post season was during game 2 of the ALCS when Peirzinski illegally took first base after striking out, and illegally being allowed to stay there. Had the umpires been unbiased and made the right call, chances are good (based on the pitching match ups vs which part of the line-ups were about to appear in extra innings) that the LA Angels of Anaheim would have won that game, taking an 2-0 lead in the series. Had everything progressed as it did (minus umpire interference) the Angels would have taken game 4 as well. Leading 3-1. Truly, the White Sox did not even deserve to be in the World Series.
Some have argued that they basically swept all three teams they faced, dropping 1 to the Angels during that feat. So why would a team that appears to be such a power house require any assistance from MLB to win? Here's why: The White Sox faced off against the Red Sox and the Angels 14 total times during the regular season. They went 7-7 during those match ups (3-4 vs the Red Sox and 4-3 vs the Angels.) They were out scored 61-64 (36-36 vs Boston, 25-28 vs LA/Anaheim). MLB could not be sure that the White Sox were sure to win! In fact, chances were good that they would not get past both teams!
But, the record books will forever record the Chicago White Sox victors of the 2005 MLB World Series. Just as the record books record the Cincinnati Reds the victors of the 1919 World Series against a Chicago White Sox team that took money to throw the 9 game series. Are the Reds legitimate champions? If (as I would argue, the evidence exposes) the White Sox received undue assistance from the umpires/MLB, are they legitimate victors? I don't think so.
There is it: Just my opinion
Two interesting games
During game 3 of the World Series, the White Sox won despite the umpires suddenly switching loyalties on them, as the umps did what they could to offer the Astros a victory in this series. Several Chicago residents had to restart their pacemakers when, for the first time in the postseason, a bad call went against the White Sox when a ball that was not a home run was called one by the second base umpire. (There was the phantom tag call that was made in favor of the Angels, but that call was overturned. The only bad call the umpires ended up correcting was originally made in favor of the White Sox opponent.) Then, Jermaine Dye, (You remember, he took a note from his teammate A.J. Peirzinski's book, "How to get first base without deserving it" when he took three steps to first after a 3-2 pitch hit his bat (not his person) in a successful effort to give the home plate umpire a reason to send him to first.) was not awarded first base after the ball grazed his jersey. Some Chicago fans began to wonder if they were existing in some twisted parallel dimension! But the White Sox (Like the Angels in Game 1 of the ALCS) played only 9 players and defeated a team of 15 (the 9 positions + the 6 umpires).
During game 1 of the ALCS vs the Angels, they failed to win even with the assistance of the men behind the masks (and this after 3 extra days rest and the Angles playing their third game in a row in their third time zone! Don't even try to tell me the White Sox were a better team!) This issue was nearly the case again during game 2 when all 9 innings had been played and we were headed to extra innings (a game that over 80% of baseball fans believed the Angels would have won had it actually gone to extras.) when Mr. "I have no feeling in my left hand" A.J. Peirzinski illegally took first base, and was illegally awarded it.
Here are the other posts regarding this controversial post season: The Honor of the game. Now there can be no doubt. Owner of the game.
During game 1 of the ALCS vs the Angels, they failed to win even with the assistance of the men behind the masks (and this after 3 extra days rest and the Angles playing their third game in a row in their third time zone! Don't even try to tell me the White Sox were a better team!) This issue was nearly the case again during game 2 when all 9 innings had been played and we were headed to extra innings (a game that over 80% of baseball fans believed the Angels would have won had it actually gone to extras.) when Mr. "I have no feeling in my left hand" A.J. Peirzinski illegally took first base, and was illegally awarded it.
Here are the other posts regarding this controversial post season: The Honor of the game. Now there can be no doubt. Owner of the game.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The honor of the game
The following in no way overpowers my theory (some would say fact) that MLB desires the White Sox to win and will stop at nothing to make it happen. However, this is still an issue:
Where is the honor in baseball? Honor is gained through the discipline of self officiating. Let me count the number of times I've seen either team in the world series self officiate in a manner that didn't benefit them: um... oh yeah, I haven't! I believe we've diluted ourselves into thinking that baseball is a gentleman's game.
Take, for example, the situation with LPGA Tour golfer Michelle Wie. During a three day tournament she takes a drop on an unplayable ball on day two. She goes on to place 4th in the tournament. After Ms. Wie has finished the tournament, it is brought to the official's attention (by a golf reporter, but that's another rant) that her drop on the second day may have been dropped closer to the hole, thus incurring a two stroke penalty, rather than just the one she incurred for taking the drop. After much questionable "investigation" and "measuring" it is deemed that the ball was 1 foot closer to the hole and Wie, therefore, signed an incorrect score card and was disqualified.
Had she self officiated (or been able to determine at 100+ yards that her drop was about a foot closer to the hole) she'd have been fine. However, she didn't self-officiate, but there were still consequences. Consequences that she endured after she'd completed the tournament and was in line to receive over $50,000. In the end, she was disqualified.
Yet, we all know that in game 2 of the ALCS, Pierzynski's 3rd strike did not hit the ground. In Game 3, Pierzynski's glove was hit. In Game 2 of the World Series, Jermaine Dye was not hit by the pitch just before Konerko's Grand Slam. The players know it too. Yet there will be no consequences.
What is the lesson here? Win at all costs? We shall forever point to the post season of 2005 and say, "See, cheaters CAN prosper." And let's suppose the umpire's were not wearing the Chicago Pinstripes, each time there has been a dishonorable action taken by a White Sox player.
I suggest that the White Sox be disqualified. And if not the whole team, A.J. Pierzynski at the very least.
If the White Sox would like to restore the honor to baseball, take the umps out of it. If they make a bad call and it falls in your favor, let them know: "Hey, he hit my glove, he gets first base." "No, that didn't hit my arm, it hit my bat." "Actually, sir, I missed laying the tag on him."
If you wanna win, win honorably! But that's just my opinion.
Where is the honor in baseball? Honor is gained through the discipline of self officiating. Let me count the number of times I've seen either team in the world series self officiate in a manner that didn't benefit them: um... oh yeah, I haven't! I believe we've diluted ourselves into thinking that baseball is a gentleman's game.
Take, for example, the situation with LPGA Tour golfer Michelle Wie. During a three day tournament she takes a drop on an unplayable ball on day two. She goes on to place 4th in the tournament. After Ms. Wie has finished the tournament, it is brought to the official's attention (by a golf reporter, but that's another rant) that her drop on the second day may have been dropped closer to the hole, thus incurring a two stroke penalty, rather than just the one she incurred for taking the drop. After much questionable "investigation" and "measuring" it is deemed that the ball was 1 foot closer to the hole and Wie, therefore, signed an incorrect score card and was disqualified.
Had she self officiated (or been able to determine at 100+ yards that her drop was about a foot closer to the hole) she'd have been fine. However, she didn't self-officiate, but there were still consequences. Consequences that she endured after she'd completed the tournament and was in line to receive over $50,000. In the end, she was disqualified.
Yet, we all know that in game 2 of the ALCS, Pierzynski's 3rd strike did not hit the ground. In Game 3, Pierzynski's glove was hit. In Game 2 of the World Series, Jermaine Dye was not hit by the pitch just before Konerko's Grand Slam. The players know it too. Yet there will be no consequences.
What is the lesson here? Win at all costs? We shall forever point to the post season of 2005 and say, "See, cheaters CAN prosper." And let's suppose the umpire's were not wearing the Chicago Pinstripes, each time there has been a dishonorable action taken by a White Sox player.
I suggest that the White Sox be disqualified. And if not the whole team, A.J. Pierzynski at the very least.
If the White Sox would like to restore the honor to baseball, take the umps out of it. If they make a bad call and it falls in your favor, let them know: "Hey, he hit my glove, he gets first base." "No, that didn't hit my arm, it hit my bat." "Actually, sir, I missed laying the tag on him."
If you wanna win, win honorably! But that's just my opinion.
Friday, October 21, 2005
You can't do that! You're only 16!
Our society (and by that I mean the people whose job it is to create the laws of the land (and by that I mean the legislature (and by that I mean not the courts))) needs to decide what age is the age of adulthood. Here's why:
Some of you may have heard about the woman who was murdered in the trailer on the land where she and her husband were having a house built. Turns out the primary suspect to this crime is a 16 year old guy.
The article that I read said that he was too young to face the death penalty for delivering this beating to this woman. First, let me say a few things: 1) he has not been convicted, so this argument is not about this specific case, but the law in general. 2) I do not necessarily endorse the death penalty. In fact, right now at this very moment, I am against it. But hear me out.
In a previous post, I complained that an entire article was about a supreme court candidate's stance on abortion. While researching that post, I came across some laws that said that in some states a 16 year old does not require parental permission to have an abortion. They don't even need to give the child's parents notification of the event! Yet this 16 year old who has committed murder is too young to be considered an adult?
At 16 you can drive, but at 18 you can vote on the laws that effect your driving. At 18 you can go to war, but at 21 you can drink away your sorrows. 16 you can quit school without parental permission, but you can work full time at 18.
What is going on!? Shouldn't we perhaps pick one age where you are no longer under your parent's supervision? At 18 you are allowed to have consensual sex and have an abortion without telling your folks. At 18 you can drink and then drive with your new (soon to be revoked) license. At 18, if you kill someone, your life could be forfeit.
We contradict ourselves so often with our laws! Let's get them straight! After all, it's just my Opinion.
Some of you may have heard about the woman who was murdered in the trailer on the land where she and her husband were having a house built. Turns out the primary suspect to this crime is a 16 year old guy.
The article that I read said that he was too young to face the death penalty for delivering this beating to this woman. First, let me say a few things: 1) he has not been convicted, so this argument is not about this specific case, but the law in general. 2) I do not necessarily endorse the death penalty. In fact, right now at this very moment, I am against it. But hear me out.
In a previous post, I complained that an entire article was about a supreme court candidate's stance on abortion. While researching that post, I came across some laws that said that in some states a 16 year old does not require parental permission to have an abortion. They don't even need to give the child's parents notification of the event! Yet this 16 year old who has committed murder is too young to be considered an adult?
At 16 you can drive, but at 18 you can vote on the laws that effect your driving. At 18 you can go to war, but at 21 you can drink away your sorrows. 16 you can quit school without parental permission, but you can work full time at 18.
What is going on!? Shouldn't we perhaps pick one age where you are no longer under your parent's supervision? At 18 you are allowed to have consensual sex and have an abortion without telling your folks. At 18 you can drink and then drive with your new (soon to be revoked) license. At 18, if you kill someone, your life could be forfeit.
We contradict ourselves so often with our laws! Let's get them straight! After all, it's just my Opinion.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Need help? Here catch!
This is a bit of a continuation of a previous post entitled "My government failed me." It is there that I make the claim that the government should not be involved in charitable work for the poor saying that such work should be done by the general public. I also claim that the reason the general public does not meet these needs is because it is perceived that the government is taking care of such things. I make that claim based on the belief that the government's end goal is self preservation and therefore any assistance that the government may offer would be a double edged sword insomuch as it would assist the poor but also make them dependant on the government, thus ensuring it's existence.
Having said that, I'd like to revoke most of it. I recently had a conversation with Mudflaps and he asked some excellent questions. But before I get into that, let me explain what has evoked this topic. It has been widely reported that many of the Katrina evacuees that were being housed at Edward's Air force Base have been documented using the $2000 debit card given them by the government to purchase alcohol (with which they participated in public consumption and drunkenness) and strippers. To me, this simply reinforced my belief that the government should not be involved in charity work.
Mudflaps does not agree. He asked me what the point of government was, if not to care for the less fortunate of their citizens? While I still believe that the government's first aim is self preservation, I no longer agree that the government should leave charitable work solely up to its citizens.
I do, however, believe that throwing money at people (as this administration did in a knee jerk "look-at-us-we're-helping" reaction) is neither charitable, nor useful! Does the government want to be involved charitably in the rebuilding of New Orleans? Offer tax breaks to companies, laborers, and general citizens who volunteer their time and labor to rebuild that city. Offer future government contracts to companies who donate the necessary raw materials to the effort. Use the $2000 given to each evacuee to purchase food for them, or to repair the levees, or to move the black bears someplace else so that the levees can be reinforced.
This in no way removes the liability from average citizens to care for the poor among them, but it does call for a more creative solution to the government's desire to be charitable than to toss a couple thousand dollars at people. Give them what they need, not what they want!
there you have it, just my opinion.
Having said that, I'd like to revoke most of it. I recently had a conversation with Mudflaps and he asked some excellent questions. But before I get into that, let me explain what has evoked this topic. It has been widely reported that many of the Katrina evacuees that were being housed at Edward's Air force Base have been documented using the $2000 debit card given them by the government to purchase alcohol (with which they participated in public consumption and drunkenness) and strippers. To me, this simply reinforced my belief that the government should not be involved in charity work.
Mudflaps does not agree. He asked me what the point of government was, if not to care for the less fortunate of their citizens? While I still believe that the government's first aim is self preservation, I no longer agree that the government should leave charitable work solely up to its citizens.
I do, however, believe that throwing money at people (as this administration did in a knee jerk "look-at-us-we're-helping" reaction) is neither charitable, nor useful! Does the government want to be involved charitably in the rebuilding of New Orleans? Offer tax breaks to companies, laborers, and general citizens who volunteer their time and labor to rebuild that city. Offer future government contracts to companies who donate the necessary raw materials to the effort. Use the $2000 given to each evacuee to purchase food for them, or to repair the levees, or to move the black bears someplace else so that the levees can be reinforced.
This in no way removes the liability from average citizens to care for the poor among them, but it does call for a more creative solution to the government's desire to be charitable than to toss a couple thousand dollars at people. Give them what they need, not what they want!
there you have it, just my opinion.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
What is newsworthy?
What's this? A short post? Not on Just My Opinion, they're always really long! Not this one: it's short and sweet.
So often I hear people decrying the mainstream media is not biased. There is no such thing as the liberal media. And yet....
Let's take this article from the Washington Post for example. The headline is "Miers Backed Abortion Ban." This is the subject of an entire article? Why don't I see articles saying things like "Kennedy Supports Abortion"?
Well, it's in the Constitution! It's a Constitutional Amendment! You can't support something that bans a Constitutional right! Two Words: Prohibition!
If there is no liberal media, why is this woman's stance on Roe v Wade (from 1989, by the way) the subject of an entire article!
I'll tell you why, because there is a liberal media, and they are outraged that someone can oppose a "woman's right to kill" ...I mean "choose."
But what do I know, it's all just my opinion.
So often I hear people decrying the mainstream media is not biased. There is no such thing as the liberal media. And yet....
Let's take this article from the Washington Post for example. The headline is "Miers Backed Abortion Ban." This is the subject of an entire article? Why don't I see articles saying things like "Kennedy Supports Abortion"?
Well, it's in the Constitution! It's a Constitutional Amendment! You can't support something that bans a Constitutional right! Two Words: Prohibition!
If there is no liberal media, why is this woman's stance on Roe v Wade (from 1989, by the way) the subject of an entire article!
I'll tell you why, because there is a liberal media, and they are outraged that someone can oppose a "woman's right to kill" ...I mean "choose."
But what do I know, it's all just my opinion.
Monday, October 17, 2005
You can bank on it!
Ah, banking, the great American institution where other people make money off of your money. But banks are always finding new ways of making money. Often they make their extra cash on little extra fees that they hide in their contracts with people (because making anywhere from 3%-8% on their loans and giving somewhere between 0.3%-2% to their savings accounts doesn't make them enough (just as an example, on a typical house loan ($250,000) at a modest 5% they would make $12,500, giving back 2% to an equal savings account they'd give $5,000, netting $7,500 on that one loan!)) And when they make their extra money, they make them sound so nice. Here are my two favorites:
"Personal Attention": This one's great! Some banks charge you for actually talking to someone! Either at the bank or over the phone! It's free to use your bank's ATM, or automated phone service, but make sure you don't actually get a human! Or you are looking at a $5-$25 fee.
"Courtesy overdraft": This means if you accidentally charge more to your debit card than you have in your account, the back will cover the difference so that you can purchase the item instead of facing the embarrassment of being declined. Then the nice bank will demand the money they courteously gave you plus anywhere between $25-$40 for this "courtesy."
Bank of America hasn't been making enough extra cash on these nice sounding fees so they are offering some free services that encourage you to take advantage of them. Most notably the "courtesy overdraft."
Bank of America has introduced the "keep the change" program. Whenever you use your debit card to purchase anything, Bank of America nicely rounds the purchase up to the next dollar, takes the difference and moves it from your checking account to your savings account. So if you buy a cup of coffee for $1.10, your receipt says, "$1.10" but $2 has been removed from your checking account. $1.10 to Dunkin Donuts, and $0.90 to your savings account.
I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for my bank to start messing with my checking account so that my receipts don't match up with my actual balance! I guarantee they will have a surge of "courtesy overage" fees that by far out weigh the small amount of extra interest they'll be doling out to the savings accounts that have an extra $1.56 in them!
What will they think of next? People's creativity to lawfully take other's money will never cease to amaze me!
But that's just my opinion.
"Personal Attention": This one's great! Some banks charge you for actually talking to someone! Either at the bank or over the phone! It's free to use your bank's ATM, or automated phone service, but make sure you don't actually get a human! Or you are looking at a $5-$25 fee.
"Courtesy overdraft": This means if you accidentally charge more to your debit card than you have in your account, the back will cover the difference so that you can purchase the item instead of facing the embarrassment of being declined. Then the nice bank will demand the money they courteously gave you plus anywhere between $25-$40 for this "courtesy."
Bank of America hasn't been making enough extra cash on these nice sounding fees so they are offering some free services that encourage you to take advantage of them. Most notably the "courtesy overdraft."
Bank of America has introduced the "keep the change" program. Whenever you use your debit card to purchase anything, Bank of America nicely rounds the purchase up to the next dollar, takes the difference and moves it from your checking account to your savings account. So if you buy a cup of coffee for $1.10, your receipt says, "$1.10" but $2 has been removed from your checking account. $1.10 to Dunkin Donuts, and $0.90 to your savings account.
I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for my bank to start messing with my checking account so that my receipts don't match up with my actual balance! I guarantee they will have a surge of "courtesy overage" fees that by far out weigh the small amount of extra interest they'll be doling out to the savings accounts that have an extra $1.56 in them!
What will they think of next? People's creativity to lawfully take other's money will never cease to amaze me!
But that's just my opinion.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Now there can be no doubt
No doubt about what? No doubt that MLB has conspired against the previous champions (The Red Sox and the Yankees) and that they continue to do so in favor of the team who hasn't won a post season series in 88 years, the Chicago White Sox.
In a comment on my post regarding MLB's desire that the Chicago White Sox win the World Series I said that Crede struck out twice before he was actually called out because of a swing and a miss. The umpires have found a way to circumvent even that and now there can be no doubt that MLB is leaning toward the northern end of route 66 which connects the two dueling cities.
How did they do this? I'll explain for those who aren't sports enthusiasts. If the ball hits the ground before being caught on strike three, the runner has the right to attempt to steal first if 1)the base is open or 2)there are two outs (the base does not need to be open if there are two outs). Last night, bottom of the ninth, two out, tie score and Escobar shutting down the White Sox, AJ Pierzynski swung and missed for strike three. The Angels' catcher clearly caught the ball before it hit the ground. The umpire called the batter out! The Angels began to leave the field of play. AJ ran to first base. Instead of telling him to go to his dugout to put on his catching equipment to catch the top of the 10th inning, the umpire behind home plate reversed his call claimed that the ball hit the ground and called AJ safe at first. The Angels argued the call, but the home plate umpire refused to correct himself. Even after he saw the replay after the game where there is no evidence of the ball touching the ground, he refused to admit he was wrong!
A pinch runner was put in, he stole second on defensive indifference and Crede (the man who struck out three times in one at bat the night before) lined a double to win the game.
When the Queen of Hearts asked me who won last night, I said, "the umpires."
What would have happened? Well, over 80% of baseball fans believed that had the game gone to extra innings, the Angels would have won. I'm sure the umps believed this as well, which is why they decided to give the game to the ChiSox in the 9th.
What should have happened? The umpires should have conferred to correct the call. When they didn't, the manager of the Angels should have taken his players off the field in protest and sent up the next batter, Vlad Guerrero, to the plate for the top of the 10th. Picture it: AJ stands at first, Vlad at the plate, the field is empty. The manager is unable to continue play "under protest" as that is not allowed when the protested action is a judgment call by the umpire. Even though replay shows the ball was caught cleanly, it is still considered the umpire's judgment.
In protest, I suggest that the Angels catcher tag every batter on every third strike on Friday, whether the ball hits the ground or not.
The Angles will win the next game, the umpires will see to that. You can't gift wrap two games in a row for the same team. Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for instant replay for baseball during the playoffs.
Though this action has added credence to my theory, I'm still not happy that the integrity of the game is in jeopardy... let's see, when was the last time the integrity of the game was this tainted... oh yeah: 1919 when the Chicago "Black" Sox threw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.
I hope MLB is happy, they are ostracizing fans with their game tampering.
Wish it weren't true, but it is just my opinion.
In a comment on my post regarding MLB's desire that the Chicago White Sox win the World Series I said that Crede struck out twice before he was actually called out because of a swing and a miss. The umpires have found a way to circumvent even that and now there can be no doubt that MLB is leaning toward the northern end of route 66 which connects the two dueling cities.
How did they do this? I'll explain for those who aren't sports enthusiasts. If the ball hits the ground before being caught on strike three, the runner has the right to attempt to steal first if 1)the base is open or 2)there are two outs (the base does not need to be open if there are two outs). Last night, bottom of the ninth, two out, tie score and Escobar shutting down the White Sox, AJ Pierzynski swung and missed for strike three. The Angels' catcher clearly caught the ball before it hit the ground. The umpire called the batter out! The Angels began to leave the field of play. AJ ran to first base. Instead of telling him to go to his dugout to put on his catching equipment to catch the top of the 10th inning, the umpire behind home plate reversed his call claimed that the ball hit the ground and called AJ safe at first. The Angels argued the call, but the home plate umpire refused to correct himself. Even after he saw the replay after the game where there is no evidence of the ball touching the ground, he refused to admit he was wrong!
A pinch runner was put in, he stole second on defensive indifference and Crede (the man who struck out three times in one at bat the night before) lined a double to win the game.
When the Queen of Hearts asked me who won last night, I said, "the umpires."
What would have happened? Well, over 80% of baseball fans believed that had the game gone to extra innings, the Angels would have won. I'm sure the umps believed this as well, which is why they decided to give the game to the ChiSox in the 9th.
What should have happened? The umpires should have conferred to correct the call. When they didn't, the manager of the Angels should have taken his players off the field in protest and sent up the next batter, Vlad Guerrero, to the plate for the top of the 10th. Picture it: AJ stands at first, Vlad at the plate, the field is empty. The manager is unable to continue play "under protest" as that is not allowed when the protested action is a judgment call by the umpire. Even though replay shows the ball was caught cleanly, it is still considered the umpire's judgment.
In protest, I suggest that the Angels catcher tag every batter on every third strike on Friday, whether the ball hits the ground or not.
The Angles will win the next game, the umpires will see to that. You can't gift wrap two games in a row for the same team. Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for instant replay for baseball during the playoffs.
Though this action has added credence to my theory, I'm still not happy that the integrity of the game is in jeopardy... let's see, when was the last time the integrity of the game was this tainted... oh yeah: 1919 when the Chicago "Black" Sox threw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.
I hope MLB is happy, they are ostracizing fans with their game tampering.
Wish it weren't true, but it is just my opinion.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Lazy gorilla finally evolves
Recently a gorilla took one giant leap for gorilla-kind. Gorillas were once thought to be the only primate that did not use tools. Orangutans, chimpanzees, monkeys, apes, and baboons all had been seen using tools, but the gorilla had decided that he's well off enough without the use of silly tools. At least, that's what science understood, until recently.
In the last few days, two wildlife photographers captured the image of two different gorillas using tools. One using a branch as a walking stick while it looked for food and the other using a stick as a depth tester as it waded into a pond.
Scientists are ecstatic! An article on the Wildlife Conservation Society's website said, "Up to this point, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas." Yet the scientists act as though they always knew that gorillas used tools. Wait a minute. I thought science was about observation! If it was never seen, how did they know that this primate used tools? Did they check their hands for blisters? Did they put a hammer in front of gorillas in zoos to see if they build a house? Why did they assume that this animal used tools in the wild if it had never been seen?!
Scientists are reacting to this as though they finally captured an image of something they've known occurred for decades. Yet, with the emphasis that is put on the theory of macro-evolution, shouldn't scientists be jumping up and down with joy that we finally have evidence of a creature evolving!? Look! This animal that has never used tools before is using tools! What a giant leap forward for the theory of macro-evolution!
But they aren't responding that way. They are responding as though this animal has always been a tool user. As though it was created that way. Isn't this double standard interesting? Doesn't it sound like they are saying, "We believe that all animals have evolved and continue to evolve even though we have never observed any evolution on a massive scale that meshes with the theory that we claim to believe. We also realize that were we to react as though the discovery of a tool using gorilla was a major evolutionary event we would look like crackpots and be laughed out of academia."
To be fair and unbiased (not that I claim to be): If they were using these findings to claim that the gorilla was evolving right before our eyes, I'd probably post about how macro-evolutionist always try to fit the findings to the theory, rather than the theory to the findings. But at least their reaction would be consistent with their beliefs!
Oh, one more question: What genetic mutation would cause a gorilla to suddenly use tools, anyway? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, there it is: Just my opinion.
In the last few days, two wildlife photographers captured the image of two different gorillas using tools. One using a branch as a walking stick while it looked for food and the other using a stick as a depth tester as it waded into a pond.
Scientists are ecstatic! An article on the Wildlife Conservation Society's website said, "Up to this point, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas." Yet the scientists act as though they always knew that gorillas used tools. Wait a minute. I thought science was about observation! If it was never seen, how did they know that this primate used tools? Did they check their hands for blisters? Did they put a hammer in front of gorillas in zoos to see if they build a house? Why did they assume that this animal used tools in the wild if it had never been seen?!
Scientists are reacting to this as though they finally captured an image of something they've known occurred for decades. Yet, with the emphasis that is put on the theory of macro-evolution, shouldn't scientists be jumping up and down with joy that we finally have evidence of a creature evolving!? Look! This animal that has never used tools before is using tools! What a giant leap forward for the theory of macro-evolution!
But they aren't responding that way. They are responding as though this animal has always been a tool user. As though it was created that way. Isn't this double standard interesting? Doesn't it sound like they are saying, "We believe that all animals have evolved and continue to evolve even though we have never observed any evolution on a massive scale that meshes with the theory that we claim to believe. We also realize that were we to react as though the discovery of a tool using gorilla was a major evolutionary event we would look like crackpots and be laughed out of academia."
To be fair and unbiased (not that I claim to be): If they were using these findings to claim that the gorilla was evolving right before our eyes, I'd probably post about how macro-evolutionist always try to fit the findings to the theory, rather than the theory to the findings. But at least their reaction would be consistent with their beliefs!
Oh, one more question: What genetic mutation would cause a gorilla to suddenly use tools, anyway? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, there it is: Just my opinion.
October "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll of the week of October 24th-October 31st
Question:What are your views on Halloween in regards to children?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 17th-October 23rd
Question:Patriot Tedy Bruschi just announced that he will be returning to football following a minor stroke he experienced at the end of last season. Has Bruschi made the right decision?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 10th-October 16th
Question: With the Red Sox out and the Yankees out, who do you root for now?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 3rd-October 9th.
Question: How often would you like the "Just Your Opinion" polls to appear?
Results:
Question:What are your views on Halloween in regards to children?
Results:
My kids will not/do not observe Halloween in any way.
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 4 votes (44.4%)
- 3 votes (33.3%)
Poll of the week of October 17th-October 23rd
Question:Patriot Tedy Bruschi just announced that he will be returning to football following a minor stroke he experienced at the end of last season. Has Bruschi made the right decision?
Results:
No, he should not risk his life to play football
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (12.5%)
- 3 votes (37.5%)
- 3 votes (37.5%)
- 1 vote (12.5%)
Poll of the week of October 10th-October 16th
Question: With the Red Sox out and the Yankees out, who do you root for now?
Results:
The Chicago White Sox
- 5 votes (41.7%)
- 3 votes (25%)
- 2 votes (16.7%)
- 2 votes (16.7%)
Poll of the week of October 3rd-October 9th.
Question: How often would you like the "Just Your Opinion" polls to appear?
Results:
Once a week
- 3 votes (60%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Owner of the game
There has been something gnawing at my psyche for the past week regarding the MLB Playoffs. It's been that tiny sliver in your hand that you can see but you feel it every time you brush against it. After watching game five of the Yankees/Angels game, I've finally realized what that sliver is:
Major League Baseball wants a new victor.
And not just a new winner from last year, no no. They want a new winner all together! And they are going to see to it that it happens. They've already engineered the removal of the Red Sox and the Yankees from the playoffs!
Some of you are saying, "Whoa, Marc, that's a pretty tough claim! How can MLB dictate who wins and who loses?" I'll tell you:
MLB has finally discovered that which the NBA exploits and the NFL attempts to curtail. The people who call the game, own the game. Where is my proof? How about this: Basketball. Every hoop in 10 feet high. Every court is identical. Every game is indoors. It's not like baseball where the outfields are different shapes, the infields are different materials, or some games are indoors, some are out. It is uniform. How is it possible, then, that the home team wins more than 65% of the time? The "home court advantage" is not the fans. These players are professionals! Crowd noise isn't going to throw them. It's the thing they can't ignore: the calls! The refs give the home team an advantage. The NBA encourages this. The NFL is trying to remove this by allowing instant replay. MLB has finally learned to use this to their advantage.
What do you think of these calls: Cano "interfering" with the play to first. Erstad safe at first on the ground ball to A-Rod. Johnny Damon's phantom swing with the bases loaded. and the most influential calls: the inconsistent strike zones for Johnson, Clement, Mussina, and Wakefield. (Some of the calls can be found on the Top Play archives of the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.)
So, for those of you who think I'm off my rocker here is why this is being done: Money! It's always about money. How could getting the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees out of the playoffs generate more money than if they were in? After all, Boston and New York are two of the biggest TV markets in the nation! Here is the difference: If the Red Sox and the Yankees are out, their fans will still watch! If the Angels or the White Sox were out, their fans would not.
But wouldn't more people tune it to a third consecutive Red Sox vs Yankees ALCS? No. It's analogous to when we were all sick of the Dallas Cowboys facing off against the San Francisco 49ers to see who would go to (and we all knew, win) the Super Bowl. There can be too much of a good thing. And as Michael Holley said on WEEI today, "I think the nation is worn out of the Red Sox vs Yankees. I mean, how many times can these teams play each other?!"
Well, MLB saw to it that they wouldn't do it again. If my theory is true. Neither series ends before game 6. The World Series is White Sox vs Astros and the White Sox win in 7.
But that's all just my opinion.
Major League Baseball wants a new victor.
And not just a new winner from last year, no no. They want a new winner all together! And they are going to see to it that it happens. They've already engineered the removal of the Red Sox and the Yankees from the playoffs!
Some of you are saying, "Whoa, Marc, that's a pretty tough claim! How can MLB dictate who wins and who loses?" I'll tell you:
MLB has finally discovered that which the NBA exploits and the NFL attempts to curtail. The people who call the game, own the game. Where is my proof? How about this: Basketball. Every hoop in 10 feet high. Every court is identical. Every game is indoors. It's not like baseball where the outfields are different shapes, the infields are different materials, or some games are indoors, some are out. It is uniform. How is it possible, then, that the home team wins more than 65% of the time? The "home court advantage" is not the fans. These players are professionals! Crowd noise isn't going to throw them. It's the thing they can't ignore: the calls! The refs give the home team an advantage. The NBA encourages this. The NFL is trying to remove this by allowing instant replay. MLB has finally learned to use this to their advantage.
What do you think of these calls: Cano "interfering" with the play to first. Erstad safe at first on the ground ball to A-Rod. Johnny Damon's phantom swing with the bases loaded. and the most influential calls: the inconsistent strike zones for Johnson, Clement, Mussina, and Wakefield. (Some of the calls can be found on the Top Play archives of the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.)
So, for those of you who think I'm off my rocker here is why this is being done: Money! It's always about money. How could getting the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees out of the playoffs generate more money than if they were in? After all, Boston and New York are two of the biggest TV markets in the nation! Here is the difference: If the Red Sox and the Yankees are out, their fans will still watch! If the Angels or the White Sox were out, their fans would not.
But wouldn't more people tune it to a third consecutive Red Sox vs Yankees ALCS? No. It's analogous to when we were all sick of the Dallas Cowboys facing off against the San Francisco 49ers to see who would go to (and we all knew, win) the Super Bowl. There can be too much of a good thing. And as Michael Holley said on WEEI today, "I think the nation is worn out of the Red Sox vs Yankees. I mean, how many times can these teams play each other?!"
Well, MLB saw to it that they wouldn't do it again. If my theory is true. Neither series ends before game 6. The World Series is White Sox vs Astros and the White Sox win in 7.
But that's all just my opinion.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Let the Playoffs begin
Alright, here's your chance to predict the winners! You can either predict the winner of each series or just pick an overall victor! Here is the bracket:
ALDS
Red Sox
vs
White Sox
Yankees
vs
Angles
NLDS
Cardinals
vs
Padres
Braves
vs
Astros
NLCS
Winner of Cards v Padres
vs
Winner of Braves v Astros
ALCS
Winner of Red v White
vs
Winner of Yankees v Angels
World Series
Winner of ALCS
vs
Winner of NLCS
Here are my picks and the number of games it will take:
Round 1
Red Sox in 4
Angels in 5
Cardinals in 3
Braves in 5
Round 2
Red Sox in 6
Cardinals in 7
World Series
Red Sox in 6
What are your thoughts?!
ALDS
Red Sox
vs
White Sox
Yankees
vs
Angles
NLDS
Cardinals
vs
Padres
Braves
vs
Astros
NLCS
Winner of Cards v Padres
vs
Winner of Braves v Astros
ALCS
Winner of Red v White
vs
Winner of Yankees v Angels
World Series
Winner of ALCS
vs
Winner of NLCS
Here are my picks and the number of games it will take:
Round 1
Red Sox in 4
Angels in 5
Cardinals in 3
Braves in 5
Round 2
Red Sox in 6
Cardinals in 7
World Series
Red Sox in 6
What are your thoughts?!
Monday, October 03, 2005
My government failed me
I find this concept curious. It implies certain things. 1) I rely on my government. 2) I expected something from it.
The following stream of thought was initiated by certain complaints heard following Katrina about what the government should have done, and needed to do, and some of the things that were done by the government. Most of the statements that I intend to make are extreme and should not be applied directly to Katrina.
Let's look back to why this country started: We were betrayed by our country. Taxed without representation, made to trade only with Britain, occupied by the forces of our own king. Why would a people who broke free of a government that oppressed and betrayed us fall into a belief that we were owed something by a government? Or even worse, get to a place where we expect/require/need something from a government? Especially seeing as there was a large debate during the infancy of our nation as to how much power a federal government should have. Now it's the federal government's fault if there is a tragedy?! How did it come to this?
Here is my belief: The great depression. More specifically: The New Deal. The New Deal softly guided us into a place where we were reliant on the federal government. I won't go so far as to say that the federal government caused the depression, but their solution of how to get the nation out of it caused people to expect certain things from that ruling body.
This, of course, was brilliant. I'm sure we've heard that the end goal of those in power is to stay in power (Caesar Augustus and George Washington being the only two people that I can think of who don't fit that mold). So here was an opportunity for the government to create a mindset of need, of perceived indispensability of the federal government: We can't live without it!
This mindset has existed for so long that it is considered a right. My government failed me because I deserve a fresh start from my government. I am owed money from my government because this unstoppable tragedy has affected me.
I believe it is time to move away from that mindset. To stop relying on our government whose end goal is self preservation, and being relying on our brother. Let us forcibly take back the responsibility that our government has stolen from us by caring for one another.
This, of course, is just my opinion.
The following stream of thought was initiated by certain complaints heard following Katrina about what the government should have done, and needed to do, and some of the things that were done by the government. Most of the statements that I intend to make are extreme and should not be applied directly to Katrina.
Let's look back to why this country started: We were betrayed by our country. Taxed without representation, made to trade only with Britain, occupied by the forces of our own king. Why would a people who broke free of a government that oppressed and betrayed us fall into a belief that we were owed something by a government? Or even worse, get to a place where we expect/require/need something from a government? Especially seeing as there was a large debate during the infancy of our nation as to how much power a federal government should have. Now it's the federal government's fault if there is a tragedy?! How did it come to this?
Here is my belief: The great depression. More specifically: The New Deal. The New Deal softly guided us into a place where we were reliant on the federal government. I won't go so far as to say that the federal government caused the depression, but their solution of how to get the nation out of it caused people to expect certain things from that ruling body.
This, of course, was brilliant. I'm sure we've heard that the end goal of those in power is to stay in power (Caesar Augustus and George Washington being the only two people that I can think of who don't fit that mold). So here was an opportunity for the government to create a mindset of need, of perceived indispensability of the federal government: We can't live without it!
This mindset has existed for so long that it is considered a right. My government failed me because I deserve a fresh start from my government. I am owed money from my government because this unstoppable tragedy has affected me.
I believe it is time to move away from that mindset. To stop relying on our government whose end goal is self preservation, and being relying on our brother. Let us forcibly take back the responsibility that our government has stolen from us by caring for one another.
This, of course, is just my opinion.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Psst: William, stop talking!
I have tried and failed to preface the following quote with an introductory paragraph. I've failed and this was the best thing I could think of. So, we'll just start with the quote.
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, so these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
No no, you read it right. That's what he said. But here's a bigger kicker: He's sticking by it! Ok, so who is he? He is William Bennett, former education secretary under President Reagan and drug czar under President Bush Sr. He said it on his radio show "Morning in America" in response to a callers question that mentioned that crime is down because abortion is up. (Of course, this ignores the fact that crime is measured by capita, so if the capita is down crime should be up.)
So, what is wrong with these people? I throw Kanye West and William Bennett into the same group: people who promote racism! Again why would the color of their skin make a difference? What was he trying to say? Did Mr. Bennett mean to say abort all the babies of poor people? Inner city people? Mind you, these are not my stereo types, but it seems they might be Mr. Bennett's.
Here's my intellectual analysis: What a stupid stupid stupid thing to say!
Even if he was using hyperbole, even if it was to show the stupidity of the comment, when the news comes to you, say that! He has not claimed that was his purpose. He has not said it was satire.
Now, you know that I can't avoid bashing others in this! First, the media. I saw this reported two places: CNN.com and in the Boston Herald. The article on CNN.com quoted him differently than the Herald. CNN.com had him saying that the action would be "impossibly ridiculous" and they had a paragraph break between the end of the first sentence and the start of the second. Not only that, but they had the first part of the quote in the second paragraph of the article and the second in the third. They also left off the third sentence. The one sentence that makes it possible for him to have been satirizing the idea. Did he pause between sentences? Was there a minute of silence on his radio show? Why put the paragraph break? Wasn't there a study that said that most people read the first two paragraphs of an article, then skip to the end? Are you reading this paragraph? Just something I noticed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Second. Nancy Peloci "called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett." There was no mention which one, so we must assume she meant the current president, seeing as the only former president that democrats still refer to as president is Mr. Clinton. How is this the president's responsibility? Does he need to respond to every comment made on every morning show in America? You know, Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning said something about killing all pitbulls! I think the President needs to renounce that kind of blind hatred for a certain type of dog!
This is ridiculous! Will the left of the left stop at nothing to try and politize everything? Katrina, Rita, now this? At least Senator Kennedy kept his remarks aimed in the right direction! He demanded that Bennett apologize. Good for you Eddie! Way to keep your politics separate from your outrage!
Write down the date: I agree with Senator Kennedy. Bennett needs to apologize and not justify. It was a really stupid thing to say.
I'd say that's just my opinion, but it seems so darn obvious!
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, so these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
No no, you read it right. That's what he said. But here's a bigger kicker: He's sticking by it! Ok, so who is he? He is William Bennett, former education secretary under President Reagan and drug czar under President Bush Sr. He said it on his radio show "Morning in America" in response to a callers question that mentioned that crime is down because abortion is up. (Of course, this ignores the fact that crime is measured by capita, so if the capita is down crime should be up.)
So, what is wrong with these people? I throw Kanye West and William Bennett into the same group: people who promote racism! Again why would the color of their skin make a difference? What was he trying to say? Did Mr. Bennett mean to say abort all the babies of poor people? Inner city people? Mind you, these are not my stereo types, but it seems they might be Mr. Bennett's.
Here's my intellectual analysis: What a stupid stupid stupid thing to say!
Even if he was using hyperbole, even if it was to show the stupidity of the comment, when the news comes to you, say that! He has not claimed that was his purpose. He has not said it was satire.
Now, you know that I can't avoid bashing others in this! First, the media. I saw this reported two places: CNN.com and in the Boston Herald. The article on CNN.com quoted him differently than the Herald. CNN.com had him saying that the action would be "impossibly ridiculous" and they had a paragraph break between the end of the first sentence and the start of the second. Not only that, but they had the first part of the quote in the second paragraph of the article and the second in the third. They also left off the third sentence. The one sentence that makes it possible for him to have been satirizing the idea. Did he pause between sentences? Was there a minute of silence on his radio show? Why put the paragraph break? Wasn't there a study that said that most people read the first two paragraphs of an article, then skip to the end? Are you reading this paragraph? Just something I noticed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Second. Nancy Peloci "called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett." There was no mention which one, so we must assume she meant the current president, seeing as the only former president that democrats still refer to as president is Mr. Clinton. How is this the president's responsibility? Does he need to respond to every comment made on every morning show in America? You know, Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning said something about killing all pitbulls! I think the President needs to renounce that kind of blind hatred for a certain type of dog!
This is ridiculous! Will the left of the left stop at nothing to try and politize everything? Katrina, Rita, now this? At least Senator Kennedy kept his remarks aimed in the right direction! He demanded that Bennett apologize. Good for you Eddie! Way to keep your politics separate from your outrage!
Write down the date: I agree with Senator Kennedy. Bennett needs to apologize and not justify. It was a really stupid thing to say.
I'd say that's just my opinion, but it seems so darn obvious!
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Super journalism from the Superdome
But first this: I thought this shirt was hysterical and just couldn't pass it up!In fine print it should say, "But I still don't have any electricity to use it!"
So, word on the street is that the word on the street was entirely wrong! Once again, the national sensationalism... whoops, I mean the national news (who called Florida for Gore and hour before the polls closed) continues to garner a feeling of trust from it's loyal viewers and readers.
Actually, the word here is from the Seattle Times, The New Orleans Time Picayune, MSN, and others.
So it turns out that there weren't murders in the Superdome. Children weren't climbing over more bodies than they could count! The report of 200 dead was just a little over blown. Let me see if I can get the actual figure here. *shuffle shuffle* I know it's here *flip flip* *rustle rustle* Ah, here we go: 6 dead. I guess the refrigerated 18 wheeler that was brought to carry away the dead that were "heaped" in piles in the dome was a bit much, huh?
Six deaths: 4 of natural causes, 1 apparent suicide, and an OD. 0 rapes reported, 0 murders, and 0 violent crimes. Ok, so even in my zeal to expose the news for the sensationalizers they are, I'm not willing to say these things definitely did not happen, but the evidence does not support it. The reports from the Superdome were grossly exaggerated! Will there be any repercussions? Like that annoying furniture guy Bob says: "I doubt it!"
Were these stories an attempt to scoop other news stations? Were there political or social agendas? Perhaps the republican reporters wanted to outrage people to the poor job done by the local authorities as both the Governor and the Mayor are democrats. Perhaps the democratic reporters wanted to shame the republican national administration with how poorly they planned to evacuate and care for the residents of New Orleans. Perhaps it was racist white reports saying that all of these African Americans in one place were uncivilized. Perhaps it was racist African American reports showing the terrible situation that the white authorities put these people in. Perhaps the reports were entirely wrong! Who cares why! Aren't reporters supposed to get the facts?! More than one source? Did anybody talk to anyone who was actually in the Superdome!? What happened?!
On a final note: Kudos to news for admitting they were wrong. If major news sources didn't admit that they blew these stories out of the stratosphere we may never have known. And the people trying to get the truth out would be considered conspiracy loonies!
But that's just my opinion
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Wednesday Sports Extra
"Extra" because there are several sports issues that deserve extra attention and all three of these have extra issues!
Sportsline: San Francisco:Barry Bonds, also known as "Limpy," has been trying to add some extra games to his career, extra homeruns to his stats, and extra sympathy from his fans. This man supposedly had a debilitating knee injury that kept him out of most of the first season where MLB was testing for steroids. Now, he has begun to limp after making plays. He doesn't limp while running for the fly ball in left, nor does he limp while trying to score from first, but as soon as the play is over that knee is suddenly unbearable! You know what's unbearable? That this man has the gaul to continue to play! Anyone wanna bet he's a DH in the AL next year? Barry, you cheated, you admitted it, we don't feel sorry for you. If you are hurt: Stop playing. If you aren't: Stop playing anyway!
Sportsline: MLB Players' Union: Finally, the MLB Players' Union has taken a step to reassure the true fans of the game that they are serious about ridding baseball of juicers. They have agreed to add an extra 10 games to the punishment for first time offenders, making the total penalty a suspension of 20 games instead of just 10 days as was originally agreed to. On behalf of baseball fans everywhere, I say thank you. Keep pressing on toward a clean sport!
Sportsline: Pittsburgh: There has been much talk regarding the Patriots recent 23-20 win in Pittsburgh. Apparently the 4th Quarter had an extra 52 seconds and lasted 15 minutes and 52 seconds rather than the typical 15 minutes. There is some concern because unlike the 33-10 thrashing the Chiefs took this week at Denver, the Patriots won the game on the final drive with only 1:21 left in the game. In fact, as Vinitiari's game winning field goal sailed through the uprights the clock clicked down to 0:01! So clearly if the error had been recognized the Patriots could not have won because they took 1:20 to score! Because they would have gotten the ball with only 29 seconds left, Right? Wrong. Here's the problem with that: 1)The error was made by the Pittsburgh official clock controller with 13:59 left in the fourth. It's not as though the error happened at the end of the quarter, there is no way of knowing what type of clock management would have occurred had the clock been correct. 2) It only took Tom Brady 31 seconds of actual play time to drive down the field. The Patriots allowed 34 seconds to click off the clock before they snapped the ball for the field goal. 3) It's not as though the Steelers were playing with one clock and the Patriots with another. Both teams got the extra 52 seconds and the Patriots took advantage of it, while the Steelers did not. If the Steelers and Patriots are separated by one game at the end of the season, this issue will be huge! Similar to the tuck rule against the Raiders in 2000. But you heard it hear first, this error made little to no difference in the outcome of this game!
5 games left for the Red Sox and Yankees! Go Sox!
Sportsline: San Francisco:Barry Bonds, also known as "Limpy," has been trying to add some extra games to his career, extra homeruns to his stats, and extra sympathy from his fans. This man supposedly had a debilitating knee injury that kept him out of most of the first season where MLB was testing for steroids. Now, he has begun to limp after making plays. He doesn't limp while running for the fly ball in left, nor does he limp while trying to score from first, but as soon as the play is over that knee is suddenly unbearable! You know what's unbearable? That this man has the gaul to continue to play! Anyone wanna bet he's a DH in the AL next year? Barry, you cheated, you admitted it, we don't feel sorry for you. If you are hurt: Stop playing. If you aren't: Stop playing anyway!
Sportsline: MLB Players' Union: Finally, the MLB Players' Union has taken a step to reassure the true fans of the game that they are serious about ridding baseball of juicers. They have agreed to add an extra 10 games to the punishment for first time offenders, making the total penalty a suspension of 20 games instead of just 10 days as was originally agreed to. On behalf of baseball fans everywhere, I say thank you. Keep pressing on toward a clean sport!
Sportsline: Pittsburgh: There has been much talk regarding the Patriots recent 23-20 win in Pittsburgh. Apparently the 4th Quarter had an extra 52 seconds and lasted 15 minutes and 52 seconds rather than the typical 15 minutes. There is some concern because unlike the 33-10 thrashing the Chiefs took this week at Denver, the Patriots won the game on the final drive with only 1:21 left in the game. In fact, as Vinitiari's game winning field goal sailed through the uprights the clock clicked down to 0:01! So clearly if the error had been recognized the Patriots could not have won because they took 1:20 to score! Because they would have gotten the ball with only 29 seconds left, Right? Wrong. Here's the problem with that: 1)The error was made by the Pittsburgh official clock controller with 13:59 left in the fourth. It's not as though the error happened at the end of the quarter, there is no way of knowing what type of clock management would have occurred had the clock been correct. 2) It only took Tom Brady 31 seconds of actual play time to drive down the field. The Patriots allowed 34 seconds to click off the clock before they snapped the ball for the field goal. 3) It's not as though the Steelers were playing with one clock and the Patriots with another. Both teams got the extra 52 seconds and the Patriots took advantage of it, while the Steelers did not. If the Steelers and Patriots are separated by one game at the end of the season, this issue will be huge! Similar to the tuck rule against the Raiders in 2000. But you heard it hear first, this error made little to no difference in the outcome of this game!
5 games left for the Red Sox and Yankees! Go Sox!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Movie Review: Lost in Translation
*Caution: Review contains spoilers*
I'm not surprised many people have expressed frustration at being lost during "Lost in Translation." I am surprised that it was nominated for so many awards including the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, while it only took home the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Here are a few keys to this mystery.
This is the first major film by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sophia Coppola. Sure she directed "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lick the Star" but, as I said, this was her first major film. So, just like when someone spends $200 million dollars on his film you give him the Oscar so that you can get the same type of a budget, when one of the most powerful men in Hollywood's daughter puts out something that appears to be an artistic film, you at least nominate her work. Too bad it was up against Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King." Also known as the "Here are the Oscars you deserved before that we didn't give you because we knew you were making a trilogy" movie. I'd also like to add that Bill Murray has never won an Oscar and he's getting old. He'll continue to be nominated regardless of the quality of work he puts on the screen.
But why else didn't it win more Oscars? Here's a thought, written and directed by Sophia. This movie could have been twice as good as it was. Again, a rookie mistake to not trust another director with your baby.
Here's another reason: It was a movie. "Lost in Translation" tried very hard to be a film. To be an artistic statement regarding deep intellectual things. It failed.
This film captured a few things quite nicely: The isolation felt (and occasionally desired) when in a foreign culture. There is a very distinct feeling when you are in an atmosphere where you cannot read every advertisement and cannot understand every conversation being held around you. This is most noticed when you return to a culture that you understand. Though it seemed this film wanted to convey these emotions it missed an opportunity by not returning home with either character.
This film also expressed the susceptibility that marriages have to affairs when they are not one's first priority. I think that Ms. Coppola's aim was to have it appear as though these two people happened upon their illicit relationship. However, as I watched the film, it became clear to me that they were both looking for what they found and had they not found it with each other, they would have found it with someone else.
And so we come to the failures of this film. There were a few things that had to be verbalized because they were not communicated through the action of the movie. An example is that both of the main characters were suffering from travel insomnia. I didn't catch on to this until it was said.
Ms. Coppola relied on the supposed intellectual drama to provide the plot motion for this picture. It was insufficient. The lack of subplots and the predictable storyline leads one to ask, "Why was this movie made?" What is the point of this film? International affairs are acceptable? Most people feel helpless in foreign cities?
And finally, the largest and most disappointing failure of this film is found in the final scene. Bill Murray is headed to the airport to leave. He sees Scarlet Johanson's character on the street, stops the cab and runs to her. They gaze at each other meaningfully and he whispers something unintelligible in her hear. Some people have called this moment genius. I call it a cop-out. Why would this moment be private when every other second of their interaction was shared with the audience? Because Ms. Coppola doesn't know what he said. My guess is that he originally said something that test audiences hated and so instead of correcting her error by either altering what is said or removing the scene entirely, she simply removes his lines. They still communicate but what is said is hidden forever. Cop-out!
So, for those of you who have made it this far, and have seen the film, I have a question: If you remove the final scene, did they have an affair?
"Lost in Translation" is one of those sad movies that thinks it's a film. Movies that know they are movies ("A Knight's Tale" "Blue Streak"), though terrible, are less pitiful than movies that put on the guise of being a film. It is a story not worth telling and a movie not worth watching.
And that's just my opinion.
I'm not surprised many people have expressed frustration at being lost during "Lost in Translation." I am surprised that it was nominated for so many awards including the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, while it only took home the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Here are a few keys to this mystery.
This is the first major film by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sophia Coppola. Sure she directed "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lick the Star" but, as I said, this was her first major film. So, just like when someone spends $200 million dollars on his film you give him the Oscar so that you can get the same type of a budget, when one of the most powerful men in Hollywood's daughter puts out something that appears to be an artistic film, you at least nominate her work. Too bad it was up against Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King." Also known as the "Here are the Oscars you deserved before that we didn't give you because we knew you were making a trilogy" movie. I'd also like to add that Bill Murray has never won an Oscar and he's getting old. He'll continue to be nominated regardless of the quality of work he puts on the screen.
But why else didn't it win more Oscars? Here's a thought, written and directed by Sophia. This movie could have been twice as good as it was. Again, a rookie mistake to not trust another director with your baby.
Here's another reason: It was a movie. "Lost in Translation" tried very hard to be a film. To be an artistic statement regarding deep intellectual things. It failed.
This film captured a few things quite nicely: The isolation felt (and occasionally desired) when in a foreign culture. There is a very distinct feeling when you are in an atmosphere where you cannot read every advertisement and cannot understand every conversation being held around you. This is most noticed when you return to a culture that you understand. Though it seemed this film wanted to convey these emotions it missed an opportunity by not returning home with either character.
This film also expressed the susceptibility that marriages have to affairs when they are not one's first priority. I think that Ms. Coppola's aim was to have it appear as though these two people happened upon their illicit relationship. However, as I watched the film, it became clear to me that they were both looking for what they found and had they not found it with each other, they would have found it with someone else.
And so we come to the failures of this film. There were a few things that had to be verbalized because they were not communicated through the action of the movie. An example is that both of the main characters were suffering from travel insomnia. I didn't catch on to this until it was said.
Ms. Coppola relied on the supposed intellectual drama to provide the plot motion for this picture. It was insufficient. The lack of subplots and the predictable storyline leads one to ask, "Why was this movie made?" What is the point of this film? International affairs are acceptable? Most people feel helpless in foreign cities?
And finally, the largest and most disappointing failure of this film is found in the final scene. Bill Murray is headed to the airport to leave. He sees Scarlet Johanson's character on the street, stops the cab and runs to her. They gaze at each other meaningfully and he whispers something unintelligible in her hear. Some people have called this moment genius. I call it a cop-out. Why would this moment be private when every other second of their interaction was shared with the audience? Because Ms. Coppola doesn't know what he said. My guess is that he originally said something that test audiences hated and so instead of correcting her error by either altering what is said or removing the scene entirely, she simply removes his lines. They still communicate but what is said is hidden forever. Cop-out!
So, for those of you who have made it this far, and have seen the film, I have a question: If you remove the final scene, did they have an affair?
"Lost in Translation" is one of those sad movies that thinks it's a film. Movies that know they are movies ("A Knight's Tale" "Blue Streak"), though terrible, are less pitiful than movies that put on the guise of being a film. It is a story not worth telling and a movie not worth watching.
And that's just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)