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.
Monday, October 31, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)