Mostly Sports

A few people have asked me to voice my opinion on the Arroyo trade. So I thought I'd throw some overall sports thoughts out there:

Arroyo: This really pisses me off! Arroyo signs a massive hometown discount so that he can stay in Boston. The two headed GM (Theo had not yet returned when Bronson was signed) had a gentleman's agreement that they wouldn't trade him "in the near future." Two months later, Bronson's "hometown" discount appears to be from a different "hometown:" Cincinnati! Talk about dirty (not to mention stupid) ball! This screwing of Arroyo rivals the screwing of Wakefield, who also signed a hometown discount only to see his personal catcher traded within the week!

Hey Red Sox: A hometown discount is given by a player to a team because he wants to stay in the town he's in! Guess what you can kiss goodbye. Any hint of a discount from any other player, ever! Two players have signed the team friendly contract this year and you screwed both of them. No player will ever be foolish, stupid, or gullible enough to do it again! Ortiz? He will demand top dollar. Paplebon? Probably will sign with another team at some point. I don't ever want to hear the words "Hometown discount" in regards to the Red Sox unless it is a "Hometown Discount" for a Boston native who is buying the team from the current ignoramuses who call themselves owners.

I'm kinda glad that they did this now. The Coco signing and Spring training was starting to woo me back. Then I remembered the type of people I'd be supporting if I patronized the team this year. Yeah, I'm out.

"And the bullpens empty:" Well, it's been three spring training games and three altercations that have occurred with the Sox. They played bean ball with the Yankees, Out Shoutin' with the Phillies, and they Boxed against the Devil Rays. Hello! It's spring training! It doesn't matter! Oh, and two of the three instigators were not Red Sox last year. Hmm, they sure have done a great job this year, huh? Speaking of off season acquisitions:

Who's on my team? Hey Boston, who is on your teams? I'm just wondering if you can name them. (There was a recent poll that showed that Boston was losing the most population in the nation. I think it's all of the athletes being shipped out!) Look at the Red Sox. Here's some trivia: There are five players that the Red Sox did not try to trade this past off season, can you name them? How about your entirely new infield can you name them? Let's look at who's gone from Boston:

Red SoxPatriots
Kevin MillarTim Dwight
Johnny DamonDavid Givens
John OlerudMatt Chattam
Doug MirabelliAdam Vinatieri
Bill MuellerTyrone Poole
Edgar RentariaChad Brown
Allen EmbryWillie McGinest
Bronson ArroyoChristian Fauria
Hanley Ramirez (the rookie phenom)Tim Ashworth
Mike MyersAnd these are just the ones we care about!
Andy Martes (the replacement rookie phenom)
Tony Graffinino (he gave up a TON to sign and they are going to ship him out!)
Plus $4 million per year to players playing for other teams!

This was all this year. That isn't to mention that the Bruins traded Thornton and Samsonov and the high profile players the Celtics have traded.

Immigration: As this is a sports post, I don't expect anyone to read this. And I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms but I've got one short thing to mention:

One of the protesters in Boston said, "We agree with making the immigration laws tougher, we just think there should be a way for illegal immigrants to become US citizens." So, what did I hear when I heard that quote? "Go ahead, make the laws tougher. What difference does it make when there isn't any punishment for breaking them? I mean, we disregard them completely anyway and we are pushing for a law that makes it ok to disregard those laws. When we break them to enter, we can still become citizens! So go ahead, we dare you!" Not only that, but it's just sticking their noses up at people who actually lawfully enter the country. Let's make it harder for them!

(Anyone notice that the protest was on a Monday? I thought these people were "active" members of society...)

Anyway. These are some examples of things that are just my opinion.

Usurping the Church

I'm pretty sure I've posted on this before, but the way some of the threads that the comments on my previous post were headed forced me back into this viewpoint which becomes stronger with each passing day.

Jason has been inquiring how my interpretation of the Bible's instructions on how to care for the "alien and stranger" among us shapes my view on immigration, but more specifically illegal immigration. Rather than focus on this one aspect of an issue that I've been wrestling with, I will attempt to answer it by touching on what I believe is the bigger issue.

For much too long the church has allowed the government to be the provider of social services. This is not the place of the government, such programs should be emanating from the church.

While the church is in no way infallible, we would hope that a majority of the people in it are attempting to live like Christ. Parishioners have a higher goal to which they aim. We hope, then, that their motives for instituting social programs would be in service to their Lord and assistance for their neighbors. The government does not have this advantage. The government's job is to make sure the government remains. One way to do this is to make certain that thousands of people believe that, with out the government in its present form, they would perish. Even with a so-called "Christian" in office, most of the social programs instituted are cyclical and do not encourage the people whom they serve to move on from them. Thus ensuring the belief that government must remain.

What has the government to offer? Political alliances? False promises? What does the church offer? Christ! Love! Salvation! Acceptance! Social assistance is a fantastic way to reach people with the Gospel. We know this in Africa along with Central and South America but we can't figure it out at home?! Many will say "Well, there is no one to help the poor in Africa and Central and South America! The Church must step in." This is exactly the common lackadaisical American Christianity that drives me insane! We don't do anything unless there is a void. Well, we must then create that void so that the church feels the need to intervene!

Many believers satisfy their "social concern" inkling at the voting booth. "I feed the hungry and clothe the poor ~ I voted for a democrat, didn't I?!" How long will we allow the government to take the place of the church?! ("Sorry, I can't give to your charity, I gave in my paycheck.") How many of our churches have homeless shelters? How many of our churches have a food pantry for people who have problems feeding their families? How many of our churches offer low cost day care for those who can't afford to live on a single income? Anyone? (Beuller?) Why don't we? Because the government provides homeless shelters, and food stamps, and a myriad of other services to assist he poor and the church sees that need as being met and does not take the initiative to start their own for the glory of God and the salvation of many!

So, should the church care for the alien and the stranger? Yes! Should we force the government to allow them to sneak in? No.

When I responded to the issue of banning gay marriage in Massachusetts I wrote the following in a previous post:

"We do not live in a theocracy. I look at it like this: We are Jonahs living in Nineveh. We are called to inform people of the consequences of their sin. We are not called to make sure they do not sin. We can hope and pray that they turn from their sins and turn to the LORD and repent, but it is not our responsibility to prevent our neighbors (outside of the church) from committing sin."

Jason, I hope this helps you understand my views on illegal immigration and being a moderate Libertarian. Because, after all, it's just my opinion.

Funny things I heard today:

The first is in line with today's "theme":

"In order for an Irishman to talk with an equal, he must speak with God."

While clearly not true as no one is equal with God, it certain is clever and made me chuckle.

The second (and final) is more along the lines of my typical posts:

I hear this on the radio this morning: "Authorities operated a sting on illegal immigrants in Boston this week. Of those that were rounded up, over 60% had a committed a crime."

Anyone see anything wrong with this statement? Bravo if you did! Here it is: 100% of illegal immigrants have committed a crime! Maybe 60% of those criminals committed other crimes while here, but they all became felons when they crossed our boarders illegally. But we are so desensitizing to laws regarding illegal immigration that they have to mug somebody, rob someplace, or drive drunk before we consider them criminals! NEWSFLASH: Entering the country illegally is a crime! Don't do let people it and prosecute those that do! I've heard people say, "it's not such a terrible crime, they just want a better life for their families." Ok, we won't prosecute people who don't pay income tax either. After all, they are just doing it so their families can have better lives!

I'm not going to say anything about the *cough*lib *cough*er *cough* al*cough media that reported the information (*ahh ahhhh WBZ Choooooooo)

But hey, somehow in someone's mind, what I've written above is just my opinion.

Please sir, may I have some more?

"If I'm willing to play for five dollars a year" -Keyshawn Johnson in regards to playing for the Patriots.

Alright, this may look like a sports post, but it's really not. Attention: This is not a sports post!

What I'm dealing with here are two things that are most evident in professional sports (and may be a reason why many of my readers are uninterested in them) and at their base are closely related. The first is this:

What is it about "A little bit more?" There was a survey taken asking people what they would need financially to be happy. Across the board the most common answer was "Just a little bit more." People making under $20,000 to people in the six figures all said "Just a little bit more." So here are professional athletes, let's take David Givens for example (WR New England Patriots), who always need "Just a little bit more." Givens was offered 4 years $18.6 million from the Patriots. The Titans offered him 5 years, $25 million. That's $4.65 million per year from the Patriots, $5 million from the Titans. He went to the Titans. "Just a little bit more..." What can he do with $5 million per year that he couldn't do with $4.65? What is the extra $350,000 gonna get him? (Besides more taxes) It's 7% of what he's making. 7%! This leads nicely into the second issue (which is very closely related to the first):

Why go some place where you have no hope of winning for more money, when you can win some place for just a little bit less? Givens has no chance of winning the big game in Tennessee. His Quarterback (Steve McNair) is old in baseball standards (let alone football!). Wouldn't you work somewhere you enjoyed working for a little less rather than someplace you hated for 7% more?!

I get so infuriated when people buy into America in thinking that they need "Just a little more..." ESPECIALLY when they already have millions!

But that's just a little bit of my opinion!

March "Just Your Opinion" Results

Poll for the week of March 13th - March 19th
Question:Which #1 seeded team do you think will win the NCAA March Madness tournament?
Results:

Duke

1 vote (25%)

Memphis

0 votes (0%)

UCONN

1 vote (25%)

Villinova

0 votes (0%)

The winner will not be a #1 seeded team

2 votes (50%)

Poll for the week of March 6th - March 12th
Question: (Alright, I should have had this question up last week, so try to be honest) Which film did you think would win best picture?
Results:

Brokeback Mountain

4 votes (66.7%)

Capote

0 votes (0%)

Crash

1 vote (16.7%)

Goodnight, and Good Luck

1 vote (16.7%)

Munich

0 votes (0%)

So much out there...

The Juice is loose!

Busted: Barry Bonds! Doping, cheating, lying, juicing, raging, it's all there! Two books will be released shortly detailing Bond's multi-steroid binge during the past 5 years. What do I have to say? It's about time! I'd rather lose with honest players than win with cheaters (Yes, that's aimed at you Baltimore (Palmiero), New York (Giambi), San Francisco (Bonds), Chicago (Sosa), St. Louis (MacGuire) to name a few).

And yet, there are still those enamored with Bonds. One San Francisco sports writer said, "If Bonds took steroids, not to stay healthy and competitive, but because he was jealous of Mark MacGuire, then he is very very close to losing my [Hall of Fame] vote." So, this writer is saying that if Bonds willingly (and rampantly) cheated and took illegal performance enhancing drugs, not just to win and cheat but because of jealousy, then he might lose his vote! MIGHT! What are sports coming to?!

(Oh yeah, and he's on tape admitting that he hasn't reported all of his income to the IRS.)

Bottom line: Kick him out and strip him of his records.

"Crash" lands on Oscar and breaks "Mountain"'s back!

I am still picking my jaw up off the ground after hearing the words, "And the Oscar goes to 'Crash'." But what does it mean? Well, I was incredibly happy that this romance movie was not handed the top Oscar simply because of it's subject matter. But the question remains: with so many in Hollywood loudly praising this movie, how is it that it didn't win?

There are some theories, feel free to select your favorite:
1) Crash was simply a better movie. I cannot speak to this as I have not seen either of them. This seems the most likely reason, though.
2) There was a backlash in the non-vocal Academy members who thought that "Mountain" didn't deserve the award. Instead of voting for their favorite, they voted for the one movie that had a chance of ousting the favorite.
3) When their name and face was attached to their comments, Hollywood insiders feared the wrath of those pushing a homosexual agenda if they openly criticized "Brokeback." Or at the very least, didn't praise it. However, Academy voting is anonymous and they were free to vote for the movie they thought deserved the Oscar without worrying that they might have to "face the music" from those using the movie to forward their agenda.

No matter what the reason, the real question that we have to be asking is, "Should a movie win Best Picture over an equally viable film simply because of it's message?" Or the flip side, "Should it not win due to what it has to say?" We've seen movies that didn't deserve it win because they broke monetary records (Titanic), or because the actor/director/producer/genre should have won the year before (Return of the King).

My opinion? Yeah, you can't remove the message from a movie. It should be weighed just as heavily as the acting, writing, editing, cinematography, etc. If the movie's message is objectionable to me, and there is a technically comparable movie with a less objectionable (Or a more favorable) message, I'd be more likely to vote for the latter movie.

In cases where I'd be allowed to vote, I hope that I'd have seen all of the films. In this case, I could only vote for Munich as it's the only Best Picture nominee I've seen.

But all of this is just my opinion.

Things not to say:

The following are things that were actually said by people when they really should have known better!

"Knowing my nephew, it seems a bit... out of character." - The aunt of Darryl Littlejohn. Littlejohn is the current suspect in the Imette St. Guillen case.

Now, I'm not one to convict someone before their tried, and I'm not saying Littlejohn is guilty. However, it has been announced from the rooftops that this guy has a rap sheet three city blocks long and has had as many aliases as John Williams has Oscar nominations and basically isn't the nicest man you'll ever meet. "Out of character?" Murder isn't his MO? He's more a drug pusher? Smash and grab? If you want to defend your nephew you say something like: "I know he's been in trouble before, but he's no murderer." *snicker* Out of character... *snicker*

"We make them answer the tough questions, the questions they don't want to answer." - FOX 25 Investigative Reporter Mike Beaudet (is he the Motel 6 guy who leaves the light on?)

Please! Alright, you may ask the tough questions, but everyone knows no one answers them! Come on, we've all seen it. Beaudet is walking stride for stride with someone whose face is fuzzed out with the shakey camera running next to them with a microphone shoved in fuzzy-face's ... uh ... face. Investigative reporters so rarely get quotes from the people they are attempting to bash, and they hardly ever get actual answers.

"Because a Democratic Nation is a peaceful nation." - President Bush in Pakistan.

Pardon? Ok, putting aside the fact that Democracy can be pretty divisive (See 2004, 2000, 1972, 1864, 1860, 1792), I can think of no other more warring nation that has a secure government than the United States. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Sarajevo, Vietnam, Korea, etc, etc, etc... Seems to me that a Democratic Nation is a warring nation in an effort to preserve and spread Democratic ideals. How did that line get past the brain trust that surrounds the President?

So, watch what you say, or you may end up on "Just My Opinion!"

Presidential Scandal

Breaking News: There is now video evidence that President Bush knew there was a massive hurricane heading for New Orleans and yet he did nothing to stop it!

Yeah, that's about as ridiculous as some of the things I've heard about this stupid video. The video is a briefing that the President received 24 hours before Katrina hit. Critics are saying that this proves that the President had "full awareness" of the severity of the storm, that the White House knew the levies wouldn't hold, and yet they did nothing.

Funny, my research shows that the President declared Louisiana a state of emergency on August 26th, a full three days before the hurricane hit, and asked the local authorities to evacuate their respective locations. (Not to say that the local authorities weren't paying much attention, but on the 27th, Gov. Blanco asked the President to declare Louisiana a state of emergency. Psst! He already did!) Mayor Nagin didn't call for an evacuation until late on the 27th, though FEMA had sent over 100 buses to buffer the 400 the city already had, and he didn't make it mandatory until 9AM on the 28th. The storm would hit 5 hours later.

On the video, the national weather service can be clearly heard saying, "No one can say with any confedence whether the levees will be topped." This is very different than saying "No one can say with any confedence whether the levees will hold." The first expects them to hold, the latter does not. Nearly all of the news outlets that I've heard regarding this video have been saying that Bush was told the levees would fail. If you were told that no one can say with any confedence that the levees will be topped. What would you think?

Another major criticism of the President regarding this video is that the President didn't ask any questions. Are we grasping at straws here? Anybody else think that, if the video showed the President asking questions, the news stations would have said something like "Woefully unprepared a mere 24 hours before Katrina hits, the President can be seen here asking a myriad of questions, trying to bring the White House up to speed." He didn't need to ask questions. He'd declared Louisiana and Mississippi states of emergency already. He'd been briefed on the storm for the last week.

Do not misread this post (this is mostly for you Doctor, I'm trying to be clear here): The Federal government failed. The local governments failed. "Fault" can be sprinkled from Nagen to Blanco to Brown (FEMA) to Bush to The Sierra Club to the courts who didn't allow the reinforcement of the levees. This was a disaster and this post is not intended to defend the Federal government. I am railing against the news agencies who seem to think there is a story in this video, and the "we'll-do-anything-to-find-fault-solely-with-the-party-in-power" people who are loving this non-story.

I think the news should be 1/2 hour daily. The full hour news programs and 24 hour news stations are causing producers to call non-news worthy events "news-worthy" and "indepth analysis" (A.K.A. speculation) has become a common annoyance. When you've only got a half hour, you have to make time for what's important instead of filling time with what isn't.

But that's all just my opinion.