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.