I'm not sure why the supposition is that I am hiding my current political leanings. When have I ever been known to not disclose my political views?! The largest reason I've not indulged your queries as of yet is my limited posting time. This, of course, is only one reason why I've not informed my readers of my candidate du jour. A secondary reason is that if I had a candidate du jour, he'd be just that "du jour" (of the day) and he'd change from day to day and week to week. Unfortunately, this year, I am one of the people that political campaigns are aimed at: The Undecided Voter
(For those of you savvy enough to read between the lines will discover one candidate that I will not be voting for: Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Because Condi Rice is not running, if I had a candidate, I can guarantee, that candidate would be a "he.")
This is "The Voting Booth Volume I" because I completely expect my views to change as time goes on. (Look for further volumes in the future.) For volume I, here's what I'll do: I'll list each Candidate and give my current regarding them as they currently stand:
Dennis Kucinich : I'm sorry, I cannot vote for a man who has a campaign platform that states that all Americans should be required to learn Spanish. How can he campaign on this when he wouldn't even require all immigrants to learn English?! Exactly whose vote is he hoping this campaign talking point will win? This is just one of the several places where I truly believe Kucinich to be a bit nutty. Definitely not Dennis.
Obama: I'm not sure I understand his plans for winning the White House. Especially with his assertion that is military plan is to pull all of the troops out of Iraq and then turn around and send them into Iran! Maybe this is something you say once you've won your primary, but the leftist commie peaceniks aren't going to vote for you if they believe that more Americans will be dying on Vietnamese soil! Sorry, we tried that once and it didn't work too well! Find another way to look tough on terrorism. Just like you look tough on the unborn Americans! No partial birth abortion ban for you! Heck, why not just say that as long as the umbilical cord hasn't been cut we can kill them willy nilly. "Well, Ms. Campbell, I'm about to cut the cord, or should I move the scalpel up a few inches and cut the throat instead?" Sorry Barack, try finishing a term in Congress before running for the White House next time.
Hillary: I've issue with the chameleon. How can I trust someone who speaks with a different accent depending on who she's talking to? Of course, this is just the first of a laundry list of issues I take with Mrs. Clinton. How about how the first lady used to be the loudest megaphone for healthcare reform. Now that she's in Congress, she never mentions it. Could that be because she's second on the list of politicians who receive the most money from the Pharmaceutical and Health Care companies? Lobbyists already own her. Not to mention that her political ambitions have never been hidden. She's had her target on 1600 PA AVE ever since she left (and I'm gonna guess that it's not because of the China set she left behind). How NY was dumb enough to elect her in the first place I'll never know. I'm not blinded to her blind ambition and, frankly, it frightens me.
Edwards: Why wouldn't I vote for a man named John Edwards? He and I share the same view of Gay Marriage, (That's about it though), but if I were to vote for a democrat, this is the one. Too bad he's third in the polls. Get those bumper stickers ready with Edwards on the second line. Get out of the way! Beep Beep, he's running for V P!
Rudy: "America's Mayor" only has a chance because of 9/11. As a libertarian, I have to be wary of a "Republican" who served several terms as NYC's Mayor! I'm grateful for what he did in September 2001. When the Federal Government was hiding in bunkers, he was on the front lines. That, however, doesn't make him qualified to be President. I know the crime rate went down while he was in office, but I need more than that. Without knowing more I'll have to say, sorry, Rudy, you may have to stick with Notre Dame.
McCain: Because he McCan! Here's somebody that nobody owns (which is why he would never win) His seat might as well be right in the middle of the aisle! He so rarely votes with the party line that his party doesn't want him and the other party won't take him. Former P-O-W turned to political W-O-W! Yes, I'd vote for McCain.
Mitt : Here's another Republican elected in the Democratic heartland! And what did he do? Well, nothing fantastic socially, however, he was able to get MA out of a huge budget deficit and I'm all for that! I'd have liked to have seen him run again rather than leaving the state to Duval Patrick who refuses to allow the people he appoints to have background checks done on them. Anyway, for purely financial reasons, I'd vote for Romey, but I don't think the nation would elect a Mormon, man of faith or not.
Others: To be honest, I've had difficulty learning what I have about the candidates that everyone knows about. I know that Tommy Thompson recently backed out (uh, yeah, we'll miss him) Is Sharpton running this year? (what the heck does he do, anyway!?)
If the election were held today, I suppose I'd vote for McCain. Ask me tomorrow, it'll probably have changed. Please feel free to let me know your favorite things about your favorite candidates. Try as I may, I've had great difficulty finding actual substance about most of these people. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, most American's don't vote based on the issues anyway. One of my friends recently told me they were going to vote for Hillary because they thought Bill was "sexy." There you have it: The President of the United States elected because "Jon Bon Jovi told me to!"
Well, there you have Just My Opinion as of right now. Visit again once the candidates have been whittled down a bit more and I'll have more to say.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Bonds: Not too sporting
Faithful readers, I have heard your wishes and I now respond. I'd first like to congratulate Major League Baseball's career home run hitting king: Hank Aaron! I'm somewhat surprised that I was expected to have reacted immediately to the Barry "Big Noggin"'s surpassing his God-father on the all time HR list. Why would I bother to commemorate a non-event? Someone can break the land speed record for a person on a bike, but if he does it with a rocket attached to his Huffy does anyone really care? I suppose my only quandary regarding Barry Bonds is this: Why did anyone pitch to him? Do you really want to be the pitcher who gave up #756? I think so! It is my contention that the pitcher who threw the 756th wanted to go into the record books as well and knew that this was one of the only ways to get there. No one will remember who pitched 755, but 756? That'll be in Trivial Pursuit Genus XXIX! I submit the following: Ben Johnson (Canada) set both a World and Olympic record and won a gold metal - all of which were later revoked when he tested positive for steroids. It's they if he never ran. There was a marathon runner in the 1920s who also set a World and Olympic record until his picture appeared in the paper. Turns out he'd hitched a ride with a motorist who came forward to denounce the cheater. There was no test for him to fail, yet his record was also expunged. Why then, do we celebrate this Bonds? This man who has testified that he not only knowingly took steroids but also took a masking agent to hide that fact. This man who has had countless people denounce him as a cheater, some of whom face jail time for leaking grand jury testimony! Why should his "record" stand? It should not. There should be no asterisk and there should be no "record." The only man Hank Aaron has to be concerned with is the mitt-slappin' A-Rod. 31 years old, averaging 50 HR/year, just passed 500 HRs. "I-Got-It" A-Rod will hold the top spot by the time he's 37. And here is the difference between A-Rod and Bonds. Few deny that A-Rod cheats, but his cheating is for a moment. Yes, he slapped Bronson's glove, yes he called for a pop up while he was running the bases but he doesn't cheat every time he steps to the plate. He doesn't cheat every time he walks onto the field, he hasn't cheated non stop for the past 6 years. In essence, his cheating is far more tolerable than Barry's. But here is the real kicker: The lucky man who caught #756, the random man who suffered a bloody nose for his prize, the "everyman" who had to be escorted from the stadium under police protection, must pay taxes on his acquisition as though it were income! I am not making this up. He will have to pay the federal government taxes on the value of the ball which is estimated at $600,000! Does this whole situation make anyone else wanna puke? I'm just glad it's over.
Speaking of baseball, I think it's time for the equation that determines which pitcher earns and win and which one a loss to be changed! In 2003, Tim Wakefield pitched a 1 hit complete game against the Yankees. The one hit was a home run by Jason Giambi that barely squeaked over the short porch. He lost 1-0 and got the L. Completely undeserved! In 2005, Keith Foulke blew a two run lead in the top of the ninth as the Blue Jays came back to tie the game. The Red Sox scored in the bottom of the inning and Keith, though he earned a blown save, got a W by his name, also completely undeserved. Even though I was livid when he said it, I think Pedro was correct when, after a 2-0 complete game loss, he said, "Tomorrow the papers will say that Pedro lost. But Pedro did not lose. Pedro pitched a game his team should have won." (How's that contract looking now, Mudflaps?) Here is what I suggest: If a starting pitcher allows two runs or fewer he should be ineligible for the L. The worst that he should receive is a no decision regardless of the outcome. It's not his fault if his team can't score (especially in the AL). Furthermore, a starter should not be required to go five innings in order to be eligible for the W if he can get the L as soon as he throws a pitch or a reliever can come in for a third of an inning and get the W! If a reliever blows a hold or a save and his team comes back to win he should be ineligible for the W. Finally, all of these revisions require one major change in philosophy in the recording of the Ws and Ls of each game: It will have to be ok if some games don't have a winning pitcher or a losing pitcher! For all of the cabermetrics that Billy Beanites love, why doesn't anyone but me care about this completely misleading stat?
I turned on the TV tonight and was astonished to see on FOX the following across the top of the screen: "IND 3 DAL 3" As my Yankee friend would say, "Hip hip Jorge!" Football has arrived! It made the fact that it wasn't quite as bright out when I left work today nearly bearable. After settling down and watching about four minutes of this preseason exhibition game I realized that watching 11 scrubs go three-and-out is not my idea of a good time. Bring on the real thing!
Well, you asked for it. Request sports and you'll get nothing but! Now that you've read JMO, what's yours?
Speaking of baseball, I think it's time for the equation that determines which pitcher earns and win and which one a loss to be changed! In 2003, Tim Wakefield pitched a 1 hit complete game against the Yankees. The one hit was a home run by Jason Giambi that barely squeaked over the short porch. He lost 1-0 and got the L. Completely undeserved! In 2005, Keith Foulke blew a two run lead in the top of the ninth as the Blue Jays came back to tie the game. The Red Sox scored in the bottom of the inning and Keith, though he earned a blown save, got a W by his name, also completely undeserved. Even though I was livid when he said it, I think Pedro was correct when, after a 2-0 complete game loss, he said, "Tomorrow the papers will say that Pedro lost. But Pedro did not lose. Pedro pitched a game his team should have won." (How's that contract looking now, Mudflaps?) Here is what I suggest: If a starting pitcher allows two runs or fewer he should be ineligible for the L. The worst that he should receive is a no decision regardless of the outcome. It's not his fault if his team can't score (especially in the AL). Furthermore, a starter should not be required to go five innings in order to be eligible for the W if he can get the L as soon as he throws a pitch or a reliever can come in for a third of an inning and get the W! If a reliever blows a hold or a save and his team comes back to win he should be ineligible for the W. Finally, all of these revisions require one major change in philosophy in the recording of the Ws and Ls of each game: It will have to be ok if some games don't have a winning pitcher or a losing pitcher! For all of the cabermetrics that Billy Beanites love, why doesn't anyone but me care about this completely misleading stat?
I turned on the TV tonight and was astonished to see on FOX the following across the top of the screen: "IND 3 DAL 3" As my Yankee friend would say, "Hip hip Jorge!" Football has arrived! It made the fact that it wasn't quite as bright out when I left work today nearly bearable. After settling down and watching about four minutes of this preseason exhibition game I realized that watching 11 scrubs go three-and-out is not my idea of a good time. Bring on the real thing!
Well, you asked for it. Request sports and you'll get nothing but! Now that you've read JMO, what's yours?
Friday, August 03, 2007
Censoring Handy Religion
A new month: a new post (or so it seems). Let's just get right to it:
The Boston Red Sox have an 8 game lead and Eric Gagne! Do you hear me complaining? I think not! Especially seeing as Gagne has agreed to be a set up man! So, now the BoSox have three closers pitching one after another: Okajima in the seventh, Gagne in the eighth, Papelbon in the ninth. Have fun everybody! Bonds still sits at 753 and A-Rod at 499, Clemens gave up 8 runs in the second inning, the Sox have added a game to their lead in August, and Randy Moss is at training camp though currently day to day with a "leg injury." (Belichick just loves leg injuries!) All is right in the world of sports!
Can someone explain to my why the New York Yankees who have a line up with Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Posada yet a bullpen that has given up more leads than that of the 2005 Kansas City Royals would trade their only every day reliever for another power bat?! I'm stymied! Buh Bye Proctor, hello Betimit. Buh Bye October, hello golf course!
I realized the other day that I probably haven't ever posted anything that would cause my blog to be censored in China. I thought that was a shame, so here are the top five reasons China should become a republic:
5) What are you afraid of? Do you think the communist party won't win the election?
4) It's done nothing but unite the people of the US
3) One sixth of the world's population can't all be wrong
2) It would be unbearably entertaining to hear American news anchors attempt to pronounce the names of all of the candidates
1) Hilary would have one less country to point to as an example of why her political platforms would be successful
There you go, Reds: Censor away!
The other day in a DVD store, due to a miscommunication with my friend Aquinas, the concept for a new movie popped into my head. Pygmalion vs Predator I can picture it now: (in an uppity British accent) "No no no! A prroperr predatorr rrolls his "r"s when he is announcing whom he will devourr!" "Yes, they met a vile and disgusting death, but he was exceedingly polite during the entire endeavor." "I do believe I am the victorious party in regards to our wager: The Predator is now an absolute gentleman of an extra terrestrial as he mutilates humans for no apparent reason." (Please send me any royalty checks if you choose to advance my concept any further, thank you.)
I recently saw a computer generated children's program called "Handy Manny." It is a Disney show starring a Hispanic handyman named Manuel who has talking tools (also Hispanic) that help him fix things. Harmless, right? Consider the following: There is another main character, a very very white neighbor who doesn't like Manny because the neighbor always wants to do his own handyman jobs. He always fails (and looks like an idiot in the process.) "But that's just one character," you say? Every single person that Manny helps was white. In fact, there was not another minority character in the entire show. Not even the people wandering around in the background on the street. Once Manny is called to a job, his tools hop out of his belt and do all the work while Manny is the one who gets paid. There is no veiled message about how we need "guest workers," right? It's not suggesting that Manny is a legal immigrant getting work for his illegal friends that he's hiding in his crew, right? If I'm so far off base, please supply your speculations as to why every tool is also Hispanic. And why Di(versity)sney suddenly doesn't have an African American, Asian, Inuit or Handicapped person represented in this innocent program. Oh, and did I mention that their oft repeated little song is "we can fix it together"? Need I say more?
And finally, the ever present political commentary: Have you heard? The left has fooouuuund the LORD! Hallelujah! The political party that once asked how it was Constitutional for the government to deal in a close partnership with faith based organizations is now broadcasting just how spiritual they really are! Why this sudden new-found faith? Why now? Because President George W. Bush (#1 on the left's "most hated" list) has served two terms thanks to the blind, one issue voting of the Religious Right (not to be confused with the blind, one issue voting of the Green party or the gay activists). Are we witnessing a revival in the Democratic party? Is the Lord coming down from the stratosphere? Or is the left conjuring up a strategy? If Ms Clinton is so very religious, why is she only declaring it now, after 18 years in the national public eye? How can Mr Obama be a committed believer and not only vote against a partial birth abortion ban but attempt to justify it in the process? Perhaps Mr Edwards is the only one not putting on a new face for this campaign. When interviewed by TIME Magazine he was the only one who didn't select "Amazing Grace" as his favorite hymn. Honestly, the actual action doesn't bother me. Both political parties pull out all of the stops in an effort to steal votes from the other's main base. What saddens me is that I can foresee a large portion of the American public not seeing this for the farce that it is. It is not a change in lifestyle, it is simply a change in strategy.
Have I ruffled a few feathers? Sound off in the comments! But never forget, after all, it's all just my opinion.
The Boston Red Sox have an 8 game lead and Eric Gagne! Do you hear me complaining? I think not! Especially seeing as Gagne has agreed to be a set up man! So, now the BoSox have three closers pitching one after another: Okajima in the seventh, Gagne in the eighth, Papelbon in the ninth. Have fun everybody! Bonds still sits at 753 and A-Rod at 499, Clemens gave up 8 runs in the second inning, the Sox have added a game to their lead in August, and Randy Moss is at training camp though currently day to day with a "leg injury." (Belichick just loves leg injuries!) All is right in the world of sports!
Can someone explain to my why the New York Yankees who have a line up with Damon, Jeter, Abreu, Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, and Posada yet a bullpen that has given up more leads than that of the 2005 Kansas City Royals would trade their only every day reliever for another power bat?! I'm stymied! Buh Bye Proctor, hello Betimit. Buh Bye October, hello golf course!
I realized the other day that I probably haven't ever posted anything that would cause my blog to be censored in China. I thought that was a shame, so here are the top five reasons China should become a republic:
5) What are you afraid of? Do you think the communist party won't win the election?
4) It's done nothing but unite the people of the US
3) One sixth of the world's population can't all be wrong
2) It would be unbearably entertaining to hear American news anchors attempt to pronounce the names of all of the candidates
1) Hilary would have one less country to point to as an example of why her political platforms would be successful
There you go, Reds: Censor away!
The other day in a DVD store, due to a miscommunication with my friend Aquinas, the concept for a new movie popped into my head. Pygmalion vs Predator I can picture it now: (in an uppity British accent) "No no no! A prroperr predatorr rrolls his "r"s when he is announcing whom he will devourr!" "Yes, they met a vile and disgusting death, but he was exceedingly polite during the entire endeavor." "I do believe I am the victorious party in regards to our wager: The Predator is now an absolute gentleman of an extra terrestrial as he mutilates humans for no apparent reason." (Please send me any royalty checks if you choose to advance my concept any further, thank you.)
I recently saw a computer generated children's program called "Handy Manny." It is a Disney show starring a Hispanic handyman named Manuel who has talking tools (also Hispanic) that help him fix things. Harmless, right? Consider the following: There is another main character, a very very white neighbor who doesn't like Manny because the neighbor always wants to do his own handyman jobs. He always fails (and looks like an idiot in the process.) "But that's just one character," you say? Every single person that Manny helps was white. In fact, there was not another minority character in the entire show. Not even the people wandering around in the background on the street. Once Manny is called to a job, his tools hop out of his belt and do all the work while Manny is the one who gets paid. There is no veiled message about how we need "guest workers," right? It's not suggesting that Manny is a legal immigrant getting work for his illegal friends that he's hiding in his crew, right? If I'm so far off base, please supply your speculations as to why every tool is also Hispanic. And why Di(versity)sney suddenly doesn't have an African American, Asian, Inuit or Handicapped person represented in this innocent program. Oh, and did I mention that their oft repeated little song is "we can fix it together"? Need I say more?
And finally, the ever present political commentary: Have you heard? The left has fooouuuund the LORD! Hallelujah! The political party that once asked how it was Constitutional for the government to deal in a close partnership with faith based organizations is now broadcasting just how spiritual they really are! Why this sudden new-found faith? Why now? Because President George W. Bush (#1 on the left's "most hated" list) has served two terms thanks to the blind, one issue voting of the Religious Right (not to be confused with the blind, one issue voting of the Green party or the gay activists). Are we witnessing a revival in the Democratic party? Is the Lord coming down from the stratosphere? Or is the left conjuring up a strategy? If Ms Clinton is so very religious, why is she only declaring it now, after 18 years in the national public eye? How can Mr Obama be a committed believer and not only vote against a partial birth abortion ban but attempt to justify it in the process? Perhaps Mr Edwards is the only one not putting on a new face for this campaign. When interviewed by TIME Magazine he was the only one who didn't select "Amazing Grace" as his favorite hymn. Honestly, the actual action doesn't bother me. Both political parties pull out all of the stops in an effort to steal votes from the other's main base. What saddens me is that I can foresee a large portion of the American public not seeing this for the farce that it is. It is not a change in lifestyle, it is simply a change in strategy.
Have I ruffled a few feathers? Sound off in the comments! But never forget, after all, it's all just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)