Non-Sports!

Ok, I've taken some time to post about non-sports things. Even though the Mitchel report is out (listing 83 MLB Players who have taken performance enhancing drugs) I'm going to stick to purely non-sports material. Here's the table of contents: The Writer's Strike, I Am Legend, Politics, ending with I'm not making this up

Writer's Strike: I think this is ridiculous! I really don't think the leaders of the Writer's Union thought this one out. I've been attempting to hold my tongue on this situation, but it's gone on too long for me to keep quiet any longer. First question: Why would the studios give in? What do they have to lose? Reality TV is just as big as it ever was with new shows debuting daily! (Clash of the Choirs, Crowned: the mother of all pageants, and The Next Great American Band to name a few) Let's not forget the barrage of game shows that are invading our homes! (Duel, Don't forget the lyrics, Singing Bee, and that true-or-no-money show) All this strike is doing is forcing the studios and producers to invent newer and dumber ways to make shows that don't require writers. The TV stations are running repeats and garnering about 80% of their regular audience so it's not hurting them too badly. Second question: What are they striking for? Internet and on demand airings of their show! They want to be paid for each one! How does this make any sense? I can log onto NBC.com and view an episode of the Office for free, so where do the writers think the studios are going to get the money to pay them for the viewing? Are they going to start charging for each access? Guess what, they're gonna have a lot fewer people accessing their shows! As I expected certain writers are "making deals" with their individual shows so they can start making some money again. This strike will have no effect on how this new medium is handled. And if the writers truly wanted to make a point, their signs should have been blank.

Movie review I Am Legend: I'd like to begin by saying that I'm glad I learned a few more details about this movie before I actually saw it. Had I not been alerted to this massive portion of the story I'd have felt completely misled, duped, and hoodwinked. The previews in absolutely no way inform the potential audience member what this movie is about. All we know is that it's Cast Away in New York City where the part of Tom Hanks is played by Will Smith and the part of Wilson is played by a dog. I Am Legend is actually supposed to be a suspenseful scary movie. But, like most modern scary films, every scare was cheap, with a sudden visual and loud noise. There were no clever reveals, no dramatic irony, no intelligent scary moments. I shouldn't expect anything more from a director whose only made music videos and the Keanu Reeves film Constantine. Before I begin with the spoilers, if you don't mind not actually knowing what a movie is about and enjoy stories that are too slow at times and don't take full advantage of each opportunity, then go see I Am Legend. Otherwise, wait for the DVD. OK CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILERS. Here's what I'm SO glad I found out: This is a Vampire movie! You read that correctly! The cure for cancer causes a sickness that becomes airborne and kills 95% of humanity. Of those that survive, 1% were immune, the other 4% illicit symptoms that resemble vampires: high susceptibility to UV light, aggression, hunger for blood. Will Smith was immune and is attempting to discover a cure. While the previews are misleading, the direction lacking, and the story contrived, the message is somewhat redeeming. If I so desired, I could uncover several Christian themes. There is a disease that seems to effect all of mankind. It takes one who is immune to it to spill his own blood to rescue everyone. Also, there was some discussion regarding God's hand in the catastrophe. The most memorable line referencing that is Will's when he says, "God didn't do this, we did this." True regarding sin as well. Lots of CGI, some philosophical moments, decent acting in the confines of a disappointing story. 2 stars out of 5. I say catch a matinee or wait for the DVD, don't drop a Hamilton on this one.

Politics: Joe Lieberman (D) just endorsed John McCain (R) for president. He didn't endorse a fellow Democrat, he didn't even endorse his Connecticut comrade Christopher Dodd (D)! Is the Democratic party leaving their moderate members in the dust? If McCain doesn't win the nomination, will Lieberman return to his side of the aisle and endorse the Blue State candidate? I hope not. Perhaps this is just payback for the Democratic party supporting his opponent as he ran for re-election. Lieberman lost in the primaries and was forced to run as an independent. When he won, he promptly changed back to the Democratic party so they'd retain their narrow margin in the Senate. Looks like someone hasn't forgotten... I love politics, it's so much like junior high it makes my face break out.

I'm not making this up: A doctor in NY who donated sperm to a lesbian colleague, so that she and her partner could have children, has been ordered to pay child support. Did I mention the boy is now 18 and headed off to college? The doctor admits that for the first few years of the boy's life he sent gifts and cards signing them "Dad." However, before he was a teenager, the boy's moms took him out of state. Since the move, the doctor has spoken to him about once every other year on the phone and has not sent any gifts or cards. This is nothing more than a despicable attempt to legally extort money from a man who did something he thought was a good deed. If you truly needed the money, why didn't you take this action 15 years ago? Why did you wait until at least 7 years after he stopped sending the cards? Is he taking the position away from someone else? There are two women raising this boy, is one of them his dad? What judge thought this was a good idea?! There are two lessons in this: 1) Always get it in writing! It was agreed verbally that the doctor would have no responcibility in raising the child, but he has no proof of that. 2) I have to agree with the doctor's lawyer when she said, "I guess it's true, no good deed goes unpunished!" (The articles that I've read list only one woman, I wonder where the other one is...) Just in case you are wondering, this isn't the only account of such preseedings. A court in Washington ruled that a donor is not liable for child support unless they signed something accepting some sort of responcibility. However, a court in Pennsylvania ruled that a man was responsible finacially because he purchase a gift for the child born due to his donation. And the situation that is most infuriating is that of a lesbian couple in the UK. They had a child with a donor, then they separated. Now the woman who has custody of the child is seeking child payments from the donor. Not the woman who had agreed to be a parent to this child, no no, that would make too much sense! Do we see the messes we create when we try to play god?

Any thoughts from my readers? Feel free to disagree, after all, these are just my opinion.