2008 NFL Preview

Don't worry, I'm not expecting to do a weekly power ranking this year but I can't avoid doing a preseason prediction post!

Let's get right into it!

Preseason Power Ranking:

10) Cleveland (last ranking last year 9)

Moderate success last year. 1 win from a playoff spot. Can Anderson the wonderboy get you to the post season this year? It'd have to be a wild card place.

9) Philadelphia (off)

As long as you have Westbrook and your D, you're dangerous. Wild Card? Maybe.

8) Minnesota (6)

You don't need a quarterback when you have Adrian and that O-line. I'm expecting a playoff berth this year!

7) Green Bay (2)

No Favre? No problem. (Ok, I only wrote that because it was catchy.) Slight problem, but Aaron Rogers has been under the tutelage of the master for years. Young receivers + young QB = a "We-don't-know-we-shouldn't-win" mentality.

6) Pittsburgh (8)

I think you're feeling the pressure of Cleveland and you'll step it up a notch. But since Big Ben's injury, you're not among the elite.

5) Jacksonville (5)

This team is built to defeat Indy. But they can't seem to. It does make them useful at defeating other teams though.

4) Indianapolis (4)

Manning's injured. 'Nuff said.

3) San Diego (7)

Merriman is hurt, could be out for the season, but the Chargers are always dangerous.

2) Dallas (3)

Romo grows another year wiser. Dallas gets better in the off season. Maybe they'll actually win a post season game this time.

1) New England (1)

If they went 15-1 and lost the Super Bowl they'd be in first. Why would 18-1 and losing the Superbowl be any different? The loss to NY was a blip on the radar. They're still gonna continue their winning ways.

Off) New York Giants (10)

This is not spite. Osi's down, Strahan's out, Coughlin's still coaching, Manning's still throwing. They will not make the playoffs.

So, am I right? Am I wrong? Where's your team? (Sorry Jason, look at the Giant's schedule. You just might agree with me.)

Sound off in the comments!

Voting Booth, Volume VIII

Warning: This is a slam on the Democratic party. Perhaps I should have let some time pass before writing this, but I am too annoyed by what I just watched.

I was going to wait for the GOP to have their convention so I could (most likely) rail on both parties for the practice that has thrust me into anger and rage.

I love the political process. I love two people saying the same thing in different ways and people deciding that one is right and one is wrong just because of the letter by their name. "That ball is red (D)" "That's a red ball (R)" Well, clearly the former is correct because the ball could change colors so right now it's red but the ball is the most important part, not the color. Obviously the latter is correct. It differentiates it from the other balls. That's the red ball. If it gets changed to blue, then we'll talk about the former. It's hysterical.

Sidenote: During Hillary's speech she said that "we need to take back America." From whom? From Bush and Cheney and the Republicans? Funny thing, last time I checked they won the election which means that more Americans voted for them than for the other candidate... which means what you've really said is that we need to take back America from the majority of Americans. Yup, that sounds like the Democratic party. (Oh, and if Hillary really meant what she said in supporting Barack, it means that she'll never be president. You don't run against the incumbent from your party and she'll be in her 60's in eight years which, according to Democrats, is too old to be President) End Sidenote.

That having been said, what I cannot abide is what I have seen every time I've tuned into the DNC (And what I expect to see when I watch portions of the RNC). I apologize, for this post I have to discuss only the Dems because they are the only ones who have spoken nationally on such a stage as their National Convention.

They claim that the Right are fear mongers, and yet all they do is claim that the Republican agenda is the destruction of America! Do they ever say it outright? Practically.

Their speech is reminiscent of war time rhetoric. "The future of our country depends on Barack Obama." "It's for the children." "This is a fight we must win!" Why? Why is this a must win? For either party?

Time and time again, the speaker talks about the things that need to happen in the country: Jobs must be created. The country must be protected. The environment must not be destroyed. Clean energy must be utilized. And Barack Obama is the only candidate who will accomplish this and the Democrats are the only party who will fulfill these goals. That if one were to vote for the other party it would amount to treason.

Here is a direct example. Obama said "Government cannot solve all of our problems. But it should provide us with clean toys, safe water, roads, new technology. It should be for us, not against. Help us, not hurt us. Ensure opportunity not just for those with money and power, but for all. It should protect American jobs and workers." By saying this, he is shamelessly implying that McCain doesn't believe these things and will not do them.

As I type this, Obama is giving his acceptance speech, and I must respond to these statements lest I explode!

Let me first say that I respected Barack before this speech. All of the tactics that I'd been ranting about above had come from other Democrats. Obama had yet to play this game. He talks a lot about "same old politics" and then put on the jersey of the team he claims to oppose. Fear fear fear.

I am livid at all of the strawmen that the speechwriters are setting up. The DNC is not the party of the people as it likes to pretend, it is the party of the strawman. Fear this that the GOP might do, fear that that the Republicans have planned.

Here's an example: Obama said, "I have news for you McCain. We all put our country first." McCain has never implied that Obama doesn't. But now, uninformed people can do nothing but assume that he's made repeated claims to that nature.

Obama mentioned Martin Luther King Junior's "I have a dream" speech and said that the people who gathered in Washington that day could have heard any number of things. Anger. Discord. Disunity. Division from so many dreams differed or destroyed. Funny thing is: That's exactly what I heard from Obama. Discord. Anger. "Eight is enough." Implying that McCain is a Bush mini-me. I'm hoping the irony was not lost on others.

He claimed that when a candidate has "no fresh ideas, the revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from." I wonder what Obama meant to do, then when he claimed the following (each quote followed by my response):

"McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time." What does this even mean? Bush doesn't write bills, he doesn't cast a vote. Is he considering Bush's Veto as his vote? Ok, how many bills that Obama voted for has the president veto'd? If voting with Bush means voting the party line, what's Obama's record? 97%? Even when the majority of his party voted with Bush he still stubbornly stood alone as one of the few people who doesn't have to say "I voted for the war before I voted against it." When even his running mate admits "Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued" -Joe Biden

One time Obama voted against the grain of his party was when he voted to hold lobbyists more accountable. Any guesses the name of another Senator who voted for that bill, who co-authored that bill? Oh yeah, John McCain.

"In November, Bush and Cheney will ask this country for a third term." Newsflash: George W Bush is not running for President! And McCain is not a Bush clone as you'd like to paint him. Actually, you said several times that "McCain stands alone..." in his unwillingness to retreat from Iraq, in his stodgy old time political views, his "worn out ideas of politics of the past," etc. Gee, if all of these things are what we need change from and yet McCain stands alone... sounds like he must be the most powerful Senator ever!

To scare us even more, he mentioned the following "failures" of the Bush administration:

The average American salary has "gone down $2000." Of course, he fails to explain this. Not many people have actually taken a pay decrease. But when you compare wages to inflation and the rise in cost of certain expenses this is true. But what's driven this? Well, I'll list a few: Oil cost due to A)Higher global demand and B) Opec lowering supply. But we can't give the American relief by A) drilling offshore, B) releasing some of our own storehouses, or C) temporarily repealing the gas tax. These are all Republican ideas to ease this burden voted down by Democrats. There's been a sharp increase in food costs. Mostly due to the increase in cost to ship it (due to the higher oil costs) but also due to alternative fuels. Ethanol is a component in many alternative fuels. Ethanol is made from corn. This has caused corn to go through the roof. Corn is the primary food for numerous livestock, causing the cost for meat and poultry to increase as well. But we aren't going to mention those things.

"American people can't pay the mortgage," Yes, yes, it's the president's fault that irresponsible people paid more than they could afford for a house because the adjustable interest rate was just too good to pass up and because mortgage companies were too eager to give loans to people who probably couldn't pay them back. Absolutely, let's blame the president for that. Boy Obama, if you win, you better hope that nothing bad happens. It's your own track record to blame the president.

"A President who sits on his hands while an American city is drowning." Hopefully, this is the last time I'll have to mention that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana were both Democrats. If my towns school system is failing, do I go to the Governor of CT and ask why? Do I go to my town representative? Or do I go to the Superintendent? Why do the Democrats love to skip over the people who were responsible for such a smaller area and were given the means and the power to protect the people who live there? In the Roman army the Prefect was in charge of the camp. The Centurion was in charge of the Legion. And the Legionnaire was in charge of guarding 16 square feet of ground. If that Legionnaire fails, do you blame the Prefect?

Obama claimed that the policy of the Republicans is that "You are on your own," left to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps to get ahead. (Another strawman) But failed to mention that the policy of the Democrats is that you can't do it without the government. You'll be in a place where you have to rely on it. Of course, he then went on to tell stories about people who did "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and succeeded or allowed their children/grandchildren to succeed. That was just weird.

"unlike McCain I will give tax breaks for companies creating American jobs." Check your facts. McCain tried to bring this about in a bill years ago.

"I'll cut taxes for 95% of working families." Funny, I seem to remember Bush desiring across the board tax cuts. That would be 100% of working families and yet Obama voted against this. Why should I believe that he'll be cutting taxes now? Especially seeing as he wants to pay for everything for everyone:

Obama promises "Change" we cannot afford: He wants to pay for education, pay for people's mortgages, pay for healthcare, pay to create jobs, pay teachers higher salaries, but cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Where will all of the money come from? He promises to "close corporate tax loopholes." And he will go through the "Federal budget eliminating programs that don't work." Brilliant, why didn't anyone else think of that? Who's going to decide what did and didn't work? Why didn't you do this as a Senator? Do you really believe that you are going to be able to increase spending as much as you hope, and decrease taxes as much as you promise, and cover it all up by cutting a few corners in the budget and causing companies to pay more in taxes (that they are just going to pass on to their customers)? As Seth and Amy would say, "Really?"

Obama promised to "give the military the equipment they need" to carry out their missions yet several times voted against funding the war.

"John McCain is fond of saying that he'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell but won't even follow him to the cave where he lives." Barack, if you know where Bin Laden is and you've been keeping this from us so you can win an election, that's despicable. If not, how can you possibly make this stupid claim? (Anyone else find it interesting that "Obama and Biden" sounds a lot like "Osama in hiding"? Just wondering)

Misc

"you don't deter Iran by talking tough in Washington." No you do it by talking tough in Iran without requesting anything in return. Honestly...

"that's a debate I'm ready to have." Yes, we all know you've been very specific on what, when and how you will and will not debate John McCain. I know you aren't one, but it strikes of cowardice. Every one says how inspiring he is, but he shys from offer after offer to debate. Why?

In 10 years, Barack promises to "end our dependence on oil from the middle east." He pledged to dedicate $150 billion on renewable energy and that it will create 5 million jobs. Well, it better. Because if we wean ourselves off of oil it's going to end 30 million jobs. Gas station attendants, fuel truckers, oil refineries, oil heat service people, etc. Oh, and what are we supposed to do with the 9 years of oil that we have stored in our reserves? Once everything runs on renewable energy our reserves will be like having every album on cassette just in case.

Here is what Barack said that I can agree with:

"programs can't replace parents, government can't turn off the tv and make them do homework." I'm very glad to hear this. I think this is something that both parties should be focusing on. Programs that keep the government out of my living room and encourage Dad's and Parents to return to their living rooms are how we can turn this country around. You want to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies? Teach Dad's how to love their daughters. You want to have all kids have an opportunity to go to college? Teach parents how to tutor their children instead of solely relying on public education.

He also said that his desire to lead is guided by his understanding of being his "brother's keeper." I get that. But his solution to that call on his life is terribly misguided! There is too much corruption in the government to successfully carry out what he wants to do. And because it is a career, there is too much self preservation for the government to truly desire that people be free of their need of the services they provide. Barack should take his Christian beliefs (which I firmly believe he has) and bring the services he wants to provide before the universal church. Let God be glorified for what he wants to do, not Uncle Sam.

I should have cooled off before writing this, but I didn't. Frankly, I don't expect anyone to actually read this. Afterall, it's all just my current opinion.

Voting Booth, Volume VII

Joe Biden!

Joe Biden is Barack Obama's running mate!

I was so hoping that the Democrats would select Joe Biden! There is so much blog fodder I don't even know where to begin!

Joe Biden is 65 years old! So much for the "He's too old to run for office" that the Dems were attempting to hold against McCain for all it was worth. Hmm. Kinda makes all of the other "he's too old to lead" inferences null and void, too.

Joe Biden is the man who was railed on for saying, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Clearly this is a racist statement and there were many many supporters of Obama saw it the same way. I'm not hearing their outrage right now... are you?

On November 27, 2005, regarding Iraq, Joe also said, “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.” Whoops, it's gonna be hard to defend that one!

This one too: On Hussein’s WMDs Joe Biden said, “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

(Isn't this great? But wait, there's more!)

Joe Biden also said, “The more people learn about them [Obama and Hillary] and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.” But apparently, Biden's support hasn't. I guess when opportunity knocks, it doesn't much matter whose hand it's using!

On December 11, 2007, Biden's campaign said, “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate. But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Later that night Biden also said, "When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.” I'm gonna doubt they are going to change thier slogan now that Biden's on board. But I've been complaining that this entire campaign has been empty. Biden's addition doesn't change that.

(I saved the best for last)

On August 2, 2005 Joe said, “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Joe Biden also said during his campaign for his party's nomination, "I am not running for Vice President and if I were offered the position, I would refuse it." Nothing like sticking to your principles, right Joe? He has yet to attempt to glaze over this glaring inconsistency with some other substance less statement.

And finally, while running for the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden said, "Barak Obama is not ready to lead because the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Then, on October 30, 2007, Joe Biden said “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.” Sounds to me like Joe Biden would vote for McCain over Obama!

He has attempted to combat these statements by saying, "No one knows better than I do, after the last 18 months, that Barack has met his challenges with judgement and wisdom and steel in his spine. I have watched as he has inspired millions of Americans to this new cause.” No one knows better than Joe? Really? No one? I'll bet Michelle might have something to say about that. (You aren't actually a Senator from Idaho, are you Joe?) And he is so right on: I can't imagine a more important characteristic for a president than "inspiring." I guess Dr. Phil should be president. Maya Angelou as well. Don't forget Depak Chopra... These are all very inspiring people. Oh, and Joe? What challenges has Obama met with a "steel spine" in the past 18 months? The softballs from the national media? The rocketing to the top by the democratic party? The lemming like worship from the left? I'm not seeing any "challenges." Before you go, Joe, one more question: What's the "new cause?" Getting out of Iraq? Old. Nationalized healthcare? Old. Bigger government? Old. Catering to special interests? Old. I'm just not seeing it. I think the only new thing I've heard of is his desire to meet with leaders of countries who hate us with no strings attached. That's new.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that Obama promised that if you signed up to receive the text message announcement of this VP you'd be the first to know. Whoops, the story leaked and news stations were reporting it before the text message went out. Obama's camp scrambled and phones were buzzing all over the east coast at 3 am with the ever important text message. Nothing like breaking an easy promise. (What really cracks me up is the people savvy enough to want the text message probably read it and thought, "Who the heck is Joe Biden?! This must be a joke, he's supposed to pick Hillary.")

Wow. A text message to announce your choice for VP. That's what I want, a hip president. Maybe his state of the union address can be a music video.

And for all of the Biden bashing, we can't forget the infamous words spoken by Barack himself after winning the Senate seat in 2004 when asked why he'd ruled out running nationally. He answered, "I'm a firm believer in knowing what you are doing before applying for a job. If I were to run nationally, I'd have to begin right now before serving even a single day in the Senate. Some people might be comfortable with that. I am not one of those people." What happened to that Barack Obama? I don't know because he certainly isn't running for president!

The Democrats might have thought that Joe Biden would be a shot in the arm for their campaign. Looks more like he's gonna be a shot in the foot!

Oh well, this is all just my opinion anyway.

The Olympic Games

A review of the best and the worst of the games.

The Worst

I've been trying to let it go. I've been telling myself it's all in my head. I've been sure it couldn't have been happening. I've been wrong.

The Beijing Olympics should be more accurately called The Biased Olympics.

I have two beefs with these games, and both revolve around China. (Hey, here's another reason to ban my blog from China)

First of all, there is an Olympic gymnastics rule that states that one must at least turn 16 years of age in the calendar year in which the games are held. Has anyone been looking at some of those Chinese gymnasts? Well, let's just say I'd never hand them the keys to my car! There are two Chinese gymnasts that I'd say are probably 16. One of them, I thought actually looked to be about 18. I saw she was listed as 20 and thought... hmm. well, maybe. Then I learned she'd competed at the Athens games, where she had to be at least 16... Right! I get it now. If she's 18 now, she was illegal then. (Since I first wrote this draft, documents have been uncovered that show all but one of the Chinese gymnasts were underage. An investigation has been initiated.)

Why does this matter? To be honest, it wouldn't if it weren't a rule. Are there 13 year olds that are the best gymnasts from your country? Send them! Is there a rule against it? Don't send them! I think it's amazing that the most talented gymnasts from China just all happen to have been born in the same year and it just happened to be a year where they'd all be 16 in an Olympic year! I feel bad for the 17 year olds who just happened to be born in the wrong year. So, point one: The Chinese are obviously cheating.

Point two: 51 Gold. 21 Silver. 28 Bronze. Never have I seen such a lop-sided medal total. The US had 36 Gold, 38 Silver, and 36 Bronze. Note the consistency. Among other top medal receiving countries: Russia 23, 21, 28; Great Britain 19, 13, 15; Australia 14, 15, 17; and Italy 8, 10, 10. Why such a lopsided Gold count for China? My best guess is that the Chinese government has all of the judge's and referee's passports and is holding them hostage in exchange for undeserved favorable judgements. The Chinese won 64% of the judged gold medals and medaled in 78% of the judged events.

I played it off as accidental the first time, and coincidental the second. I saw a pattern at the third and outrage the fourth. It only escalated from there. Allow me to list them: Women's Team All-Around. Several times there were gymnasts who clearly out performed the Chinese and yet the Chinese had better execution scores. I'm not even talking about the final score. I get the degree of difficulty thing and how it works. That was what peaked my interest. Then I saw that men's individual All-Around. It had been predetermined which Chinese male would win as long as he didn't break himself. Well, it was all gymnastics; maybe it was centralized there.

Then I watched women's springboard diving. In diving, identical dives are often done by different competitors. A Russian woman nailed her dive: Height, position in the air, vertical upon entry... Beautiful. The Chinese "Favorite" dove next and did the same dive: Great take off, less than perfect position in the air, twisted, over-rotated, big splash, better score. Excuse me? The Chinese won 7 of the 8 diving gold medals and the only reason they didn't win all eight was the final dive for the Chinese was terrible and the Aussie nailed it. It would have been far too blatant had they still given the gold to the Chinese. Then I saw that women's individual vault: The Chinese girl who landed on her knees won a bronze over other Olympians who landed their vaults. A Russian guy on rings does something no other Olympian has done and does it perfectly and sticks his landing and doesn't even medal so that two less perfect Chinese performances can be awarded with the hardware. And then the Individual Uneven Bars event. The "no-really-I'm-16" Chinese contestant nearly missed a release, couldn't keep her feet together and couldn't stick the landing. She tied (and subsequently won due to a "tie break") over the contestant who had one perceptible error. They had the exact same degree of difficulty. Only one gave a gold medal performance and she left the arena with silver draped around her neck. Travesty. Tie breaker? Should have been unnecessary. I look at the men's vault where one competitor landed the best vault of the games. Then failed to land his second and did not medal. Note: No Chinese involved. Let's not forget that the Olympic gold for Trampoline also went to a Chinese woman. Even though the Russian out performed her.

Oh, and gymnastics is the only elitist sport that doesn't award two medals to people who tie.

As they awarded the Chinese Olympian the gold medal for the uneven bars, as an act of protest, I muted my TV. I refused to listen to the national anthem of the country that was a) cheating (the "gold medalist" was one of the obviously not-sixteen-year-old competitors) and b) winning undeserved medals.

I was very disappointed. I want the following things to happen in the Olympics:

1)Either declare that golf is not a sport or included it.
2)2012 London: Debut of Olympic Ultimate Frisbee
3)Either fix the judging or have timed (Sprinting)/target (Archery)/distance (Discus)/team point (Volleyball) events only.

The Best

Now that I've complained, allow me to praise the sailing team from Croatia. It was the 14th and final race of the men's 49er sailing competition. Denmark lead second place Spain by 11 points.

The seas were choppy and the winds fierce as the competitors made their way to the starting line. On the way out, the unthinkable happened, Denmark's mast broke in half. Unable to race, they returned to the docks. Croatia was had already been eliminated from the competition. Seeing Denmark's misfortune they offered the Danes the Croatian boat. The Danish sailors Jason Warrer and Martin Kirketerp Ibsen gratefully accepted and raced out to the starting line.

The race had already begun. There is a rule in sailing that you have to cross the starting line at no more than four minutes after the start of the race to avoid disqualification.

At 3 minute 57 seconds the Croatian boat, carrying two Danish hopefuls flew past the starting buoys. They finished the final race dead last. However, two teams failed to finish putting the Danes in 7th place. It was enough for them to hold off the surging Spanish by 3 points and Denmark took Gold.

This is my nominee for "Greatest Sportsmanship Moment of the Olympic Games." (The Spanish have since lost two appeals. The result will stand.)

I love the Olympics!

Three Years and Counting

Today is the third anniversary of the inception of "Just My Opinion." August 15, 2005 seems so very long ago! If you would like to reminisce with me, here is my first post.

And now for the real reason for this post:

55 Words

I recently read a book called "The World's Shortest Stories." They are a compilation of short stories that are only 55 words long. Can a story be told in that amount of time? Can there be setting, characters, plot, and resolution with such limited confines? Consider this: This paragraph is exactly fifty five words long.

I decided to try my hand at this fascinatingly entertaining writing exercise. Below are the five attempts that I've completed at "55 fiction." (Feel free to count, they are all 55 words long.)

A note about the rules: The title does not count in the 55 words but cannot be more than 7 words long. Hyphenated words that, when separated, are individual words are each counted as a word (older-than-dirt = 3 words). Hyphenated words that do not make two different words are one word (re-entry = 1 word). Contractions are one word (He will = 2 words, He'll = 1 word). Numbers when written numerically are one word (143 = 1 word). Numbers when spelled out are each counted as a word (One hundred forty three = 4 words). Initials are words (L.L Bean = 3 words) unless it is an acronym (NASA, AIDS, MGM = 1 word).

"Unrequited Love"

He glances in her direction and quickly looks away. Did she see him? He steals another peek. No, she'd never notice him. The bustle and noise of the street combined with her beauty make him invisible. Sighing, he rises. His coins clink softly on the table. Slowly he saunters past the Ferrari. "Someday," he thinks.

"Operator?"

Toby hated technology. He tolerated the telephone only because it was invented in the 1800s.

The traveling computer salesman whom Toby had rudely disposed of also knew of Toby's aversion.

Obtaining the eccentric millionaire's money was easy. The salesman contently glanced at the cut phone wire as Toby's bloody fingers futilely attempted to dial 911.

"Sacrifice"

The photo crumples as he crushes it to his chest. His breathing labors. He marvels that he failed to realize just how blue the sky was today. Lucy won't have to be faithful anymore. Crouching in the sand next to him, someone is trying to talk to him. On all sides the war rages on.

"Untitled"

Garish music hammered Marek's ears. This lump of metal around his neck weighed as heavy as the lump in his throat. Marek glanced at the smiling man to his left, coveting that stolen place of honor. As the banners raised, Marek marveled that one tenth of a point was the difference between gold and silver.

"The Statesman"

Jeremy bestowed his plan for world peace upon his audience. Hundreds had turned out to hear him. He simply had to convince them the he should be supreme dictator.

Unfortunately for Jeremy, nobody passing him in the park could quite decipher his mutterings and the pigeons to which he was orating weren't paying much attention.

I hope you liked them. Feel free to share your thoughts or your own 55 word stories. This post is also an invitation to join me!

Want to submit a story for consideration in their next publication? Send it to this address:

55 fiction
197 Santa Rosa St
San Louis Obispo CA 93449

(Each submission needs to be on it's own sheet of paper with your name, address, and phone number on every sheet.)

Happy writing!

Voting Booth, Volume VI

I won't vote for that candidate because she's a woman.

I won't vote for this candidate because he's black.

I won't vote for that candidate because he's old.

why is one of these statements acceptable?

Would we not label someone sexist or racist if we ever heard either of the first two statements uttered? Why, then, do we not call someone ageist if we hear the third?

We patterned our government after that of the Greeks. The Romans also patterned their (early) government after the Greeks as well. We get several words from the Romans. One word we got from them is "Authority." It's root word is the Roman word "Auctoritas." in Roman society, "Auctoritas" referred to the respect a person deserved. It was their clout among the people earned due to their age.

Their desire for "Auctoritas" and their respect for it is evident when we compare their artwork with that of a culture that revered youthfulness: The Greeks.

Here is a Greek bust:

Themistocles age 44

And here is a Roman bust:

Marius age 50

As you can see, these men would have been separated by a mere 6 years when these likenesses were carved. But look at the age lines and time-wear etched in Marius' face. Compare that to the ancient "Oil of Olay" advertisement that is Themistocles.

When did we lose this respect for the mature?

This leads me to my title for this campaign season. I have no choice but to call this the "Why?" campaign.

Why?

Whenever I see an Obama bumper-sticker or a McCain lawn sign I can't help but think: "why?" Why do you support this candidate? With all of the sound bytes that we've heard, and all of the "coverage" of these two men I know nothing more about what they stand for than I did four months ago!

Sure I make certain assumptions based on their party, but that's about where it ends.

Here is an exhaustive list of what I know about these candidates platforms:

McCain:
Stay in Iraq until we are done.
Wants to limit punitive damages to bring down health care insurance

Obama:
Wants a "withdrawal horizon" for Iraq
Favors universal government controlled healthcare
Wants to continue and expand GWB "Faith based" initiatives.

That's it. For all the "Change you can believe in," "this is our moment," "McCain Mc-Can!" that I've been hearing this is clearly a substance less race!

Anyone care to share their "Why?" Feel free!

Two reviews and a Dodger

The People have spoken. In this post you will find my review for both Jumper and Gone Baby Gone.

But first, this:

Boston: I just need to do a quick blurb about what the people "in the know" are saying about the Manny trade. Apparently (and this is all unconfirmed reports) Theo met with certain veterans on the team (assumed among them 'Tek, Lowell, Ortiz, Schill, and Wake) to discuss Manny. The word was that he had to go (hence the high cost to relieve themselves of him?). Just before the trade was finalized, it's been reported that Manny, through his agent Scott "I-like-to-think-I-rule-the-world" Boras, let the Red Sox know that he'd like to stay, promising a turn around in his attitude and effort. This just further confirmed for the Sox front office that he had been dogging it and not putting forth 100%. "No Thanks" was their reply and Manny was a Dodger. Now, here's the one piece of evidence that doesn't lay credence to that report. Manny is what's known as a 10/5 guy (Ten years in the league, five years with one team) so he has the right to veto any trade. It's not a no trade clause, but it's similar. If he wanted to stay, he could have stayed. Now on to what you really want to read about:

Review: Jumper 2008/PG-13/Action

I wasn't going to review Jumper. Mostly I didn't feel like it was worth my time to review it. (Does that give a hint as to what I thought about the movie?)

We'll start with the acting. Once again Hayden Christensen gives another "I-talk-funny-and-call-it-acting" performance. Max Thieriot (The Pacifier) actually put forth a better performance as young David than Hayden did as old. Samuel L. Jackson did what he could with a relatively limited character. And Diane Lane made a cameo? What was with that? Actually, more on that later.

The writing of this movie was so blah. The foreshadowing was obvious. The characters were shallow. The plot points predictable. He can teleport? Oh, so he's going to rob a bank. Of course. The villains are religious fanatics and there was no character arch for the hero. Perhaps the most annoying truth of all of this is that Jumper is based on a book about teen angst and escapism. How he can never actually escape from himself. The writers of the movie made a conscious choice to deviate completely from the book. Their product? A completely non-compelling story about a guy with a special power and people trying to kill him. Woo hoo.

Here's what I can say about the movie: The process of "jumping" and the special effects were well thought out and entertaining. The "rip" was a brilliant idea. As was the concept that the things around the jumper would be effected due to the jump. The fight scenes were well choreographed and the jumping during them made them more interesting.

I think what bothered me the most about this sub-par film, was that it was clearly made with a sequel in mind. Any time you tell a story knowing that it is going to continue, you tell an incomplete story. (See Back To The Future II, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Matrix Reloaded). This is why Diane Lane's part was so minimal and secondary. She's slated to have a larger role in the up coming sequels. (The filmmakers are actually planning on turning this into a trilogy! Puh-leez!)

All in all:

1 out of 5 stars

Review: Gone, Baby, Gone 2007/R/Drama

**SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS**

To begin I must be honest: I went into this movie with lower expectations because I knew two things: A)Directorial Debut for Ben Affleck. B)He cast his own brother.

Lucky for Mr Affleck (both of them, really) they got a compelling story for this project that raised enough questions with the plot that we could ignore the questions raised by some of the directorial and acting choices. For example, why was every close up in the movie such that the camera was far from the actor and zoomed in? Too lazy to move the camera? Too inexperienced to know that people can tell when the camera is close vs when the focus is close? Annoying. And Casey: I didn't really believe you when you were bein' all bad. You are built like Dustin Pedroia (5'2" 160lbs) and nobody believes him either. Nice try though. This film was carried, however, by the giants of the screen Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman. Fantastic believable empathetic performances put forth by both of them.

Of course, with a movie like Gone, Baby, Gone people aren't reading my review for my critique of the lighting (which was pretty under-thought, by the way) but rather for my thoughts about the message of the film. Or, perhaps more specifically, the looming question of the film: Should Patrick have allowed the little girl to stay with Jack and his wife? That poor little girl, whose mother was a drug runner and addict. In fact, it'd be hard to call her a mother, she certainly didn't act like one. The little girl was happy, she'd obviously have a much better life.

Patrick did the right thing. Who are we to say who should and shouldn't be a parent? And even if she failed once, does she not deserve a second chance. (this is particularly aimed at those of us who have experienced the ultimate second chance. What if Jesus decided that we were a lost cause?) Kidnapping is kidnapping, regardless of the motive. That girl would grow up knowing something was missing. She'd try to find her mother. What then? Her mother is going to believe her to be dead. "You were kidnapped, they killed you." What does Jack tell her then?

The logical expansion of believing that Patrick should have allowed her to stay is that this becomes a government program with guidelines on who can and cannot have children. This would be the first step into the world of The Handmaiden's Tale. Patrick also took the necessary step when he learned that Amanda's mother wasn't really going to change. He stuck around. It would have been irresponsible for him to choose to return the girl to the situation she was in before without taking some responsibility for her care. At least we know that he will be involved in her life and that gives us hope.

Overall: I never really believed the girl was dead, so they totally missed that key point. Most of the acting was stellar including the performances by the "no-namers" (Titus Welliver and Amy Madigan). The writing was good. The direction was, for the most part, acceptable. Affleck handled the flashbacks well, not spoon feeding his audience. It raised some good questions and caused some good discussion.

3.5 out of 5 stars