I have an apology to all of my faithful readers: You will never be able to follow me on Twitter. Wait, let me insert a caveat: You will never be able to follow me on Twitter unless I become famous in some way and my producers require me to have a Twitter account for which I hire an out-of-college, out-of-work person to ghost-Tweet for me. (I just think it's hysterical to hear the 60 year old news anchor suggest that I visit him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter. Yeah, right. Oh, and Brad Pitt has nothing better to do with his time than Tweet what he just consumed at the local deli.)
Now I'm sure some of you are crushed and wondering why you will never be able to follow me on Twitter. Simply put: Twitter is dangerous.
To begin with, Twitter encourages immediacy. Rather than taking some time to process whatever it may be that you want to communicate, a Twitter culture not only promotes but expects an immediate response. Those of us who were once under the age of 10 have redoubtably heard the words "Think before you speak." How many times have you had to apologize for a word spoken in haste? James 1:19 says "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry [emphasis added]." Sound advice for a Twitter-fied world.
The second danger hidden in Twitter is the 140 character limit. Just to give you an idea of what that looks like. If this post were 140 characters long it would have read: "I have an apology to all of my faithful readers: You will never be able to follow me on Twitter. Wait, let me insert a caveat: You will ne" The first sentence of my post completely unintentionally exhibits why a 140 character limit poses a danger: There is no venue for complete thoughts. In 140 characters one must be short and to the point. This often lends itself to extreme statements and certainly does not allow for explanation or (as my 4th grade English teacher always admonished) support and elaboration.
The combination of these to aspects of Twitter are bad enough: imagine a very short, tersely worded immediate response to a situation. That has trouble written all over it! Proverbs 13:3 says "Those who guard their lips preserve their lives, but those who speak rashly will come to ruin." brief unfiltered reactionary responses sure sounds like speaking rashly to me!
There is a third aspect of Twitter that I would not have initially predicted. Twitter, combined with its accessibility via our phones, has sparked an marked decrease in civil action. To explain what I mean I'd like to recount an incident that perfectly displays this phenomenon: Bill Nye "The Science Guy" collapsed while speaking to a group of University students. Did people jump and run to his aid? Did people pull out their cell phones and contact emergency authorities? No. They pulled out their cell phones and Tweeted the situation. Twitter has functionally resulted in people desiring to be the one to break the story. We are all now cable news stations fighting to be the first to report an incident rather than act on behalf of those involved!
All in all, Twitter resembles a field full of buried land mines waiting to destroy those that use it without forethought.
What do you know? I could have Tweeted that last sentence but no one would know why I felt that way. Put that on your phone and Tweet it!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Basic Difference
I anticipate that this will be a very short post.
While watching Connecticut's gubernatorial debate I came to a realization regarding the basic economic difference between the two major political parties.
Connecticut is facing a major deficit in the next fiscal year and the two candidates have two nearly opposite solutions to this dilemma. The rational of both falls directly in line with the thinking of each party.
The Republican candidate has talked about cutting spending, possible layoffs of some state workers, and strictly adhering to budgetary mandates.
The Democratic candidate has practically promised higher taxes. He doesn't want to remove any of the services the government provides, nor does he want to take away anyone's job.
When whittled down to their lowest common denominators, the core of these plans can be explained in the following statement:
One wants wants many to sacrifice for the good of a few, the other wants a few to sacrifice for the good of many.
At a glance, one can conjure up several instances of either viewpoint. Neither side can claim rightness or declare wrongness. The question is: On which side do you stand?
While watching Connecticut's gubernatorial debate I came to a realization regarding the basic economic difference between the two major political parties.
Connecticut is facing a major deficit in the next fiscal year and the two candidates have two nearly opposite solutions to this dilemma. The rational of both falls directly in line with the thinking of each party.
The Republican candidate has talked about cutting spending, possible layoffs of some state workers, and strictly adhering to budgetary mandates.
The Democratic candidate has practically promised higher taxes. He doesn't want to remove any of the services the government provides, nor does he want to take away anyone's job.
When whittled down to their lowest common denominators, the core of these plans can be explained in the following statement:
At a glance, one can conjure up several instances of either viewpoint. Neither side can claim rightness or declare wrongness. The question is: On which side do you stand?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Stephen Hawking's Leap of Faith
In his newest book, ironically titled The Grand Design the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking made the following statement:
But I digress. It is not my intention to point out Mr. Hawking's logical fallacy by way of the Bible. Let us suppose, for a moment, that Mr. Hawking is correct: The mere existence of "a law such as gravity" does enable the universe to create ex nihilo (out of nothing). From the back of the classroom my had tentatively rises into the air. "Mr. Hawking?" I say hesitantly. "I don't mean to be rude, and I hope this isn't a dumb question but... If that's the case, where did the law of gravity come from?"
If Mr. Hawking is to be believed then there is an inherent organization to the universe which is in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. All nature moves to a point of equilibrium by way of entropy. It does not move to an imbalance such as suddenly creating matter out of nothing by way of the laws of gravity. A further expedition into this theory reveals that it stems for the concept that the state of energy in the universe is a net of zero. Gravity is negative energy and the energy of motion is positive. In its simplest form, the theory states that, in a vacuum, the combination of these two energies can spontaneously create protons. The problem that I have yet to see answered is that gravity requires mass and, if Einstein is correct, E=MC2 means that energy has mass so once again, we don't have creation ex niliho, we have gravity (reliant on mass) and energy (also reliant on some type of mass) creating other mass. Mass, energy, gravity, even a vacuum had to have some beginning. Any law or energy or even location that exists that might allow for the universe to "create itself" must have been designed by an intelligent architect.
Sorry, once again, I've digressed. I would ask Mr. Hawking where the space in which the universe created itself and the time used to measure it came from, but I believe I know his answer. And this is where he takes his true leap of faith.
You see, Mr. Hawking believes in what is known as a "multiverse." What is a "multiverse?" It is a completely unscientific untestable unprovable theory that our universe is simply one of many universes, either connected or parallel, in which life may exist and the laws of physics may differ. (I'm not making this up.) The M-theory (as it's occasionally called) allows for such a monumentally massive incomprehensibly immense number of galaxies, solar systems, and planets that the law of large numbers makes Earth and the life therein likely and trivial instead of statistically improbable and precious.
One other point I wanted to make is that in the quote Mr. Hawking states "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. (Emphasis added)" If the universe will create itself from nothing why, in the history of mankind, have we not seen this occur. It has not been seen in nature, space, or the lab. Why did the universe create from nothing for such an extensive period of time to ensure that there was enough matter to fill the universe as we know it and then suddenly decide it was done creating?
So why is it more acceptable, perhaps more fashionable, to place one's faith in the M-theory for which there isn't even experiential anecdotal evidence rather than placing that faith in a purposeful intelligent creator deity? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hawking?
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.Another genius once again reaffirms Romans chapter 1 verse 22 which says "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." Interestingly enough, this verse is immediately preceded by this thought from verse 20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." And now, the upper echelon of academia are using "what has been made" to claim there is no God.
But I digress. It is not my intention to point out Mr. Hawking's logical fallacy by way of the Bible. Let us suppose, for a moment, that Mr. Hawking is correct: The mere existence of "a law such as gravity" does enable the universe to create ex nihilo (out of nothing). From the back of the classroom my had tentatively rises into the air. "Mr. Hawking?" I say hesitantly. "I don't mean to be rude, and I hope this isn't a dumb question but... If that's the case, where did the law of gravity come from?"
If Mr. Hawking is to be believed then there is an inherent organization to the universe which is in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. All nature moves to a point of equilibrium by way of entropy. It does not move to an imbalance such as suddenly creating matter out of nothing by way of the laws of gravity. A further expedition into this theory reveals that it stems for the concept that the state of energy in the universe is a net of zero. Gravity is negative energy and the energy of motion is positive. In its simplest form, the theory states that, in a vacuum, the combination of these two energies can spontaneously create protons. The problem that I have yet to see answered is that gravity requires mass and, if Einstein is correct, E=MC2 means that energy has mass so once again, we don't have creation ex niliho, we have gravity (reliant on mass) and energy (also reliant on some type of mass) creating other mass. Mass, energy, gravity, even a vacuum had to have some beginning. Any law or energy or even location that exists that might allow for the universe to "create itself" must have been designed by an intelligent architect.
Sorry, once again, I've digressed. I would ask Mr. Hawking where the space in which the universe created itself and the time used to measure it came from, but I believe I know his answer. And this is where he takes his true leap of faith.
You see, Mr. Hawking believes in what is known as a "multiverse." What is a "multiverse?" It is a completely unscientific untestable unprovable theory that our universe is simply one of many universes, either connected or parallel, in which life may exist and the laws of physics may differ. (I'm not making this up.) The M-theory (as it's occasionally called) allows for such a monumentally massive incomprehensibly immense number of galaxies, solar systems, and planets that the law of large numbers makes Earth and the life therein likely and trivial instead of statistically improbable and precious.
One other point I wanted to make is that in the quote Mr. Hawking states "the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. (Emphasis added)" If the universe will create itself from nothing why, in the history of mankind, have we not seen this occur. It has not been seen in nature, space, or the lab. Why did the universe create from nothing for such an extensive period of time to ensure that there was enough matter to fill the universe as we know it and then suddenly decide it was done creating?
So why is it more acceptable, perhaps more fashionable, to place one's faith in the M-theory for which there isn't even experiential anecdotal evidence rather than placing that faith in a purposeful intelligent creator deity? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hawking?
Monday, August 30, 2010
2010-2011 NFL Preview
Some annual habits never die. Here is one of them. Are you seated with a beverage and a snack? (Historically, my NFL Previews tend to be lengthy). I hope you are in a comfortable chair because here is JMO's Fifth Annual NFL Preview!
As with most previous NFL Preview posts, I'll be breaking down each division. I'm sure my normal readers are aware that I have a strong AFC bias so I'm going to switch a few things up this year. Instead of starting in the AFC and moving to the NFC, I'm going to order the divisions by way of the compass, with the NFC going first each time. You will know it is time to turn the page when you hear the chimes ring, like this: "brlinghe" Let's begin, now:
NFC North (Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings)
I always get a little sad when discussing this division. The Bears had their Super Bowl Shuffle. The Vikings had their Purple People Eaters. There is a reason the trophy is named the "Vince Lombardi" trophy! And even the Lions used to be feared. Now it's more like the Cubs, the Lionesses, the Deli workers, and the Norwegian re-enactors. But somebody's gotta win. The Bears are without Urlacher and the Lions are without a team of starting players of NFL caliber. That leaves Green Bay and Minnesota. Which one has Brett Favre this year? That's the one that will take the division.
winner: Vikings
AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)
Steelers have to play the first four games (at least) with out Big Ben under center. You can probably beat the Bucs without him so the question is, can you climb out from a 1-3 start? I don't think so. Cleveland is still a non-entity leaving Ravens and Bengals to scrounge for the Division. With the addition of T.O. it's a coin flip for the Bengals if he'll elevate the team or elevate their liability. I think Palmer's offense over comes the Raven's defense.
winner: Bengals
NFC East (Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins)
There was lots of shifting in this division since the Colts lost to New Orleans in the Super Bowl. The Redskins are the clear winners of the off season but was it enough to vault them over the Cowboys? The Eagles are going to rely on Kolb (and Vick) to carry the team. The Giants still haven't realized that Coughlin doesn't know how to use Eli. Eagles land in last place with the Giants chasing them down. This maybe yet another year where a wild card comes from the NFC East as the Redskins advance to second in the division.
winner: Cowboys
AFC East (Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Patriots)
The AFC East is a lot murkier than it has been in the past. The Jets went out and signed a lot of great talent. Then they had a lot of great talent hold out. If they can sign Revis and find a use for LT, then Rex may have a winning team on his hands. But nobody plays the disrespect card better than Belichick and his Patriots. Brady's knee and ankle look fine, Welker is back, and they've got more RB's than they can dress. Oh yeah, Bills and Dolphins barely make a ripple.
winner: Patriots
NFC South (Buccaneers, Falcons, Panthers, Saints)
I expect the Falcons to surprise a lot of people this year. Not to the point that they actually win the division, but they will spoil many-a-post-season hopes. They may even score a wild card spot. One has to respect the defending Super Bowl Champions, particularly when the team is nearly entirely intact. I don't expect a repeat, but they'll put up a good fight.
winner: Saints
AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)
One streak will continue while another ends: The team that loses the Super Bowl will not make it to the playoffs the following year. That streak will continue. The Colts hold the record for the most consecutive seasons with 12 or more wins. That streak will end this year. The Jaguars have been assembling a team designed to defeat the Colts for years. In 2011, it works.
winner: Jaguars
NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, Seahawks)
Without a doubt, this is the most difficult division to predict. Part of it is because these are four teams that nearly everyone has forgotten about. Another part is that here are four teams trying really hard not to win. Which ever team comes out on top loses in the first round anyway. Cardinals are relying on Leinart and I think the Rams only have a punting team this year.
winner: 49ers
AFC West (Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders)
The good news for the Broncos is that they have three fantastic back-up QBs that any team would love to have behind their star. The bad news is that one of them has to start. Another team that I'd put in the surprise column is the Raiders. I don't think they'll finish in last place in their division this year. The Chargers may have gotten rid of LT, but when you get rid of great talent it's because you've got even better, and they do, in Sproles.
winner: Chargers
NFC Wild Card Teams: Redskins & Falcons
AFC Wild Card Teams: Jets & Ravens
And here's how the playoffs would play out:
NFC:
BYE: Saints & Cowboys
Wild Card Weekend: Falcons upset the 49ers and Minnesota sends Washington packing.
Divisional Round: The Vikings hand the Cowboys another loss and the Saints beat the Falcons
Conference Championship: Vikings over Saints
AFC:
BYE: Patriots & Jaguars
Wild Card Weekend: Cincinnati defeats Baltimore and the Chargers top the Jets
Divisional Round: The Chargers shock the Patriots and it's the Jaguars over the Bengals
Conference Championship: The Jaguars end the Chargers season
Super Bowl:
Jaguars vs Vikings
Favre wins his final game in the NFL, cries like a baby, and retires - for good this time.
As with most previous NFL Preview posts, I'll be breaking down each division. I'm sure my normal readers are aware that I have a strong AFC bias so I'm going to switch a few things up this year. Instead of starting in the AFC and moving to the NFC, I'm going to order the divisions by way of the compass, with the NFC going first each time. You will know it is time to turn the page when you hear the chimes ring, like this: "brlinghe" Let's begin, now:
NFC North (Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings)
I always get a little sad when discussing this division. The Bears had their Super Bowl Shuffle. The Vikings had their Purple People Eaters. There is a reason the trophy is named the "Vince Lombardi" trophy! And even the Lions used to be feared. Now it's more like the Cubs, the Lionesses, the Deli workers, and the Norwegian re-enactors. But somebody's gotta win. The Bears are without Urlacher and the Lions are without a team of starting players of NFL caliber. That leaves Green Bay and Minnesota. Which one has Brett Favre this year? That's the one that will take the division.
winner: Vikings
AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)
Steelers have to play the first four games (at least) with out Big Ben under center. You can probably beat the Bucs without him so the question is, can you climb out from a 1-3 start? I don't think so. Cleveland is still a non-entity leaving Ravens and Bengals to scrounge for the Division. With the addition of T.O. it's a coin flip for the Bengals if he'll elevate the team or elevate their liability. I think Palmer's offense over comes the Raven's defense.
winner: Bengals
NFC East (Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins)
There was lots of shifting in this division since the Colts lost to New Orleans in the Super Bowl. The Redskins are the clear winners of the off season but was it enough to vault them over the Cowboys? The Eagles are going to rely on Kolb (and Vick) to carry the team. The Giants still haven't realized that Coughlin doesn't know how to use Eli. Eagles land in last place with the Giants chasing them down. This maybe yet another year where a wild card comes from the NFC East as the Redskins advance to second in the division.
winner: Cowboys
AFC East (Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Patriots)
The AFC East is a lot murkier than it has been in the past. The Jets went out and signed a lot of great talent. Then they had a lot of great talent hold out. If they can sign Revis and find a use for LT, then Rex may have a winning team on his hands. But nobody plays the disrespect card better than Belichick and his Patriots. Brady's knee and ankle look fine, Welker is back, and they've got more RB's than they can dress. Oh yeah, Bills and Dolphins barely make a ripple.
winner: Patriots
NFC South (Buccaneers, Falcons, Panthers, Saints)
I expect the Falcons to surprise a lot of people this year. Not to the point that they actually win the division, but they will spoil many-a-post-season hopes. They may even score a wild card spot. One has to respect the defending Super Bowl Champions, particularly when the team is nearly entirely intact. I don't expect a repeat, but they'll put up a good fight.
winner: Saints
AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)
One streak will continue while another ends: The team that loses the Super Bowl will not make it to the playoffs the following year. That streak will continue. The Colts hold the record for the most consecutive seasons with 12 or more wins. That streak will end this year. The Jaguars have been assembling a team designed to defeat the Colts for years. In 2011, it works.
winner: Jaguars
NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, Seahawks)
Without a doubt, this is the most difficult division to predict. Part of it is because these are four teams that nearly everyone has forgotten about. Another part is that here are four teams trying really hard not to win. Which ever team comes out on top loses in the first round anyway. Cardinals are relying on Leinart and I think the Rams only have a punting team this year.
winner: 49ers
AFC West (Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders)
The good news for the Broncos is that they have three fantastic back-up QBs that any team would love to have behind their star. The bad news is that one of them has to start. Another team that I'd put in the surprise column is the Raiders. I don't think they'll finish in last place in their division this year. The Chargers may have gotten rid of LT, but when you get rid of great talent it's because you've got even better, and they do, in Sproles.
winner: Chargers
NFC Wild Card Teams: Redskins & Falcons
AFC Wild Card Teams: Jets & Ravens
And here's how the playoffs would play out:
NFC:
BYE: Saints & Cowboys
Wild Card Weekend: Falcons upset the 49ers and Minnesota sends Washington packing.
Divisional Round: The Vikings hand the Cowboys another loss and the Saints beat the Falcons
Conference Championship: Vikings over Saints
AFC:
BYE: Patriots & Jaguars
Wild Card Weekend: Cincinnati defeats Baltimore and the Chargers top the Jets
Divisional Round: The Chargers shock the Patriots and it's the Jaguars over the Bengals
Conference Championship: The Jaguars end the Chargers season
Super Bowl:
Jaguars vs Vikings
Favre wins his final game in the NFL, cries like a baby, and retires - for good this time.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Please Choose Wisely
I've been reading a lot of philosophy lately and having theological discussions. That leads to interesting trains of thought. I'd like to share one here.
I'd like to discuss the "problem of evil."
The first problem of evil is not the typical "problem of evil" most often referred to as "Epicurus' Problem of Evil." We'll get to that in a moment. The first problem of "evil" is that without a God there is no such thing as evil. Without a God life is a random accident. If that is the case then there is no moral code. Without a God we have no authority by which to measure anyone's actions. Without a God all actions are permissible as survival of the fittest. If I can beat you up and take your stuff, I'm more fit than you. Who is to call that evil? If evil exists, there must be a God.
Now, I think we can all agree that there is "evil" in the world. As we concluded above, if there is evil, there must be a God. Some say that this is contradictory believing that the existence of evil disproves God. This is where "Epicurus' Problem of Evil" comes in. It states that if there is a God, this God must be all loving and all powerful. If God is all loving then he must not be powerful enough to stop evil. If God is not all powerful, he is not God. If he is all powerful then he must not be loving enough to want to stop evil. If God is not loving then he is not God. Hence the existence of evil disproves God. But how can this be since we've already concluded that without God there can be no such thing as "evil." There must be a third option.
Let's assume for a moment that God is all powerful and all loving and stops all evil. What love is this? This is no love at all. If God acts in this manner then man is his robot, his marionette. This is not a loving God and, therefore, no God at all. What, then, are we left with? That solution can only be this: Evil exists, therefore, there is a God who is powerful enough to stop the evil and loving enough to want to stop it, but even more loving and powerful enough to restrain himself. A God that is truly all loving will let us make our own choices, some of which will lead to evil.
Many people that I know who do not serve God will say that the problem of evil is their primary reason. They believe an all powerful all loving God would put an end to evil. Because he does not, they chose not to serve him. The problem with this logic is this: the very restraint that God exercises that allows evil is the same restraint that allows them to decide they will not serve him. If God stopped all evil, that would include their prideful disdain for him. They would have no choice but to serve him. This sounds like a God they would not want to serve.
In conclusion: the so-called "problem of evil" proves that there is an all loving all powerful God who will allow you to chose not to serve him. Please choose wisely.
I'd like to discuss the "problem of evil."
The first problem of evil is not the typical "problem of evil" most often referred to as "Epicurus' Problem of Evil." We'll get to that in a moment. The first problem of "evil" is that without a God there is no such thing as evil. Without a God life is a random accident. If that is the case then there is no moral code. Without a God we have no authority by which to measure anyone's actions. Without a God all actions are permissible as survival of the fittest. If I can beat you up and take your stuff, I'm more fit than you. Who is to call that evil? If evil exists, there must be a God.
Now, I think we can all agree that there is "evil" in the world. As we concluded above, if there is evil, there must be a God. Some say that this is contradictory believing that the existence of evil disproves God. This is where "Epicurus' Problem of Evil" comes in. It states that if there is a God, this God must be all loving and all powerful. If God is all loving then he must not be powerful enough to stop evil. If God is not all powerful, he is not God. If he is all powerful then he must not be loving enough to want to stop evil. If God is not loving then he is not God. Hence the existence of evil disproves God. But how can this be since we've already concluded that without God there can be no such thing as "evil." There must be a third option.
Let's assume for a moment that God is all powerful and all loving and stops all evil. What love is this? This is no love at all. If God acts in this manner then man is his robot, his marionette. This is not a loving God and, therefore, no God at all. What, then, are we left with? That solution can only be this: Evil exists, therefore, there is a God who is powerful enough to stop the evil and loving enough to want to stop it, but even more loving and powerful enough to restrain himself. A God that is truly all loving will let us make our own choices, some of which will lead to evil.
Many people that I know who do not serve God will say that the problem of evil is their primary reason. They believe an all powerful all loving God would put an end to evil. Because he does not, they chose not to serve him. The problem with this logic is this: the very restraint that God exercises that allows evil is the same restraint that allows them to decide they will not serve him. If God stopped all evil, that would include their prideful disdain for him. They would have no choice but to serve him. This sounds like a God they would not want to serve.
In conclusion: the so-called "problem of evil" proves that there is an all loving all powerful God who will allow you to chose not to serve him. Please choose wisely.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Review: Twilight
2008/PG-13/Romance
And so it would appear that my blog is transitioning into simply a movie review site. I believe I've found the reason for this: My political ire is so far off the charts that I find it difficult to compose a coherent sentence about it. My attention to sports has been hampered by a lack of time and cable. And I've been working on five different literary projects so when I have the time and the yearning to write, they are taking first priority. However, this evening I figured I'd take a few moments and earn a few new enemies with a review of the box office success Twilight.
Most of the reviewers who are passing on this movie are comparing it to the book Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. You won't find that prejudice here; I've not read the book. I'll be passing for entirely different reasons.
For those not in the know, Twilight chronicles the journey of 17 year old Bella as she moves from Phoenix Arizona to a small town in Washington state to live with her father. She catches the eye of the dashingly good-looking recluse Edward Cullen who just happens to be a vampire. Can the young couple overcome the obvious challenges in front of them? She's alive, he's undead. She's 17 he's about 175. She craves ice cream, he craves drawing every last drop of her blood from her body.
The plot of this movie doesn't make any sense. Why would Bella fall for Edward? Sure he's good looking but he wants to kill her. Is she so shallow that the mere fact that no one else could land him is enough for her? Is she so superficial that she can base her "unconditional, irrevocable love" on his attractiveness? Is she so shortsighted that she believes the excitement of being with a vampire is a sufficient foundation for love? There was one fantastic line in this movie. Edward says, "So the lion has fallen in love with the lamb." and Bella responds, "What a stupid lamb." Exactly.
The flip side of this question is also valid: Why would Edward fall for Bella? I understand that the scent of her blood is like a drug to him. I've never fallen for my extra large pepperoni pizza. Now, even though Edward is over 150 years old, it's understandable that, as a guy, he might confuse his desire for Bella for love. That doesn't alter the fact that combining his desire to devour her with his dedication not to harm her makes them spending 24/7 together absolutely illogical, if not cruel. And Bella's insistence that they not be apart is nothing more than her complete and utter selfishness. If she doesn't understand how hard it is for Edward than she's too self centered to listen to him. If she does understand then she's too selfish to care.
A plot as shaky as this puts a lot of pressure on the actors to present performances powerful enough for the audience to accept what we are being told. Based on the questions this movie has garnered, the actors weren't up to the task. Kristen Stewart was acceptable as Bella, but wasn't able to justify her love for Edward.
Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen appeared to be channeling the annoying awkwardness of Hayden Christensen when he portrayed Anakin Skywalker. This was almost humorously confirmed when, just as Anakin declares to Padme that he killed all of them, "and not just the men, but the women and children too" and Padme didn't care, Edward confesses to Bella "I've killed people before." To which she responds "Doesn't matter."
Speaking of channeling it was pretty clear that James, played by Cam Gigandet, was doing everything but holding a seance in an attempt to embody Brad Pitt.
One performance stands out, however, as head and shoulders above the rest. Billy Burke shines as the awkward single-father-of-a-teenaged-daughter-whom-I-haven't-seen-in-years-small-town-chief-of-police. Even though the character is stereotypically written, Burke somehow brings depth and believability to this dime-a-dozen role.
The pacing of this movie exposed the inexperience of the director Catherine Hardwicke. The plot took far too long to develop. The movie was nearly half over and Bella was just realizing that Edward was a vampire. Almost three quarters of the way in the movie finally begins to get some traction as Edward and the Cullen clan attempt to protect Bella from James, the tracker. That lasts all of eight minutes and then the movie gets back in it's own way with it's slow paced romance. I'm not sure what this movie was marketed as, but it wasn't as a romance. When I finally succumbed to the fact that I was watching a romance I felt gypped. I had expected more.
One moment of the movie absolutely made my blood boil. Bella was on the phone withNina Myers, I mean her mother taking about Edward. Bella is trying to get off the phone and the last thing her mother feels the need to ask is, "Are you being safe?" Now, hopefully, this comment soared over the heads of the the 10-13 year old girls who are the major demographic pumping money into this franchise. However, the sentiment is still there: "Are you being safe?" EI: "Are you using protection?" Not "Are you behaving yourself?" "Are you abstaining?" or even "Are you making good choices?" What message is this sending to those viewers who aren't too young to understand? Bella hasn't been there for three months and her mother knows that she hasn't been talking about a boy since she got there. Yet it's the expectation of Bella's mother that Bella is having sex? Apparently, this is a given. Nothing her mother says will prevent it so she might as well at least make sure she's "being safe." It's this type of subtly that drive me crazy.
Ok, I do have some nice things to say about this movie. While this is not a "Christian" movie, it has two fairly blatant Christian themes: Edward struggles against his desire for human blood in the same way that we struggle against our desire to sin. Because we are human, our desire to sin is irrevocable just as Edward's desire for blood is because he's a vampire. Yet he actively fights against that urge and when he finds himself in a situation where the temptation is too great, he flees. How much more successful would we be at avoiding sin if we had the same flight instinct?
The first lines of the movie (which are repeated later on) are "I'd never given much thought to how I would die... But dying in the place of someone I love seems like a good way to go." This is exactly what Christ did for us. He died in the place of someone he loves, many someone's in fact. Someones that include me... and you.
My final thoughts on this movie are that even though the story was lacking and the acting was merely acceptable, the visual effects were above average and the majority of the themes in the film were positive.
2.5 out of 5 stars.
And so it would appear that my blog is transitioning into simply a movie review site. I believe I've found the reason for this: My political ire is so far off the charts that I find it difficult to compose a coherent sentence about it. My attention to sports has been hampered by a lack of time and cable. And I've been working on five different literary projects so when I have the time and the yearning to write, they are taking first priority. However, this evening I figured I'd take a few moments and earn a few new enemies with a review of the box office success Twilight.
Most of the reviewers who are passing on this movie are comparing it to the book Twilight by Stephenie Meyer. You won't find that prejudice here; I've not read the book. I'll be passing for entirely different reasons.
For those not in the know, Twilight chronicles the journey of 17 year old Bella as she moves from Phoenix Arizona to a small town in Washington state to live with her father. She catches the eye of the dashingly good-looking recluse Edward Cullen who just happens to be a vampire. Can the young couple overcome the obvious challenges in front of them? She's alive, he's undead. She's 17 he's about 175. She craves ice cream, he craves drawing every last drop of her blood from her body.
The plot of this movie doesn't make any sense. Why would Bella fall for Edward? Sure he's good looking but he wants to kill her. Is she so shallow that the mere fact that no one else could land him is enough for her? Is she so superficial that she can base her "unconditional, irrevocable love" on his attractiveness? Is she so shortsighted that she believes the excitement of being with a vampire is a sufficient foundation for love? There was one fantastic line in this movie. Edward says, "So the lion has fallen in love with the lamb." and Bella responds, "What a stupid lamb." Exactly.
The flip side of this question is also valid: Why would Edward fall for Bella? I understand that the scent of her blood is like a drug to him. I've never fallen for my extra large pepperoni pizza. Now, even though Edward is over 150 years old, it's understandable that, as a guy, he might confuse his desire for Bella for love. That doesn't alter the fact that combining his desire to devour her with his dedication not to harm her makes them spending 24/7 together absolutely illogical, if not cruel. And Bella's insistence that they not be apart is nothing more than her complete and utter selfishness. If she doesn't understand how hard it is for Edward than she's too self centered to listen to him. If she does understand then she's too selfish to care.
A plot as shaky as this puts a lot of pressure on the actors to present performances powerful enough for the audience to accept what we are being told. Based on the questions this movie has garnered, the actors weren't up to the task. Kristen Stewart was acceptable as Bella, but wasn't able to justify her love for Edward.
Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen appeared to be channeling the annoying awkwardness of Hayden Christensen when he portrayed Anakin Skywalker. This was almost humorously confirmed when, just as Anakin declares to Padme that he killed all of them, "and not just the men, but the women and children too" and Padme didn't care, Edward confesses to Bella "I've killed people before." To which she responds "Doesn't matter."
Speaking of channeling it was pretty clear that James, played by Cam Gigandet, was doing everything but holding a seance in an attempt to embody Brad Pitt.
One performance stands out, however, as head and shoulders above the rest. Billy Burke shines as the awkward single-father-of-a-teenaged-daughter-whom-I-haven't-seen-in-years-small-town-chief-of-police. Even though the character is stereotypically written, Burke somehow brings depth and believability to this dime-a-dozen role.
The pacing of this movie exposed the inexperience of the director Catherine Hardwicke. The plot took far too long to develop. The movie was nearly half over and Bella was just realizing that Edward was a vampire. Almost three quarters of the way in the movie finally begins to get some traction as Edward and the Cullen clan attempt to protect Bella from James, the tracker. That lasts all of eight minutes and then the movie gets back in it's own way with it's slow paced romance. I'm not sure what this movie was marketed as, but it wasn't as a romance. When I finally succumbed to the fact that I was watching a romance I felt gypped. I had expected more.
One moment of the movie absolutely made my blood boil. Bella was on the phone with
Ok, I do have some nice things to say about this movie. While this is not a "Christian" movie, it has two fairly blatant Christian themes: Edward struggles against his desire for human blood in the same way that we struggle against our desire to sin. Because we are human, our desire to sin is irrevocable just as Edward's desire for blood is because he's a vampire. Yet he actively fights against that urge and when he finds himself in a situation where the temptation is too great, he flees. How much more successful would we be at avoiding sin if we had the same flight instinct?
The first lines of the movie (which are repeated later on) are "I'd never given much thought to how I would die... But dying in the place of someone I love seems like a good way to go." This is exactly what Christ did for us. He died in the place of someone he loves, many someone's in fact. Someones that include me... and you.
My final thoughts on this movie are that even though the story was lacking and the acting was merely acceptable, the visual effects were above average and the majority of the themes in the film were positive.
2.5 out of 5 stars.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Review: Avatar
2009/PG-13/Drama
Avatar is the latest release from the Oscar winning director of Titanic James Cameron. This movie is nothing short of spectacular. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I typed that wrong. This movie is nothing more than mediocre. There we go.
Avatar is the age-old (read: "tired") story of evil soul-less capitalists exploiting nature-loving spiritual natives for their ubervaluable natural resource. As usual, the vile villainous humans enlist the assistance of the armed-to-the-teeth-and-out-for-blood mercenaries to subdue the uncooperative underdeveloped aboriginals. Who are the heroes that will lift the helpless victims against this seemingly insurmountable foe? Why it's the scientists, of course! Can the resourceful scientists organize the disadvantaged natives? Will they successfully defend their homeland against the powerful greedy humans preventing them from acquiring that which they are after? Did this movie come out of Hollywood?
Honestly, I have no idea what all of the hype was about with this movie. The special effects look cartoonish, the acting is barely adequate, and, perhaps worst of all, the story is stereotypically average! Seriously, here is a brief list of movies with the exact same plot line just off the top of my head: Jurassic Park, Fern Gully: The Last Rain Forest, Fern Gully 2: The Magic Rose, Ernest Goes to Camp, WALL-E, Atantis: The Lost Empire, and Goonies to name a few! A ragtag band of underdogs usually lead by some awkward scientist trying to protect their environmentally friendly home from certain destruction because of some great money-rich scheme dreamed up by an evil corporation. I mean, come on! Avatar is simply a retelling of this boring, over-used, trendy plot line.
There was one aspect of this movie that was both surprising and yet not all at the same time. Most Hollywood movies treat religion as though it were the opiate for the masses. Surprisingly, Avatar did not. In face, it was the religion of the Na'vi that allowed Jake to be one of them forever. Not only that, but their deity's name was "Eywa," (pronounced Ay-Wah) an interesting jumble of the Hebrew God Yaweh (pronounced Yah-Way). The not surprising aspect of this is that Eywa is the interconnectedness of all nature on their planet. On the one hand: their faith is real, on the other: nature is their god.
My final complaint about this picture is that, despite James Cameron's decades in Hollywood, this film still reeked of it's "written and directed by" status. One key thing that a director who did not write a movie can do is leave some scenes on the cutting room floor. If you direct what you wrote, cutting a scene or a subplot is like lopping off the limb of one of your children. It's very painful and incredibly difficult to do. However, if the limb is diseased with gangrene it's something that must be done! Mr. Cameron was unable to chop off even the little finger of his baby forcing us to endure a movie that was unnecessarily long. The DVD I watched was from my local library. I wasn't too surprised to see that of all of the special features, "deleted scenes" wasn't among them.
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I went so far as to purchase two boxes of a specially marked cereal so that I could get a free movie ticket. I was going to use this ticket to see this movie. I lost the necessary portions of the cereal box and did not get my free movie. Having seen Avatar on DVD, I didn't miss anything.
There isn't much to praise about this movie. I will say that I was surprised at the death and destruction that Mr. Cameron allowed before executing his predictably contrived ending. And for that, I'll allow him
0.5 out of 5 stars.
Avatar is the latest release from the Oscar winning director of Titanic James Cameron. This movie is nothing short of spectacular. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I typed that wrong. This movie is nothing more than mediocre. There we go.
Avatar is the age-old (read: "tired") story of evil soul-less capitalists exploiting nature-loving spiritual natives for their ubervaluable natural resource. As usual, the vile villainous humans enlist the assistance of the armed-to-the-teeth-and-out-for-blood mercenaries to subdue the uncooperative underdeveloped aboriginals. Who are the heroes that will lift the helpless victims against this seemingly insurmountable foe? Why it's the scientists, of course! Can the resourceful scientists organize the disadvantaged natives? Will they successfully defend their homeland against the powerful greedy humans preventing them from acquiring that which they are after? Did this movie come out of Hollywood?
Honestly, I have no idea what all of the hype was about with this movie. The special effects look cartoonish, the acting is barely adequate, and, perhaps worst of all, the story is stereotypically average! Seriously, here is a brief list of movies with the exact same plot line just off the top of my head: Jurassic Park, Fern Gully: The Last Rain Forest, Fern Gully 2: The Magic Rose, Ernest Goes to Camp, WALL-E, Atantis: The Lost Empire, and Goonies to name a few! A ragtag band of underdogs usually lead by some awkward scientist trying to protect their environmentally friendly home from certain destruction because of some great money-rich scheme dreamed up by an evil corporation. I mean, come on! Avatar is simply a retelling of this boring, over-used, trendy plot line.
There was one aspect of this movie that was both surprising and yet not all at the same time. Most Hollywood movies treat religion as though it were the opiate for the masses. Surprisingly, Avatar did not. In face, it was the religion of the Na'vi that allowed Jake to be one of them forever. Not only that, but their deity's name was "Eywa," (pronounced Ay-Wah) an interesting jumble of the Hebrew God Yaweh (pronounced Yah-Way). The not surprising aspect of this is that Eywa is the interconnectedness of all nature on their planet. On the one hand: their faith is real, on the other: nature is their god.
My final complaint about this picture is that, despite James Cameron's decades in Hollywood, this film still reeked of it's "written and directed by" status. One key thing that a director who did not write a movie can do is leave some scenes on the cutting room floor. If you direct what you wrote, cutting a scene or a subplot is like lopping off the limb of one of your children. It's very painful and incredibly difficult to do. However, if the limb is diseased with gangrene it's something that must be done! Mr. Cameron was unable to chop off even the little finger of his baby forcing us to endure a movie that was unnecessarily long. The DVD I watched was from my local library. I wasn't too surprised to see that of all of the special features, "deleted scenes" wasn't among them.
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I went so far as to purchase two boxes of a specially marked cereal so that I could get a free movie ticket. I was going to use this ticket to see this movie. I lost the necessary portions of the cereal box and did not get my free movie. Having seen Avatar on DVD, I didn't miss anything.
There isn't much to praise about this movie. I will say that I was surprised at the death and destruction that Mr. Cameron allowed before executing his predictably contrived ending. And for that, I'll allow him
0.5 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Review: The Invention of Lying
2009/PG-13/Comedy
The Invention of Lying is set in an imaginary world where humans are incapable of lying. While this world would, in actuality, be a utopia; there is an added twist in this film to make it seem that the truth is destructive: apparently, not only can humans only speak the truth, but they also are incapable of remaining silent. For example: A girl opens the door to meet her blind date and says, "Hi! Oh, I don't find you the least bit attractive and I don't have very high hopes for this evening."
Entrenched in this world is Mark Bellison. Mark is a "loser". While being very smart, he is short, overweight, and recently unemployed. Mark is going to alter the course of human history by inventing the world's first lie. He finds this talent to be very useful, not only for paying his rent, but also for solving the world's problems. His new found power is exaggerated by the fact that everyone believes him due to the cultural disposition to the truth. No one has ever lied before, why should anyone think he is speaking anything but what is true?
Mark's mother is dying and she is afraid. To ease her fears Mark invents a story about an afterlife. A magnificent story that involves the best place you could ever think of, mansions, loved ones, peace, and joy. Of course, everyone believes him and now the world is beating a path to his door to hear more about this wonderful place that somehow only he knows about. Mark spends the entire night concocting the specifics about the afterlife. He creates "The man in the sky," a bad place for bad people, what is and what isn't a bad act, and various other very religious concepts.
This movie does something that is nearly impossible to do: it proves the exact opposite view of the message it is trying to convey.
It was painfully obvious that the people who believed him were ignorant, naive, and foolish. God and heaven, according to this film, is a lie. A fanciful story made up to ease the fear of old people, give others someone to blame for the bad things in their lives, and provide a reason for people to do good.
However
The "religion" that Mark invents is riddled with inconsistencies. It is elementary in it's concepts, and sophomoric in its arrangement. This intelligent person's inability to create a feasible religion simply goes to show that the complexity of Christianity makes it all the more unlikely that it is not of human origin.
I will give kudos to this film in one aspect: The ability to lie makes the truth more powerful. It is unfortunate that this film felt the need to put this point on a pedestal, rather than trust the intelligence of the audience. The point, however, was clear and poignant, none the less.
I would like to contrast this film and it's viewpoint that lying is not only necessary, but beneficial in all aspects of life with the view that Johnathan Swift presents to us in his masterpiece "Gulliver's Travels." In the fourth book Gulliver visits the land of the "Houyhnhnms;" A race of intelligent horses that are slaves to reason and are so honest they do not even have a word for "lie." They inquire of Gulliver "whether it were the custom in his country to say the thing which was not." Here in the Houyhnhnms we find a (debatable) utopia where laws are created to sustain life rather than control it due to man's tendency toward evil or even destroy it due to the corruption in the system. The Houyhnhnms are contrasted with the Yahoos, a savage race of people devoid of honor or virtue who are slaves to their passions. The Invention of Lying would have us believe that the Yahoos are the race to which we should aspire and not the Houyhnhnms.
I find it somewhat ironic that a faith that admonishes it's followers to "speak the truth in love" so that "the truth might set you free" is lampooned in this comical farce as nothing more than a calculated lie. Sorry, but I don't believe you.
1.5 out of 5 stars.
The Invention of Lying is set in an imaginary world where humans are incapable of lying. While this world would, in actuality, be a utopia; there is an added twist in this film to make it seem that the truth is destructive: apparently, not only can humans only speak the truth, but they also are incapable of remaining silent. For example: A girl opens the door to meet her blind date and says, "Hi! Oh, I don't find you the least bit attractive and I don't have very high hopes for this evening."
Entrenched in this world is Mark Bellison. Mark is a "loser". While being very smart, he is short, overweight, and recently unemployed. Mark is going to alter the course of human history by inventing the world's first lie. He finds this talent to be very useful, not only for paying his rent, but also for solving the world's problems. His new found power is exaggerated by the fact that everyone believes him due to the cultural disposition to the truth. No one has ever lied before, why should anyone think he is speaking anything but what is true?
Mark's mother is dying and she is afraid. To ease her fears Mark invents a story about an afterlife. A magnificent story that involves the best place you could ever think of, mansions, loved ones, peace, and joy. Of course, everyone believes him and now the world is beating a path to his door to hear more about this wonderful place that somehow only he knows about. Mark spends the entire night concocting the specifics about the afterlife. He creates "The man in the sky," a bad place for bad people, what is and what isn't a bad act, and various other very religious concepts.
This movie does something that is nearly impossible to do: it proves the exact opposite view of the message it is trying to convey.
It was painfully obvious that the people who believed him were ignorant, naive, and foolish. God and heaven, according to this film, is a lie. A fanciful story made up to ease the fear of old people, give others someone to blame for the bad things in their lives, and provide a reason for people to do good.
The "religion" that Mark invents is riddled with inconsistencies. It is elementary in it's concepts, and sophomoric in its arrangement. This intelligent person's inability to create a feasible religion simply goes to show that the complexity of Christianity makes it all the more unlikely that it is not of human origin.
I will give kudos to this film in one aspect: The ability to lie makes the truth more powerful. It is unfortunate that this film felt the need to put this point on a pedestal, rather than trust the intelligence of the audience. The point, however, was clear and poignant, none the less.
I would like to contrast this film and it's viewpoint that lying is not only necessary, but beneficial in all aspects of life with the view that Johnathan Swift presents to us in his masterpiece "Gulliver's Travels." In the fourth book Gulliver visits the land of the "Houyhnhnms;" A race of intelligent horses that are slaves to reason and are so honest they do not even have a word for "lie." They inquire of Gulliver "whether it were the custom in his country to say the thing which was not." Here in the Houyhnhnms we find a (debatable) utopia where laws are created to sustain life rather than control it due to man's tendency toward evil or even destroy it due to the corruption in the system. The Houyhnhnms are contrasted with the Yahoos, a savage race of people devoid of honor or virtue who are slaves to their passions. The Invention of Lying would have us believe that the Yahoos are the race to which we should aspire and not the Houyhnhnms.
I find it somewhat ironic that a faith that admonishes it's followers to "speak the truth in love" so that "the truth might set you free" is lampooned in this comical farce as nothing more than a calculated lie. Sorry, but I don't believe you.
1.5 out of 5 stars.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
An Important Question
It probably goes without saying that I've had a bit of a hiatus from posting but two occurrences have spurred me back to the blogosphere.
The first, I'm sad to report, is the end of my wife's blog. She has decided to take a permanent hiatus. I'm hoping that in a few months, maybe a year, she will return. However, for right now, this is the correct decision for her. Please pay a final visit to her blog and recall your favorites of her additions to the blogging world.
The second is the oil slick that has reached the shore of Louisiana. The oil was caused by an explosion on an off shore drilling station on April 20th. Ten days later the oil has now reached the shore of Louisiana. Later that day President Obama finally saw fit to visit the state.
I have a question, or, to be more precises, several questions: Why didn't President Obama have a comprehensive plan to protect the coast of America? Why did he wait until the oil hit the shore to visit the state? Does he hate the wildlife so much that he waited this long to help them? Shouldn't he have evacuated the impacted area long ago?
While on one hand these questions are completely legitimate, they are also somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The real question is: if the media was so self-righteously indignant, so quick to point every finger at Bush, so ready and willing to label him a racist, and decry him a failure for his "lack of action" regarding Katrina and it's aftermath, where are they now? Where are the demands for the immediate action of the white house? Where is the outrage for Obama's obvious lack of planning to safe guard the shore? Last I checked an oil slick moves a whole lot slower than a hurricane. I know we can't stop, or even weaken a storm such as Katrina, but BP was taking action to attempt to lessen the spill, why weren't we? And why haven't I heard anyone else making the same demands of this President as were made on the last?
The real cherry on this sundae is an article I read attempting to pin even this crisis on Bush. I'm not looking to place blame. (This article from March 30th should shed some light on the aforementioned accusation, however). I'll allow my readers to determine how much action or preparation should have come from the current administration. The purpose of this post to point out, yet again, that the media is clearly camped on one side of the aisle. How long will we allow them to hold their President to a lower standard than they do the President of the alternate party?
The first, I'm sad to report, is the end of my wife's blog. She has decided to take a permanent hiatus. I'm hoping that in a few months, maybe a year, she will return. However, for right now, this is the correct decision for her. Please pay a final visit to her blog and recall your favorites of her additions to the blogging world.
The second is the oil slick that has reached the shore of Louisiana. The oil was caused by an explosion on an off shore drilling station on April 20th. Ten days later the oil has now reached the shore of Louisiana. Later that day President Obama finally saw fit to visit the state.
I have a question, or, to be more precises, several questions: Why didn't President Obama have a comprehensive plan to protect the coast of America? Why did he wait until the oil hit the shore to visit the state? Does he hate the wildlife so much that he waited this long to help them? Shouldn't he have evacuated the impacted area long ago?
While on one hand these questions are completely legitimate, they are also somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The real question is: if the media was so self-righteously indignant, so quick to point every finger at Bush, so ready and willing to label him a racist, and decry him a failure for his "lack of action" regarding Katrina and it's aftermath, where are they now? Where are the demands for the immediate action of the white house? Where is the outrage for Obama's obvious lack of planning to safe guard the shore? Last I checked an oil slick moves a whole lot slower than a hurricane. I know we can't stop, or even weaken a storm such as Katrina, but BP was taking action to attempt to lessen the spill, why weren't we? And why haven't I heard anyone else making the same demands of this President as were made on the last?
The real cherry on this sundae is an article I read attempting to pin even this crisis on Bush. I'm not looking to place blame. (This article from March 30th should shed some light on the aforementioned accusation, however). I'll allow my readers to determine how much action or preparation should have come from the current administration. The purpose of this post to point out, yet again, that the media is clearly camped on one side of the aisle. How long will we allow them to hold their President to a lower standard than they do the President of the alternate party?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
My Boy
There are various stages in the life of a young man: Infant, Baby, Toddler, Little Boy, Boy, Young Man, Tween, Adolescent, Teen, Young Adult, etc. Each stage has it's own rite of passage, if you will. If there was any doubt, Today, Full House solidified his "Boy" status.
Every now and then (ok, basically all the time), Full House and I wrestle. He jumps on me, I tickle him, he climbs on me, etc. Today, as he was running to jump on me, I rolled over. As I did so my elbow came in contact with his bottom lip.
Did he cry? Nope. Did he scream? Nope. Did he bleed? Yup.
There you have it, my little Full House bled without shedding a single tear.
Now I have a Boy.
Every now and then (ok, basically all the time), Full House and I wrestle. He jumps on me, I tickle him, he climbs on me, etc. Today, as he was running to jump on me, I rolled over. As I did so my elbow came in contact with his bottom lip.
Did he cry? Nope. Did he scream? Nope. Did he bleed? Yup.
There you have it, my little Full House bled without shedding a single tear.
Now I have a Boy.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Bill (Post I)
Sunday, by the narrowest of margins, the House passed a Healthcare reform bill. First, let me say how phenomenally pleased I am that this version of the bill does not include a "public option." The Government will not be entering the market as a healthcare provider.
Now, allow me to blast this reform bill. According to the Obama administration this bill will provide coverage for 30 million Americans who do not currently have it and will cause health care premiums to decrease for those that do have it.
(In rereading my complete and utter dismantling of this bill, I'm seeing that the post is very long. Due to the length of this post, I've split it into several updates. For your convenience I'll list here a table of contents, if you will. Read the portions that interest you.)
Post I (This post)
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Problem #1
An assumption made by the crafters of this bill
This bill assumes that the 30 million Americans without healthcare all want it. I didn't have healthcare after I graduated from college until about a month before I got married. I didn't need it. I didn't want it. This bill would have punished me for making that financial decision. There is a clause that allows young adults to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 26 instead of 22 as it is now. So either I get punished (with a fine) or my parents get punished by having to continue to pay for a family plan rather than an insured plus one. People should have the freedom not to carry healthcare, just as we have the freedom not to carry life insurance, home insurance, or mortgage insurance. One more thing, allowing "children" to remain on their parents plan is great if you want to continue perpetuating the growing problem of "twixters!"
Problem #2
Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance
Any American without healthcare by 2014 could be fined. For the first year the fines would start at about $95 (and then in fine print "or 1% of your annual income, whichever is higher") Who makes $9,500 a year?! Then next year the fines could increase to a starting amount of $695. Individuals and families who make less than a certain amount would be exempt from these fines. Oh yeah, by the way, the people exempt from the fines would be eligible for Medicaid. A state-based, state and federally funded health care program that they wouldn't have to pay for! So the people who are exempt get free healthcare anyway!
Please keep reading on the next post:
Now, allow me to blast this reform bill. According to the Obama administration this bill will provide coverage for 30 million Americans who do not currently have it and will cause health care premiums to decrease for those that do have it.
(In rereading my complete and utter dismantling of this bill, I'm seeing that the post is very long. Due to the length of this post, I've split it into several updates. For your convenience I'll list here a table of contents, if you will. Read the portions that interest you.)
Post I (This post)
- Problem 1: An assumption made by the crafters of this bill.
Problem 2: Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance.
- Problem 3: The ramifications of fining companies that don't provide coverage for their employees.
Problem 4: The bogus claim that this bill will somehow decrease health care premiums
- Problem 5: The ridiculous way this bill plans to pay for itself.
Problem 6: The type of coverage that companies are now required to offer.
- Problem 7: The Constitutionality of this bill
Problem 8: When everything is scheduled to take effect.
Final thoughts
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
An assumption made by the crafters of this bill
This bill assumes that the 30 million Americans without healthcare all want it. I didn't have healthcare after I graduated from college until about a month before I got married. I didn't need it. I didn't want it. This bill would have punished me for making that financial decision. There is a clause that allows young adults to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 26 instead of 22 as it is now. So either I get punished (with a fine) or my parents get punished by having to continue to pay for a family plan rather than an insured plus one. People should have the freedom not to carry healthcare, just as we have the freedom not to carry life insurance, home insurance, or mortgage insurance. One more thing, allowing "children" to remain on their parents plan is great if you want to continue perpetuating the growing problem of "twixters!"
Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance
Any American without healthcare by 2014 could be fined. For the first year the fines would start at about $95 (and then in fine print "or 1% of your annual income, whichever is higher") Who makes $9,500 a year?! Then next year the fines could increase to a starting amount of $695. Individuals and families who make less than a certain amount would be exempt from these fines. Oh yeah, by the way, the people exempt from the fines would be eligible for Medicaid. A state-based, state and federally funded health care program that they wouldn't have to pay for! So the people who are exempt get free healthcare anyway!
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post II)
The ramifications of fining companies that don't provide coverage for their employees
Companies that don't provide healthcare coverage for their employees will be fined. The fines would be up to two thousand dollars... per employee! Small business (companies with 25 employees or less) will get a tax credit that would cover anywhere between 35 to 50 percent of the cost of providing coverage for their employees. Large companies (50 or more) would be subject to the fines. The first 30 employees would be exempt from the fine. What's this going to do? Cause a lot of people to lose their jobs! If I'm a company of 30 employees, with this bill I now have to provide all of my employees (not just full time employees) with insurance and I'm not eligible for the tax credit because I have too many employees! Ok, say good bye to five employees. That cuts my healthcare costs and qualifies me for the tax break. Of course, if I'm a small business of 12 and I'm working really hard to stay afloat that 50% tax credit isn't going to do me as much good as it may seem. I've got to front the cost of the coverage for my employees and then wait for tax time to learn that I'll be sending less money to the IRS. That's not money the government is giving me. That's more money going out of my business that I might have been using to pay for supplies, or another employee. "Sorry, Jimmy, I have to let you go because I have to provide healthcare for everyone else."
The bogus claim that this bill will somehow decrease health care premiums
There is no possible way this bill will decrease people's premiums. Healthcare providers can no longer refuse coverage. That's like telling auto companies that they can't decline policies. What would happen to your auto policy if the company you were with was forced to accept the risk of all of the reckless 19 year olds? Well, the insurance companies would charge them more, right? Insurance is "shared risk." Sure they'd charge the 19 year olds more but do you really think the insurance company is going to recoup the $400,000 they just paid out by charging the inexperienced youthful drivers $3,000 a year? Just a little calculation for you: it would take over 100 years for the insurance company to get the money it paid out. That means they are increasing your policy as well. Here's another reason this bill will not decrease premiums. With this bill, it's not legal for insurance companies to charge sick people more than well people. "Great! Those sick people will really get a break!" There was a school system that wanted to give it's best teachers a bonus. The teacher's union said, "no no! If you give them a bonus you have to give all of us a bonus. We're a union, you can't treat us differently." The school system agreed and didn't give anyone a bonus. This will happen here. "Oh, we can't charge the sick more than the well people? Ok, guess what well people, you are now paying what the sick people pay." If this doesn't happen, health insurance companies will go out of business. (perhaps that was one of the goals of this legislation.)
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post III)
The ridiculous way this bill plans to pay for itself
For those that cannot afford healthcare, the government will subsidize it. So we can expect, at this point 30 million Americans to have subsidized insurance. We can add to that all of the people that are going to loose their jobs because of the requirements now on businesses. So we've got over 30 million people for whom the government will pay at least a portion of their insurance. Where is this money going to come from? Fines from companies and individuals won't be enough to pay for it. We all know what that means: tax increases! The payment for this bill will come from new taxes on medical procedures (which will just cause health care costs to increase even more), increased taxes on pharmaceuticals (hitting the elderly and the sick), taxes on "expensive" healthcare coverage (meaning those who can afford really good coverage [of course, I'm sure the Congresspeople are exempt from this]), and cuts in reimbursements to doctors and hospitals from Medicare (yet again, targeting the old). Many experts say those still won't be enough and are predicting higher general tax increases to make up the difference. Hmm, I wonder, will the government also subsidize some of the individual fines they are charging as well for those that can't afford insurance but aren't poor enough to qualify for the subsidized version?
The type of coverage that companies are now required to offer
I have to carry things I don't need. If I'm an individual male, my healthcare still has to provide me with maternity and pediatric coverage. I cannot find a way to lessen my costs by rejecting such coverage.
Please keep reading on the next post:
The Bill (Post IV)
The Constitutionality of this bill
It is unconstitutional to require Americans to carry private health insurance. Obama compared it to requiring people to purchase auto insurance. Here's the difference. Auto insurance is only required if you choose to drive. There is no choice in this legislation. What, if I choose to breathe I have to have healthcare? Where is the outrage from those shouting about the government's infringement on our civil liberties because of the Patriot Act? Oh, the people shouting about that "evil" piece of legislation are the same people trampling my civil liberties by requiring me to purchase healthcare on the open market. This bill is completely unconstitutional and needs to be prominently labeled as such.
When everything is scheduled to take effect
The majority of these provisions don't go into effect until after the mid-term elections and after Obama runs for reelection. The Democrats can wear the laurels of healthcare reform upon their brows without having to answer for all of the inevitable negative consequences. At the mid term elections in 2010 the politicians will point out how all of the drastic doomsday prophesies of the Right have not come to pass. As Obama runs for reelection in 2012 he will continually mention the victory of healthcare reform that he was able to pass because he will not have to face the ramifications of it as it still will not have taken effect when he is trying to retain his office. This bill isn't actually law until 2014! And if we look far enough into the future, two years may not be enough time for the damaging effects of this bill to become fully evident. That means in 2016 the Democrats may still be singing the praises of this destructive bill!
Thanks for making it this far!
Once again I'm seeing this action as simply a calculated stepping stone to a single payor government run system. Let's say the Supreme Court does shoot this bill down as being unconstitutional. Rather than ditch it entirely, the legislatures may say, "Well, we can force people to pay into Social Security because it's government run. We'll just require people to carry government insurance. That's legal." Either that, or, with well people paying the same as sick people they begin choosing to pay the fines rather than carry insurance. People pulling out of insurance companies causes them to raise the premiums on those who stay forcing more people out of the system. Private healthcare collapses and the government swoops in as the apparent savior. Like Senator Palpatine, they save us from the destruction they caused. Either way, as I've said before, the crafters of this bill are either oblivious or devious and I don't want either type of person in power in my country!
Let's hope there's still a way to kill this bill.
(Resource)
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Bad Religion
A few days ago, I realized why I hadn't posted for some time. I wasn't paying much attention to the news. I refuse to watch network news. I have had to eat at my desk so I haven't been watching the cable news station on in the cafe. I don't read the newspaper. I listen to either sports or classical music to and from work.
Then I received a gift: a waterproof radio. The only few minutes of the day that I have to myself, now I can listen to the news. I did it for one day because I got so annoyed by what I heard. Three posts created themselves in that one day. I haven't turned the radio on since.
Here's one of the stories I heard:
"Trade in your Bible for free pornography."
An Atheist group is providing pornography if people will turn in their religious texts. I'm sure you can imagine my wrath if the only acceptable trade-in were a Judeau-Christian Bible. But, true to what their name suggests, the Atheists were accepting any religious text. (I wonder if they would have accepted this Bible)
This is a question for all of my atheist readers (of which I know I have at least two). As an Atheist, do you honestly believe that these images, (images that objectify women, images that have ended marriages, images that have been known to cause eating disorders in women, images that have been proved to lead to violence against women) do you believe that these images are less destructive than ancient writings that (for the most part) encourage their followers to love others?
Now, I understand that some people might say that it's not about what the books say, it's what they lead to. I completely admit that a lot of people have done a lot of bad things and used religion to support it. The Crusades. Hitler used religion to back his psychosis. Jihad. But I realized something:
The solution to bad religion is NOT less religion. The solution to bad religion is good religion.
Why is this such a revolutionary thought? This only makes sense. The solution to bad food is good food, not less food. To combat bad employees, you get good employees, not fewer employees. If Hollywood is making bad movies, the answer is not fewer movies, it's good movies!
I just hope the protesters conducted themselves with love.
Then I received a gift: a waterproof radio. The only few minutes of the day that I have to myself, now I can listen to the news. I did it for one day because I got so annoyed by what I heard. Three posts created themselves in that one day. I haven't turned the radio on since.
Here's one of the stories I heard:
"Trade in your Bible for free pornography."
An Atheist group is providing pornography if people will turn in their religious texts. I'm sure you can imagine my wrath if the only acceptable trade-in were a Judeau-Christian Bible. But, true to what their name suggests, the Atheists were accepting any religious text. (I wonder if they would have accepted this Bible)
This is a question for all of my atheist readers (of which I know I have at least two). As an Atheist, do you honestly believe that these images, (images that objectify women, images that have ended marriages, images that have been known to cause eating disorders in women, images that have been proved to lead to violence against women) do you believe that these images are less destructive than ancient writings that (for the most part) encourage their followers to love others?
Now, I understand that some people might say that it's not about what the books say, it's what they lead to. I completely admit that a lot of people have done a lot of bad things and used religion to support it. The Crusades. Hitler used religion to back his psychosis. Jihad. But I realized something:
The solution to bad religion is NOT less religion. The solution to bad religion is good religion.
Why is this such a revolutionary thought? This only makes sense. The solution to bad food is good food, not less food. To combat bad employees, you get good employees, not fewer employees. If Hollywood is making bad movies, the answer is not fewer movies, it's good movies!
I just hope the protesters conducted themselves with love.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Oprah's Failure
Oprah, a cultural bastion of wisdom and followers, has once again disappointed me.
She was interviewing the GOP candidate who won't go away (Sarah Palin) and Sarah's daughter Bristol. Here is the video if you'd like to view it: Oprah's Failure
This is the only clip I could find. This clip has been edited, the original has Oprah saying something to the affect of, "I just wanted to give you an opportunity to take a step back from that statement." But Bristol refused to.
So, in this clip Oprah says to Bristol, "I bristled when I read that you said 'I'm not going to have sex before I'm married, I can guarantee it.'" Oprah then goes on to ask, "Why set yourself up for failure like that?" Excuse me?
Here's what I want to know: When did a dedication to abstinence become unreasonable? We expect youth/young adults to remain abstinent from other things! (Marijuana, Tobacco, Steroids, Texting while driving, Etc)
What did Oprah want Bristol to say? "I'm gonna try not to have sex?" "I've been thinking about it and I'm probably not going to have sex again until I'm married."
Which statement sets Bristol up for more failure: "Maybe I'll have sex, maybe I won't but I'll try not to." (Guess what, if she says this, she will!) or "I'm guaranteeing that I will not have sex again until I'm married." By saying this she knows that people will hold her accountable! It makes the decision not to have sex easier because sex now comes with two things: a baby and public ridicule. (Oh, I forgot, in our culture we don't like accountability.)
And, Oprah, even if you want to believe that a generic youth making this guarantee is setting themself up for failure, who is more likely to know that she's not going to have sex: The anonymous 15 year old who has never done it or the mother of a 13 month old who knows what sex leads to and who has been in the public eye for at least 2 years? Hmmm... Tough one...
In the following scenarios, which statement is more likely to set the speaker up for failure:
"I'm gonna try to stop smoking..."
"I'm quiting, I'm never going to smoke again."
"I'm gonna try to stop lying..."
"I'm going to be honest in my relationships. Period."
"I'm gonna try not to drink in college."
"I will not break the law by drinking while underage."
Now let's pretend that Bristol didn't go on Oprah's show and express certainty about something Oprah doesn't agree with. Let's pretend that Bristol went on Oprah's show and was luke warm about something Oprah is passionate about. What would that conversation have sounded like? I submit that it would have gone something like this:
Bristol: "I'm gonna seriously consider lowering my carbon footprint."
Oprah: "What do you mean 'Seriously consider?' This is something that you have to do. We all have to do it! Right, everyone?" (Cheers from the audience) "Now, what do you say? Are you gonna try? or are you gonna do it!?"
I wonder if Oprah's ever guaranteed that she was going to help those girls in Africa who attend her school? Or if she's been certain that she's going to keep her weight from fluctuating. I hope not. If she did, she's only setting herself up for failure.
She was interviewing the GOP candidate who won't go away (Sarah Palin) and Sarah's daughter Bristol. Here is the video if you'd like to view it: Oprah's Failure
This is the only clip I could find. This clip has been edited, the original has Oprah saying something to the affect of, "I just wanted to give you an opportunity to take a step back from that statement." But Bristol refused to.
So, in this clip Oprah says to Bristol, "I bristled when I read that you said 'I'm not going to have sex before I'm married, I can guarantee it.'" Oprah then goes on to ask, "Why set yourself up for failure like that?" Excuse me?
Here's what I want to know: When did a dedication to abstinence become unreasonable? We expect youth/young adults to remain abstinent from other things! (Marijuana, Tobacco, Steroids, Texting while driving, Etc)
What did Oprah want Bristol to say? "I'm gonna try not to have sex?" "I've been thinking about it and I'm probably not going to have sex again until I'm married."
Which statement sets Bristol up for more failure: "Maybe I'll have sex, maybe I won't but I'll try not to." (Guess what, if she says this, she will!) or "I'm guaranteeing that I will not have sex again until I'm married." By saying this she knows that people will hold her accountable! It makes the decision not to have sex easier because sex now comes with two things: a baby and public ridicule. (Oh, I forgot, in our culture we don't like accountability.)
And, Oprah, even if you want to believe that a generic youth making this guarantee is setting themself up for failure, who is more likely to know that she's not going to have sex: The anonymous 15 year old who has never done it or the mother of a 13 month old who knows what sex leads to and who has been in the public eye for at least 2 years? Hmmm... Tough one...
In the following scenarios, which statement is more likely to set the speaker up for failure:
"I'm gonna try to stop smoking..."
"I'm quiting, I'm never going to smoke again."
"I'm gonna try to stop lying..."
"I'm going to be honest in my relationships. Period."
"I'm gonna try not to drink in college."
"I will not break the law by drinking while underage."
Now let's pretend that Bristol didn't go on Oprah's show and express certainty about something Oprah doesn't agree with. Let's pretend that Bristol went on Oprah's show and was luke warm about something Oprah is passionate about. What would that conversation have sounded like? I submit that it would have gone something like this:
Bristol: "I'm gonna seriously consider lowering my carbon footprint."
Oprah: "What do you mean 'Seriously consider?' This is something that you have to do. We all have to do it! Right, everyone?" (Cheers from the audience) "Now, what do you say? Are you gonna try? or are you gonna do it!?"
I wonder if Oprah's ever guaranteed that she was going to help those girls in Africa who attend her school? Or if she's been certain that she's going to keep her weight from fluctuating. I hope not. If she did, she's only setting herself up for failure.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Payton vs Peyton
Sean Payton, head coach of the New Orleans Saints will face off against Peyton Manning, Quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.
Of course, there's always some controversy when it comes to the Championship games. I was pleased with the officiating until the overtime session for the NFC Championship game. I'm not sure if the referees just wanted to go home, or wanted to be able to walk safely down Bourbon St. Whichever the case, they gave the game to the wrong team.
On fourth and 1, the Saints went for it. The runner diving over the pile lost control of the football and did not regain control until he was behind the 1st down marker. Somehow this was granted as a first down. Had the correct call been made, Favre and the Vikings would have gotten the ball around mid-field. Only one team had been able to move the ball in the second half and that team was wearing purple.
On 3rd and 7, a phantom pass interference call was made on a ball over thrown by 10 yards. Had the right call been made, likely the Saints would have punted. They might have gone for it, but Belichick only coaches in New England.
On 2nd and 16, a ball that was trapped against the ground was declared a completed catch, allowing the Saints to go for a 40 yard field goal attempt. Had the correct call been made, they'd have been facing 3rd and 16 and looking at a 56 yard field goal attempt that they never would have tried.
As I perused the NFL rule book, it would seem that they've created the "Manning-rule" which is the conspicuous removal of the ruling that a Quarterback who goes under center and takes his hands out without the ball has committed a false start. Well, it's time to take another look at the rulebook.
The NFL rulebook states: "No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him." The NFL needs to decide if they are going to remove this rule or start calling it. I am so tired of seeing three offensive linemen pushing their running back from behind in an effort to gain another three yards. This is illegal but, like the "Manning-rule," it happens every game. Call it or remove it.
Finally, It's time to change the way the NFL handles overtime. There is nothing exciting about a team making it to their opponent's 35 and winning the game with a field goal. I propose the following: Remove the sudden death aspect of overtime. The winner should be the first team to 6 points. Now there is some strategy to kicking a field goal. Do we take three and hope we can keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? Or do we go for the TD and the win now? At least this way to lose without ever touching the ball, you have to give up a touchdown.
For 16 seconds it looked like I was going to have a team to root for in Super Bowl XLIV, and then Favre threw another interception. So, now I have a team to root against: Go Saints!
Of course, there's always some controversy when it comes to the Championship games. I was pleased with the officiating until the overtime session for the NFC Championship game. I'm not sure if the referees just wanted to go home, or wanted to be able to walk safely down Bourbon St. Whichever the case, they gave the game to the wrong team.
On fourth and 1, the Saints went for it. The runner diving over the pile lost control of the football and did not regain control until he was behind the 1st down marker. Somehow this was granted as a first down. Had the correct call been made, Favre and the Vikings would have gotten the ball around mid-field. Only one team had been able to move the ball in the second half and that team was wearing purple.
On 3rd and 7, a phantom pass interference call was made on a ball over thrown by 10 yards. Had the right call been made, likely the Saints would have punted. They might have gone for it, but Belichick only coaches in New England.
On 2nd and 16, a ball that was trapped against the ground was declared a completed catch, allowing the Saints to go for a 40 yard field goal attempt. Had the correct call been made, they'd have been facing 3rd and 16 and looking at a 56 yard field goal attempt that they never would have tried.
As I perused the NFL rule book, it would seem that they've created the "Manning-rule" which is the conspicuous removal of the ruling that a Quarterback who goes under center and takes his hands out without the ball has committed a false start. Well, it's time to take another look at the rulebook.
The NFL rulebook states: "No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him." The NFL needs to decide if they are going to remove this rule or start calling it. I am so tired of seeing three offensive linemen pushing their running back from behind in an effort to gain another three yards. This is illegal but, like the "Manning-rule," it happens every game. Call it or remove it.
Finally, It's time to change the way the NFL handles overtime. There is nothing exciting about a team making it to their opponent's 35 and winning the game with a field goal. I propose the following: Remove the sudden death aspect of overtime. The winner should be the first team to 6 points. Now there is some strategy to kicking a field goal. Do we take three and hope we can keep the other team from scoring a touchdown? Or do we go for the TD and the win now? At least this way to lose without ever touching the ball, you have to give up a touchdown.
For 16 seconds it looked like I was going to have a team to root for in Super Bowl XLIV, and then Favre threw another interception. So, now I have a team to root against: Go Saints!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
All Four Super Bowl Previews IV
What has become a perennial subject is one of my favorite posts. This is where I break down all four possible Super Bowls, discuss who will win, which one I'd like to see, and which one the league and the networks are pulling for.
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; and 2009, Steelers over Cardinals.
First, I'm officially announcing that I am not going to make a prediction for either Championship game. It never seems to work out for me. I have my analysis and my expectations, but I'm not sharing any actual predictions.
And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:
Saints vs Jets
There's not a lot for CBS to leverage here. The only real story is that it's a Super Bowl of "firsts". The Saints have never been before and the Jet's have a Rookie QB with an up and coming coach. That's about it. In regards to the actual game: they say it's defense that wins Championships but I think if the Jets make it their defense will be befuddled by the Saints multi-look offense. The Jets may have a very strong secondary but I think the Saints can overcome it. Winner: Saints(Loser: the viewers)
Saints vs Colts
This game could be fairly entertaining: Two gun slinging QBs with high powered offenses facing off. But for as many points as they can score, the Saints faced a much easier schedule than the Colts did. If this is the match-up there would be several lead changes, but Peyton would win his second ring (Then he'd only be 1 ring and 2 Super Bowl appearances behind Brady). Winner: Colts (Loser: Score Board Operator)
Vikings vs Jets
Now here's a storyline: Oldest Super Bowl QB ever in Favre vs an untested Rookie. The MVP worthy performance of Brett vs the shut down defense of the Revis and Jets. This game might resemble the beginning of the Patriots/Panthers Super Bowl where there was no scoring for the majority of the first half. This would likely be the closest of all four possible games. Winner: Vikings (Loser: Jim Caldwell, Colts coach for not going for 16-0)
Vikings vs Colts
This is definitely the game CBS executives pray for every night before bed. No two active Quarterbacks are more loved or followed than Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Two Generations of greatness on one field. Will it be the passing of the torch? Or will Brett prove yet again why he deserves to be listed as the greatest of all time? Will the Vikings powerful D-Line get to Peyton? Will the Colts secondary make Favre of the Vikings look more like Favre of the Jets? It's just too close to call. Winner: Jersey Retailers (Loser: Joe Montana)
There you have it. What are your thoughts? Do you have a preference? Think I've picked the wrong winners? Now's your chance: be heard!
If you'd like to see how I've done in the past, you can read my previous versions here (I'll list them with the year the Super Bowl happened along with the actual teams that faced off): 2007, Colts over Bears; 2008, Giants over Patriots; and 2009, Steelers over Cardinals.
First, I'm officially announcing that I am not going to make a prediction for either Championship game. It never seems to work out for me. I have my analysis and my expectations, but I'm not sharing any actual predictions.
And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:
Saints vs Jets
There's not a lot for CBS to leverage here. The only real story is that it's a Super Bowl of "firsts". The Saints have never been before and the Jet's have a Rookie QB with an up and coming coach. That's about it. In regards to the actual game: they say it's defense that wins Championships but I think if the Jets make it their defense will be befuddled by the Saints multi-look offense. The Jets may have a very strong secondary but I think the Saints can overcome it. Winner: Saints(Loser: the viewers)
Saints vs Colts
This game could be fairly entertaining: Two gun slinging QBs with high powered offenses facing off. But for as many points as they can score, the Saints faced a much easier schedule than the Colts did. If this is the match-up there would be several lead changes, but Peyton would win his second ring (Then he'd only be 1 ring and 2 Super Bowl appearances behind Brady). Winner: Colts (Loser: Score Board Operator)
Vikings vs Jets
Now here's a storyline: Oldest Super Bowl QB ever in Favre vs an untested Rookie. The MVP worthy performance of Brett vs the shut down defense of the Revis and Jets. This game might resemble the beginning of the Patriots/Panthers Super Bowl where there was no scoring for the majority of the first half. This would likely be the closest of all four possible games. Winner: Vikings (Loser: Jim Caldwell, Colts coach for not going for 16-0)
Vikings vs Colts
This is definitely the game CBS executives pray for every night before bed. No two active Quarterbacks are more loved or followed than Brett Favre and Peyton Manning. Two Generations of greatness on one field. Will it be the passing of the torch? Or will Brett prove yet again why he deserves to be listed as the greatest of all time? Will the Vikings powerful D-Line get to Peyton? Will the Colts secondary make Favre of the Vikings look more like Favre of the Jets? It's just too close to call. Winner: Jersey Retailers (Loser: Joe Montana)
There you have it. What are your thoughts? Do you have a preference? Think I've picked the wrong winners? Now's your chance: be heard!
NBC-ya
This may sound odd, but I used to be an NBC loyalist. If there were two shows on network TV that I wanted to watch, I favored the NBC show. I used to watch NBC's 11 o'clock news when I was in high school. I approved of NBC's choice of Leno over Letterman. I was upset when NBC lost the NFL. Funny, I don't feel quite so loyal anymore.
Not since NBC decided to stick it to the new guy because they made a colossal blunder that they can't admit to. That's what NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker is doing by forcing out Conan O'Brien from The Tonight Show.
I've read conflicting stories about the situation, but in either case Zucker shoulders the lion's share of the blame.
Scenario one: Leno is ready to retire but NBC can't let him go as he is one of only a few shows where NBC beats out the competition so they beg him to stay, offer him an obscenely large contract, and move him to Prime Time. The Jay Leno Show tanks and The Tonight Show under Conan's leadership falters so they try to get Leno back to 11:35.
Scenario two: Leno declares he'll be retiring in five years. NBC announces that Conan is the heir apparent to The Tonight Show throne. The late night scepter is set to be passed and Leno decides he's not ready to be done. NBC sees the possibilities and fears that Leno may sign with another network. So they offer him a Prime Time gig along with an obscene amount of money. The Jay Leno Show tanks and Leno starts to complain that he wants his old job back. Zucker tries to move Conan and The Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for a 1/2 hour Leno show.
In either scenario Conan says that the integrity of The Tonight Show is too great to change it's time slot. Zucker agrees and tells Conan to take a hike.
All of this hinges on the fact that the final decision is Zucker's call. In "scenario one" he made a major mess of NBC. The Prime Time show was his idea. Rather than cancel Leno's prime time failure and eat the obscene amount of money they signed him to, he'd rather give Conan the boot and move Leno back to 11:35.
In "scenario two" Zucker was afraid that Leno would sign with another network, so he creates a new show in prime time for Leno. After it tanks and Jay "the bully" Leno says he wants his old job back Zucker acquiesces and sends Conan packing rather than telling Leno that if he wants to take his ball and go home, that's up to him, but Zucker isn't going to move him to another team.
The dirtiest part about all of this is that under Conan's contract, anything that he's developed while with NBC is not his own intellectual property. So when he goes to FOX he can't take "In the Year 3000," "The Celebrity Survey," or "The Sears Tower wearing Sears Clothing" with him. They belong to NBC.
I was once one of Leno's most loyal viewers. Not anymore. I'll wait for Conan to sign with another network. Until then, it will be rare that my rabbit-eared TV will be tuned to 30-1 and I can guarantee that it won't be set to that channel past 11PM on weeknights.
Not since NBC decided to stick it to the new guy because they made a colossal blunder that they can't admit to. That's what NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker is doing by forcing out Conan O'Brien from The Tonight Show.
I've read conflicting stories about the situation, but in either case Zucker shoulders the lion's share of the blame.Scenario one: Leno is ready to retire but NBC can't let him go as he is one of only a few shows where NBC beats out the competition so they beg him to stay, offer him an obscenely large contract, and move him to Prime Time. The Jay Leno Show tanks and The Tonight Show under Conan's leadership falters so they try to get Leno back to 11:35.
Scenario two: Leno declares he'll be retiring in five years. NBC announces that Conan is the heir apparent to The Tonight Show throne. The late night scepter is set to be passed and Leno decides he's not ready to be done. NBC sees the possibilities and fears that Leno may sign with another network. So they offer him a Prime Time gig along with an obscene amount of money. The Jay Leno Show tanks and Leno starts to complain that he wants his old job back. Zucker tries to move Conan and The Tonight Show back to 12:05 to make room for a 1/2 hour Leno show.
In either scenario Conan says that the integrity of The Tonight Show is too great to change it's time slot. Zucker agrees and tells Conan to take a hike.
All of this hinges on the fact that the final decision is Zucker's call. In "scenario one" he made a major mess of NBC. The Prime Time show was his idea. Rather than cancel Leno's prime time failure and eat the obscene amount of money they signed him to, he'd rather give Conan the boot and move Leno back to 11:35.In "scenario two" Zucker was afraid that Leno would sign with another network, so he creates a new show in prime time for Leno. After it tanks and Jay "the bully" Leno says he wants his old job back Zucker acquiesces and sends Conan packing rather than telling Leno that if he wants to take his ball and go home, that's up to him, but Zucker isn't going to move him to another team.
The dirtiest part about all of this is that under Conan's contract, anything that he's developed while with NBC is not his own intellectual property. So when he goes to FOX he can't take "In the Year 3000," "The Celebrity Survey," or "The Sears Tower wearing Sears Clothing" with him. They belong to NBC.
I was once one of Leno's most loyal viewers. Not anymore. I'll wait for Conan to sign with another network. Until then, it will be rare that my rabbit-eared TV will be tuned to 30-1 and I can guarantee that it won't be set to that channel past 11PM on weeknights.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
41.
Massachusetts has spoken. The message was loud and clear. Just like the midterm elections under the 41st President were a mandate against the war, this run-off election was a mandate against Obama's plan for nationalized healthcare. Republican Senator Scott Brown is the 41st Republican in the Senate. The Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof majority. The healthcare bill can now be stopped.
In actuality, the Obama Administration should be thankful that they had this opportunity to hear from such a large number of independent voters. Not only independent voters, but independent voters who historically vote liberal. They swung to the right on this issue. And these aren't people who are uninformed about the President's healthcare agenda. As long as this bill has been on the table the Dems have been trying to sell it to America by pointing to Massachusetts and saying, "Look, it's working there." Massachusetts has just pointed back and said, "Nope, we don't want it."
As with all political issues the spin patrol is in high gear. High ranking Democratic officials are saying that this wasn't Massachusetts way of saying "No thank you" to the healthcare bill. The Dems are saying that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, lost because she ran a lackluster uninspired campaign. She lost because she hinted that Curt Schilling might be a Yankees fan. Former President Clinton and President Obama both flew to Massachusetts to campaign for Ms Coakley. The Democratic Party pulled out all the stops and she lost. John Kerry wore a Yankees hat in Yankee stadium and he still carried Massachusetts.
You know what? That's fine with me. Let the Democrats think the vote isn't a mandate on Washington's politics and policies. Let them think it's about the Candidate and the campaign. The longer they swallow that Kool-Aid, the longer they will be out of touch with the majority of America's independent voters and the more seats they'll lose come November. Feel free to ignore the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Pretend that Senator Brown won Massachusetts with his charisma. Bottom line: The Democrats lost Massachusetts and when the Democrats lose Massachusetts they have a national problem. If they want to stick their collective heads in the sand, that's fine with me.
The Obama Administration does have two final options to get their healthcare bill passed: They can either force a vote before Senator Brown is seated or they can force a delay in his seating so they can get their vote. I say: Go ahead. Force it through before he's seated. Be the party full of bullies that ignores the voters mandate. Either action would only increase the number of seats they are going to lose in November.
Finally, I have a correction to my previous post. I attributed a quote to some political pundit. I was wrong. The quote actually belonged to Senator Scott Brown. He was asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform. Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
And for the first time in over 40 years, the people made the right decision!
In actuality, the Obama Administration should be thankful that they had this opportunity to hear from such a large number of independent voters. Not only independent voters, but independent voters who historically vote liberal. They swung to the right on this issue. And these aren't people who are uninformed about the President's healthcare agenda. As long as this bill has been on the table the Dems have been trying to sell it to America by pointing to Massachusetts and saying, "Look, it's working there." Massachusetts has just pointed back and said, "Nope, we don't want it."
As with all political issues the spin patrol is in high gear. High ranking Democratic officials are saying that this wasn't Massachusetts way of saying "No thank you" to the healthcare bill. The Dems are saying that Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, lost because she ran a lackluster uninspired campaign. She lost because she hinted that Curt Schilling might be a Yankees fan. Former President Clinton and President Obama both flew to Massachusetts to campaign for Ms Coakley. The Democratic Party pulled out all the stops and she lost. John Kerry wore a Yankees hat in Yankee stadium and he still carried Massachusetts.
You know what? That's fine with me. Let the Democrats think the vote isn't a mandate on Washington's politics and policies. Let them think it's about the Candidate and the campaign. The longer they swallow that Kool-Aid, the longer they will be out of touch with the majority of America's independent voters and the more seats they'll lose come November. Feel free to ignore the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. Pretend that Senator Brown won Massachusetts with his charisma. Bottom line: The Democrats lost Massachusetts and when the Democrats lose Massachusetts they have a national problem. If they want to stick their collective heads in the sand, that's fine with me.
The Obama Administration does have two final options to get their healthcare bill passed: They can either force a vote before Senator Brown is seated or they can force a delay in his seating so they can get their vote. I say: Go ahead. Force it through before he's seated. Be the party full of bullies that ignores the voters mandate. Either action would only increase the number of seats they are going to lose in November.
Finally, I have a correction to my previous post. I attributed a quote to some political pundit. I was wrong. The quote actually belonged to Senator Scott Brown. He was asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform. Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
And for the first time in over 40 years, the people made the right decision!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Irony
There are two totally unrelated, wonderfully ironic possibilities in the very near future. One political, the other sports related. Perfect for JMO.
Massachusetts: The people of Massachusetts will soon be voting for a new US Senator. The seat vacated by Teddy Kennedy is up for grabs and it's anybody's guess right now which political party will claim victory. The Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley, MA's Attorney General) displayed an early lead, but the Republican hopeful (Scott Brown, MA State Senator) has made a late push. While Ms. Coakly once held as much as a 15% lead, most polls show a dead heat, and some even have her trailing very late in the game. (On a side note, one unbiased news reporter asked a political pundit who he thought would win Senator Kennedy's seat to which the commentator corrected him: "The seat does not belong to Edward Kennedy. It belongs to the good people of the state of Massachusetts." But there is no such thing as the liberal media.)
Where is the irony? I spoke, live, one on one, with a Congressman from New York. It was at a town fair and he didn't know that I wasn't one of his constituents. I requested that he vote against the healthcare plan. He asked me why I felt the way I did. I briefly listed some of my concerns. He was ready with the party line of, "Well, look at Massachusetts. It's worked there so clearly it can work on the national level." And now, it is Massachusetts that can decide if we will be forced to bear this irresponsible burden or not. This one Senate seat could upset the Democrats "Filibuster-proof" majority. If Scott Brown wins this election, the Republicans would have enough votes to kill the Healthcare Bill. How well is it working in Massachusetts? I guess we'll find out when the people of that blue state decide if we will be forced to have national healthcare or not.
Indianapolis: Week 16 of the NFL's regular season: The Jets are all but eliminated. They must win their last two games to have a shot at the post season. The Colts are looking at being only the second team ever to go 16-0. But they thumb their nose at history and curl up and die for their opponent. Who was that opponent? The New York Jets. If the Colts played like a real NFL team, the Jets would have been eliminated.
Where's the irony? The Jets have shocked football fans everywhere (Except in New York) by defeating both the Bengals and the Chargers. Now, in the AFC Championship game they face none other than the Indianapolis Colts. The very team that could have prevented them from getting to the playoffs. If the Jets are able to eliminate Dallas Clark and the Colts it would be poetic justice for the Colts deciding they didn't want to actually play any football for the final two weeks of the season.
I love irony of all kinds. I will be ecstatic if both of these ironic possibilities come to fruition!
Massachusetts: The people of Massachusetts will soon be voting for a new US Senator. The seat vacated by Teddy Kennedy is up for grabs and it's anybody's guess right now which political party will claim victory. The Democratic candidate (Martha Coakley, MA's Attorney General) displayed an early lead, but the Republican hopeful (Scott Brown, MA State Senator) has made a late push. While Ms. Coakly once held as much as a 15% lead, most polls show a dead heat, and some even have her trailing very late in the game. (On a side note, one unbiased news reporter asked a political pundit who he thought would win Senator Kennedy's seat to which the commentator corrected him: "The seat does not belong to Edward Kennedy. It belongs to the good people of the state of Massachusetts." But there is no such thing as the liberal media.)
Where is the irony? I spoke, live, one on one, with a Congressman from New York. It was at a town fair and he didn't know that I wasn't one of his constituents. I requested that he vote against the healthcare plan. He asked me why I felt the way I did. I briefly listed some of my concerns. He was ready with the party line of, "Well, look at Massachusetts. It's worked there so clearly it can work on the national level." And now, it is Massachusetts that can decide if we will be forced to bear this irresponsible burden or not. This one Senate seat could upset the Democrats "Filibuster-proof" majority. If Scott Brown wins this election, the Republicans would have enough votes to kill the Healthcare Bill. How well is it working in Massachusetts? I guess we'll find out when the people of that blue state decide if we will be forced to have national healthcare or not.
Indianapolis: Week 16 of the NFL's regular season: The Jets are all but eliminated. They must win their last two games to have a shot at the post season. The Colts are looking at being only the second team ever to go 16-0. But they thumb their nose at history and curl up and die for their opponent. Who was that opponent? The New York Jets. If the Colts played like a real NFL team, the Jets would have been eliminated.
Where's the irony? The Jets have shocked football fans everywhere (Except in New York) by defeating both the Bengals and the Chargers. Now, in the AFC Championship game they face none other than the Indianapolis Colts. The very team that could have prevented them from getting to the playoffs. If the Jets are able to eliminate Dallas Clark and the Colts it would be poetic justice for the Colts deciding they didn't want to actually play any football for the final two weeks of the season.
I love irony of all kinds. I will be ecstatic if both of these ironic possibilities come to fruition!
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Reflections on the Playoffs thus far
My beginning thoughts are general thoughts about no one specific game.
First, I want to hear the outrage from the "purists" for Favre and the Vikings running up the score on the Cowboys. I don't think that what the Patriots did in 2007 was "unsportsmanlike" but there are those that do. I want to hear from those people the same sentiment towards the Vikings. Or is only unsportsmanlike with it's a team that plays in New England?
Second, can we all agree that we now know why Belichick and the Patriots "Go for it" on fourth down so often? I'm fairly certain that these playoffs have proven that field goals are no longer "easy points." "Just put the points on the board" is no longer a guarantee. I think I've seen more missed field goals in the past 8 games than I've seen in an entire season.
So, for the Divisional playoff round, I decided to give up on analysis and just pick all of the teams that started with a "C": the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys, and Chargers. Three of them lost. Why is it that the JMO curse doesn't seem to apply to teams that I don't like, but applies in all other cases? The only team that won that I picked was the game that I was hoping I'd picked wrong.
Speaking of the Colts, I have a few questions for the officiating team of that game.
1) Late in the first half a play was run and there were 9 seconds left on the clock. Then, just before the ball was snapped for the next play, the clock read 11 seconds. Where did those 2 seconds come from? Those two seconds allowed the Colts to run an extra play and score a TD, rather than have to settle for a FG.
2) Since when is a receiver who has caught the ball "Defenseless"? Third and goal, Dallas Clark catches a TD pass and the ball is knocked loose by a perfectly timed hit by the DB. But a flag is thrown giving the Colts 4 more chances to score. And they do. So, where is it in the rule book, again, that a receiver who has caught the ball is "defenseless"?
3) Are there special rules for players who wear a horseshoe on their helmet? I could have sworn that if you play the receiver and not the ball and you interfere with the completion of the pass that it's pass interference. Just like what happened when the Ravens faced 3rd and 3 in the 3rd. But, as my question supposes, there must be a separate rule book for the boys from Indy.
In the end, I knew that the Ravens would not win because a team can break down film, they can game plan, and they can execute. A team can pressure the QB, stop the run, disrupt the passing game, but there is one thing that no team can do. No team can defend against the refs.
Stay tuned to JMO. Don't miss my annual breakdown of all four possible Super Bowls. Let's see if I can call the participants and the winner of that game wrong, too!
First, I want to hear the outrage from the "purists" for Favre and the Vikings running up the score on the Cowboys. I don't think that what the Patriots did in 2007 was "unsportsmanlike" but there are those that do. I want to hear from those people the same sentiment towards the Vikings. Or is only unsportsmanlike with it's a team that plays in New England?
Second, can we all agree that we now know why Belichick and the Patriots "Go for it" on fourth down so often? I'm fairly certain that these playoffs have proven that field goals are no longer "easy points." "Just put the points on the board" is no longer a guarantee. I think I've seen more missed field goals in the past 8 games than I've seen in an entire season.
So, for the Divisional playoff round, I decided to give up on analysis and just pick all of the teams that started with a "C": the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys, and Chargers. Three of them lost. Why is it that the JMO curse doesn't seem to apply to teams that I don't like, but applies in all other cases? The only team that won that I picked was the game that I was hoping I'd picked wrong.
Speaking of the Colts, I have a few questions for the officiating team of that game.
1) Late in the first half a play was run and there were 9 seconds left on the clock. Then, just before the ball was snapped for the next play, the clock read 11 seconds. Where did those 2 seconds come from? Those two seconds allowed the Colts to run an extra play and score a TD, rather than have to settle for a FG.
2) Since when is a receiver who has caught the ball "Defenseless"? Third and goal, Dallas Clark catches a TD pass and the ball is knocked loose by a perfectly timed hit by the DB. But a flag is thrown giving the Colts 4 more chances to score. And they do. So, where is it in the rule book, again, that a receiver who has caught the ball is "defenseless"?
3) Are there special rules for players who wear a horseshoe on their helmet? I could have sworn that if you play the receiver and not the ball and you interfere with the completion of the pass that it's pass interference. Just like what happened when the Ravens faced 3rd and 3 in the 3rd. But, as my question supposes, there must be a separate rule book for the boys from Indy.
In the end, I knew that the Ravens would not win because a team can break down film, they can game plan, and they can execute. A team can pressure the QB, stop the run, disrupt the passing game, but there is one thing that no team can do. No team can defend against the refs.
Stay tuned to JMO. Don't miss my annual breakdown of all four possible Super Bowls. Let's see if I can call the participants and the winner of that game wrong, too!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Imagine
It seems that every time the new year rolls around, someone decides it's a good idea to ring it in with John Lennon's "Imagine."
I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I don't like the song "Imagine." And not because I want my stuff or even due to my outspoken dedication to one specific religion.
The world that John imagines is one of a purposeless drab useless existence.
Imagine no religion and no heaven and hell. Ok, that means that the life I live is regulated to this world. There is no reward or punishment, so I have to find meaning in this life, as there isn't one that follows.
I'll pour myself into Patriotism and the defense and bettering of my country. Oh, wait, there are no boarders, boundaries, or countries. Ok, well, that's out.
Hmm, I'll find something I'm passionate about. What's that John? There's nothing to kill or die for? Well, while I get the nothing to kill for (with the exception of possibly killing one to save many others) If I have nothing to die for, what kind of life is that? I wouldn't give up my life for my children? My wife? I have no religion be martyred for or country to defend. What's left?
I guess I'll live a life of comfort. Oh no! All of my stuff is gone! I have no possessions.
What am I left with? The brotherhood of man? Based on what? The fact that we live in a world devoid of hope, meaning, purpose, drive, or ambition.
John's utopia is in fact a distopia. If I lived in his imagined world I might just have found something to die for: to get out of it.
I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I don't like the song "Imagine." And not because I want my stuff or even due to my outspoken dedication to one specific religion.
The world that John imagines is one of a purposeless drab useless existence.
Imagine no religion and no heaven and hell. Ok, that means that the life I live is regulated to this world. There is no reward or punishment, so I have to find meaning in this life, as there isn't one that follows.
I'll pour myself into Patriotism and the defense and bettering of my country. Oh, wait, there are no boarders, boundaries, or countries. Ok, well, that's out.
Hmm, I'll find something I'm passionate about. What's that John? There's nothing to kill or die for? Well, while I get the nothing to kill for (with the exception of possibly killing one to save many others) If I have nothing to die for, what kind of life is that? I wouldn't give up my life for my children? My wife? I have no religion be martyred for or country to defend. What's left?
I guess I'll live a life of comfort. Oh no! All of my stuff is gone! I have no possessions.
What am I left with? The brotherhood of man? Based on what? The fact that we live in a world devoid of hope, meaning, purpose, drive, or ambition.
John's utopia is in fact a distopia. If I lived in his imagined world I might just have found something to die for: to get out of it.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Dodd's Done!
The Dump Dodd movement has been successful in removing Connecticut's Mortgage Sweetheart Senator Christopher Dodd. This is a major victory for the state of Connecticut. It marks the second time that voters have voiced their displeasure with the way the Democrats have been running things in their state. In 2008, the Democrats ran a challenger against their once favorite son Joe Lieberman. Lieberman lost in the primary so he ran as an independent, and won. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot by turning their back on their long term lemming. Now, he is free to vote his conscience, rather than tow the party line.
Hopefully, the Democrats will do it again. It seems clear to me that Christopher Dodd's decision not to run for reelection was due to much internal pressure. The only reason a politician doesn't run for reelection is if he or she has died. The Dump Dodd movement would have been more successful if he had run and lost (which was very likely). Instead, the Democrats have supplanted the disgraced Senator with Connecticut's business hating Attorney General. Richard Blumenthal (who has been the AG since '91) has been grooming himself (and his uber-slicked ultra-stiff hair) for a run at something. I've always assumed it was for Governor but I guess he's always had his sights set higher.
Blumenthal portrays himself as being a defender of the people, protecting the young and the old. However, in doing so he's chased out of Connecticut more companies (and therefore, jobs) than one can count. He has an abnormal approval rating due to the fact that he is frequently featuring himself on TV and telling the people of Connecticut what wonderful things he's doing for them. Like protecting them against dual labels on designer coats, and "unfair utility rates." While the latter sounds great, he never really did anything and I didn't make up the former. He made a specific appearance to let the people of Connecticut know that he wouldn't stand for designer coats to have the designer label over a generic label. Thanks Richard!Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of this entire episode is that, before he even formally announced that he was planning on being a candidate for Dodd's vacated seat, Mr. Blumenthal received a cell phone call from none other than the President of the United States. Sounds to me like the Democrats are looking for another lemming. Let's hope Connecticut doesn't send one to Washington!
NFL Playoff Preview
It's that time again: Time for me to review how my preseason predictions panned out. In this post I'll also be cursing at least four teams by predicting that they will do well in the playoffs!
You can find my preseason preview here. Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Chargers
(Other notable prediction: Denver would not win the division due to the preseason trade and that trade would keep them from the wild card. This didn't look good as Denver started out 6-0 but still managed to miss the playoffs)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Bengals
South
Prediction: Jaguars
Actual: Colts
(Um, yeah, Jaguars finished dead last)
Wild Card
Prediction: Colts & Titans
Actual: Ravens & Jets
NFC
East
Prediction: Giants
Actual: Cowboys
(This prediction looked pretty good when the Giants were 5-0, but they managed to miss the playoffs entirely.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: Cardinals
North
Prediction: Vikings
Actual: Vikings
(Other notable prediction: Detroit would win two whole games this year. That's exactly how many they won!)
South
Prediction: Panthers
Actual: Saints
(Panthers came in second...)
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Falcons
Actual: Packers & Eagles
And when it comes to my preseason playoff predictions all that I have to say for them is that my Super Bowl is still possible (though unlikely) with Patriots vs Vikings.
Playoff Predictions
I don't know that I've had more trouble picking winners than I've had this year. Complicating matters is that three of the four first round contests are rematches of week 17 games. In all three cases one team completely dominated the other. Should be easy, right? Wrong. I guarantee that round one will not have the exact same outcome as week 17.
Alright, here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Jets at Bengals
The Jets absolutely owned the Bengals last week. But here's the problem: more than any other team, the Bengals controlled who they faced this week (as they played Sunday night). If they beat the Jets, they would have faced Baltimore. In losing to the Jets, they face the Jets. They played a team who needed to win and saw how they did it. Now they know how to beat them. The Bengals selected their opponent and did so accurately.
Winner: Bengals
Ravens at Patriots
The Patriots purposefully lost to the Texans to prevent the Steelers from getting into the playoffs. While the Patriots have struggled this year, they haven't done so at home. Patriots win even without Welker.
Winner: Patriots
Divisional Round:
Bengals at Chargers
The Chargers are one of the only teams going into the playoffs with a winning streak. The Jets have a 2 game winning streak but both teams basically forfeited the games. Bengals will be unable to overcome the Chargers.
Winner: Chargers
Patriots at Colts
The Patriots should have beaten the Colts earlier in the season. Even though the Colts have been struggling (needing a fourth quarter comeback to achieve half of their victories and are on a two game losing streak) the Patriots are without Welker. Will the pressure be too much for a rookie coach? Will Belichick out think the Colts? It will be a good game, a close game, but the Colts will emerge victorious.
Winner: Colts
Championship Round:
Chargers at Colts
No contest. The Chargers will be on a 12 game winning streak, the Colts will have won one of their last three games. Having given up in the last two games of the season, the added pressure to win it all is too great for Peyton. He throws an incredible three interceptions. His third coming during a last gasp fourth quarter comeback attempt that (obviously) falls short. This will, yet again, give Colts fans a reason to despise the Chargers, almost as much as they hate the Patriots.
Winner: Chargers
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Eagles at Cowboys
I've heard it said that it's very hard to defeat a team three times in one season. That is what the Cowboys would have to do if they are to defeat the Eagles. Something else working against the Cowboys is that they haven't won a playoff game since 1996. And yet, both the Eagles and the Cowboys had everything to play for last week: Division on the line, host a playoff game, beat a hated rival. And who came out on top? The Cowboys ~ and it wasn't close. Once again, everything is on the line: Win, move on; lose, go home. Eagles are going home.
Winner: Cowboys
Packers at Cardinals
This is the hardest game for me to figure out. There was no reason for either team to go all out last week, and yet both did. And in doing so, the Cardinals looked mediocre and the Packers, stellar. But the Cardinals are so inconsistent that they just might win this game. And the Packers have proven inconsistent enough that they might lose it. Somehow, I don't think they will.
Winner: Packers
Divisional Round:
Packers at Saints
The Saints are in rough shape. Unlike the number one seed in the AFC, the number one seed in the NFC actually tried to win their last three games. But they lost all them (including the 3 win Buccaneers)! The '07 Patriots, '01 Rams, and the '08 Cardinals have shown us that while a powerful offense may get you to the playoffs, you can't win it all without a defense, which is something the Saints lack. Packers shock with a win.
Winner: Packers
Cowboys at Vikings
Some have called the Cowboys "the most dangerous team in the NFC." I don't think those people are paying much attention to one of the leagues most talented rushers with the most experienced active Quarterback at the helm. Romo may be good, but Favre is great. With the "controversy" in the Vikings locker room over, and with Childress recognizing that he needs to trust his star QB, the Cowboys don't stand a chance.
Winner: Vikings
Championship Round:
Packers at Vikings
The "Don't Miss" match-up of the post season. Favre takes on his old team. Two power running games match up against two great defenses. Something's gotta give. Something has to separate these two teams. Favre is the difference maker.
Winner: Vikings
Super Bowl
Chargers vs Vikings
We'd be in for a treat of a Super Bowl. The second year in a row where one man stands poised on the brink of history as the first Quarterback to lead two different teams to a Super Bowl victory. The other team has a leader who is beginning to be in the discussion with such greats as Brady and Manning. Does youth triumph over age? Or does experience dominate the new comer? I'd like to see Favre win.
Winner: Chargers
There you have it. Now we know that the Chargers will definitely not win it all. Let's see who actually does! Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
You can find my preseason preview here. Here's how I did:
AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Chargers
(Other notable prediction: Denver would not win the division due to the preseason trade and that trade would keep them from the wild card. This didn't look good as Denver started out 6-0 but still managed to miss the playoffs)
North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Bengals
South
Prediction: Jaguars
Actual: Colts
(Um, yeah, Jaguars finished dead last)
Wild Card
Prediction: Colts & Titans
Actual: Ravens & Jets
NFC
East
Prediction: Giants
Actual: Cowboys
(This prediction looked pretty good when the Giants were 5-0, but they managed to miss the playoffs entirely.)
West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: Cardinals
North
Prediction: Vikings
Actual: Vikings
(Other notable prediction: Detroit would win two whole games this year. That's exactly how many they won!)
South
Prediction: Panthers
Actual: Saints
(Panthers came in second...)
Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Falcons
Actual: Packers & Eagles
And when it comes to my preseason playoff predictions all that I have to say for them is that my Super Bowl is still possible (though unlikely) with Patriots vs Vikings.
Playoff Predictions
I don't know that I've had more trouble picking winners than I've had this year. Complicating matters is that three of the four first round contests are rematches of week 17 games. In all three cases one team completely dominated the other. Should be easy, right? Wrong. I guarantee that round one will not have the exact same outcome as week 17.
Alright, here we go:
AFC
Wild Card Round:
Jets at Bengals
The Jets absolutely owned the Bengals last week. But here's the problem: more than any other team, the Bengals controlled who they faced this week (as they played Sunday night). If they beat the Jets, they would have faced Baltimore. In losing to the Jets, they face the Jets. They played a team who needed to win and saw how they did it. Now they know how to beat them. The Bengals selected their opponent and did so accurately.
Winner: Bengals
Ravens at Patriots
The Patriots purposefully lost to the Texans to prevent the Steelers from getting into the playoffs. While the Patriots have struggled this year, they haven't done so at home. Patriots win even without Welker.
Winner: Patriots
Divisional Round:
Bengals at Chargers
The Chargers are one of the only teams going into the playoffs with a winning streak. The Jets have a 2 game winning streak but both teams basically forfeited the games. Bengals will be unable to overcome the Chargers.
Winner: Chargers
Patriots at Colts
The Patriots should have beaten the Colts earlier in the season. Even though the Colts have been struggling (needing a fourth quarter comeback to achieve half of their victories and are on a two game losing streak) the Patriots are without Welker. Will the pressure be too much for a rookie coach? Will Belichick out think the Colts? It will be a good game, a close game, but the Colts will emerge victorious.
Winner: Colts
Championship Round:
Chargers at Colts
No contest. The Chargers will be on a 12 game winning streak, the Colts will have won one of their last three games. Having given up in the last two games of the season, the added pressure to win it all is too great for Peyton. He throws an incredible three interceptions. His third coming during a last gasp fourth quarter comeback attempt that (obviously) falls short. This will, yet again, give Colts fans a reason to despise the Chargers, almost as much as they hate the Patriots.
Winner: Chargers
NFC
Wild Card Round:
Eagles at Cowboys
I've heard it said that it's very hard to defeat a team three times in one season. That is what the Cowboys would have to do if they are to defeat the Eagles. Something else working against the Cowboys is that they haven't won a playoff game since 1996. And yet, both the Eagles and the Cowboys had everything to play for last week: Division on the line, host a playoff game, beat a hated rival. And who came out on top? The Cowboys ~ and it wasn't close. Once again, everything is on the line: Win, move on; lose, go home. Eagles are going home.
Winner: Cowboys
Packers at Cardinals
This is the hardest game for me to figure out. There was no reason for either team to go all out last week, and yet both did. And in doing so, the Cardinals looked mediocre and the Packers, stellar. But the Cardinals are so inconsistent that they just might win this game. And the Packers have proven inconsistent enough that they might lose it. Somehow, I don't think they will.
Winner: Packers
Divisional Round:
Packers at Saints
The Saints are in rough shape. Unlike the number one seed in the AFC, the number one seed in the NFC actually tried to win their last three games. But they lost all them (including the 3 win Buccaneers)! The '07 Patriots, '01 Rams, and the '08 Cardinals have shown us that while a powerful offense may get you to the playoffs, you can't win it all without a defense, which is something the Saints lack. Packers shock with a win.
Winner: Packers
Cowboys at Vikings
Some have called the Cowboys "the most dangerous team in the NFC." I don't think those people are paying much attention to one of the leagues most talented rushers with the most experienced active Quarterback at the helm. Romo may be good, but Favre is great. With the "controversy" in the Vikings locker room over, and with Childress recognizing that he needs to trust his star QB, the Cowboys don't stand a chance.
Winner: Vikings
Championship Round:
Packers at Vikings
The "Don't Miss" match-up of the post season. Favre takes on his old team. Two power running games match up against two great defenses. Something's gotta give. Something has to separate these two teams. Favre is the difference maker.
Winner: Vikings
Super Bowl
Chargers vs Vikings
We'd be in for a treat of a Super Bowl. The second year in a row where one man stands poised on the brink of history as the first Quarterback to lead two different teams to a Super Bowl victory. The other team has a leader who is beginning to be in the discussion with such greats as Brady and Manning. Does youth triumph over age? Or does experience dominate the new comer? I'd like to see Favre win.
Winner: Chargers
There you have it. Now we know that the Chargers will definitely not win it all. Let's see who actually does! Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)