Just My Opinion

All Four Super Bowl Previews VI

2012-01-16T22:52:00.005-05:00

It's that one week per year when I can sit down to write this: my most favorite of posts: A preview of the four possible Super Bowls! (Could this really be the sixth time I've written this post?)

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; 2009, Steelers over Cardinals; 2010, Saints over Colts, and 2011, Packers over Steelers.

For those who read this years preseason predictions know that half of my Patriots/Eagles Super Bowl prediction is still in it, and for those who read my Playoff predictions know that half of my Ravens/Saints game is still alive. Let's see how I do now that there are only four teams left.

And now, as you've become accustomed, here are all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most: (get your wallets out and call Vegas and Atlantic City. Put your money on the two teams I pick to win to lose BIG)

Ravens vs Giants
And the chant from rises from the stands and fans of both teams support their respective quarterbacks with the same mantra: "Just don't mess up! Just don't mess up!" The Ravens and the Giants are strangely similar. They can play amazingly well against excellent teams (Baltimore beat Pittsburgh twice this year and the Giants beat the Patriots in Foxboro and nearly handed the Packers their first loss of the season) but they both also play down to poorer teams! (The Giants lost to Washington and the Ravens caved to the Seahawks!) They both have strong defenses with inconsistent offenses. Nothing says a thrilling Super Bowl like great defense against mediocre offense. Sure it's a rematch of Super Bowl XXXV, but how many people even remember that the Ravens won that game? This is the game I predict. Winner: Giants (Loser: The grounds crew that has to returf between the 20's)

Ravens vs 49ers
There's something wrong with a match-up when the most compelling story is the fact that the head coaches are brothers. Besides, we already had the Harbaugh bowl, John won. [As you read this, hear the movie preview voice in your head]: "Coming this February... Joe "Listen, I'm elite too" Flaco and the Baltimore Ravens take on Alex "Seriously, I was the first pick of the draft" Smith and his 49ers. Listen as the balls hit the ground like the Battle of Britain as incomplete passes litter the field. Watch as the pigskin flies through the air off the foot of punters and field-goal kickers alike!" Winner: (John wins again) Ravens (Loser: Field Goal net operators)

Patriots vs 49ers
After much consideration, this is the game that I'd like to see. You'll find a further explanation of this below. There is an interesting, though lesser known angle to this game. Tom Brady grew up idolizing Joe Montana and was a huge fan of the 49ers. He was even in the stands to see "the catch" (the original catch that elevated the 49ers over the Cowboys in January of 1982). The seasoned veteran vs the rebirth of a former perennial powerhouse. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Casual football fans)

Patriots vs Giants
This is the game that everyone wants to see. A rematch of 2008. Brady seeks revenge, Eli seeks respect. Can Brady's amazing offense score on the Giants powerful D? Can New England's woeful defense stop Eli and his mediocre offense? If the Patriots win there will be "too little too late" talk, "too bad it wasn't 2008." If the Giants win, it will be a long time before we hear the end of it! "Eli's better than Peyton, Eli's better than Brady, the Giants stopped the perfect season and nearly did it again this year, they knocked the 15-1 team out of the playoffs and defeated the Patriots three times in their last three meetings, and on and on and on. The only thing that would make this game bearable is if the Patriots dish out another severe thumping akin to the one from which Tebow is now recovering. Bottom line, you don't beat Belichick twice in the same year. Winner: Patriots (Loser: Anyone standing near a Giants fan)

In years past, I've had a good feeling regarding who was going to win the Conference Championship games (regardless as to how wrong I turned out to be). Not so this year. I won't be surprised if any of these games took place.

That's my opinion, what's yours?

2011 - 2012 Playoff Preview

2012-01-02T23:50:00.002-05:00

Seems the only topic that brings me back to my blog is sports. (Politics will begins shortly, but it's just too far away for me right now.) So, 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 in the previous post (I haven't posted since September!). Here's how I did:

AFC
East
Prediction: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
And they are the #1 seed! One for one!

West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Broncos
It is a QB driven league, and somehow Tebow came out on top! (I have three friends who have agreed that if Denver wins it all, it confirms a higher power and they will come to church with me :D)

North
Prediction: Steelers
Actual: Ravens
I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point on this one because the Steelers grabbed a wild card spot I picked the Ravens as a wild card team. So I had both teams going to the playoffs, and both teams made it.

South
Prediction: Colts
Actual: Texans
No fair! Peyton had surgery on his neck the day after I made my predictions! I'm giving myself 3/4 of a point here as well because I accurately predicted that if Peyton wasn't effective that Houston would take the division.

Wild Card
Prediction: Jets & Ravens
Actual: Bengals & Steelers
Wow. Two teams from the AFC North. While the NFC East has done this in the past, this is no easy feat.

NFC
East
Prediction: Eagles
Actual: Giants
I drank the kool-aid. I believed the hype. I was wrong. Can I get some props for accurately predicting that the Eagles season will be a failure? (Of course, I thought they'd make it into the playoffs before collapsing.)

West
Prediction: Cardinals
Actual: 49ers
I picked the 49ers last year, does that count for anything? No. Ok.

North
Prediction: Packers
Actual: Packers
Hey, look! I got the gimme!

South
Prediction: Falcons
Actual: Saints
Another 3/4 of a point for getting both teams (Saints and Falcons) in the playoffs, just missing who'd take the division and who the wild card. Last year I picked the Saints and the Falcons took it. This year it was vise versa. So next year I'll pick the Saints because I want to see the Falcons take the division.

Wild Card
Prediction: Cowboys & Saints
Actual: Falcons & Lions

I predicted 6 of the 12 Playoff Teams. Three from each Conference. One better than last year! I guess I'm getting better. Only half of my predicted Super Bowl remains. Go Pats. :)

Playoff Predictions
Alright, so based on how I did this year we can expect 5.5 of my Playoff predictions to be accurate.

Alright, get ready to call Vegas and place your bets! Here we go:

AFC
Wild Card Round:
Steelers at Broncos
I'm most confident about this game. Broncos rely on the run, Steelers stop the run. If the game is on Tebow's shoulders he'll carry it all the way to the golf course. Give Reothlisberger the extra week of rest, play Batch. It will still be a blow out.
Winner: Steelers

Bengals at Texans
This is the hardest of the 1st round games to pick. I want the Bengals to win so that they go to New England. Both teams have been a surprise this year; The Bengals with how well they've done and the Texans with how well they've done considering their injuries. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bengals will be able to overcome Houston.
Winner: Texans

Divisional Round:
Steelers at Patriots
(If the Bengals could beat Houston, their post season ends here) The Patriots have been giving up huge leads, making amazing adjustments, and scoring tons of unanswered points. You don't win that way in the Playoffs and you don't win that way against the Steelers. I would have said that the Patriots would benefit from home field advantage if A) they hadn't given up a giant lead to the Bills last week, B) they hadn't been unable to overcome the Giants lead at home earlier this year, or C) they weren't facing another cold weather team in the Steelers. The deck is stacked against the Patriots in this match-up.
Winner: Steelers

Texans at Ravens
Houston was lucky to draw the Bengals in the Wild Card round. But Baltimore is too good for the wounded Texans. The only thing that makes this a close game is the fact that the Ravens play down to their opponents.
Winner: Ravens

Championship Round:
Steelers at Ravens
It's been said "You don't beat the same team three times in one year." The Ravens will. The just have the Steelers' number this year. This will be a great game and will go right down to the wire but Flaco will emerge victorious.
Winner: Ravens

NFC
Wild Card Round:
Falcons at Giants
Like the Steelers, the Falcons have a better record than the team they have to travel to face. And like the Steelers, it won't make a huge difference. It really didn't matter who won the Sunday night game week 17 because both the Giants and the Cowboys were losing to the Falcons this round.
Winner: Falcons

Lions at Saints
Another great match-up. This will be a very entertaining game to watch for those without a "horse in the race." It will be a great battle but in the end it will be very frustrating for Lions fans who will watch their team self destruct with penalties.
Winner: Saints

Divisional Round:
Saints at 49ers
The 49ers surprised a lot of people with the amount of success they had this year. Hosting a playoff game would normally be a big thrill for them. Unless they are facing the Saints. A record setting year for Brees and the Saints continues as they send San Francisco packing.
Winner: Saints

Falcons at Packers
Yet another great game! The first true test of the Packers since they nearly lost to the Giants. Some of you may be asking, what about the Chiefs? Shouldn't have been a test. Just goes to prove how difficult it is to go undefeated in a 16 game season. This is a tough game to call based on how potent Rodgers and the Packers offense has looked. But the Falcons may surprise a lot of people. It'll be very close.
Winner: Packers

Championship Round:
Saints at Packers
The last NFC game will be a rematch of the first game of the season. And what a rematch it will be. Brees' performance has been overshadowed by the Packers' nearly perfect season. Green Bay's loss may bump Brees to the front runner in the MVP race. Green Bay also faced weaker teams this year than the Saints did. Both Championship Games will rival the Super Bowl in excitement and intensity. Brees and the Saints will end the Packer's pursuit as repeat Champions.
Winner: Saints

Super Bowl
Saints vs Ravens
While not the game the network is hoping for, what a game to watch! The red hot offense of the Saints versus the Stifling defense of the Ravens! They say that defense wins Championships but the top teams this year have been doing it with offense. In the end, the pundits will start discussing the possibility of a dynasty as Brees brings the Lombardi Trophy back to New Orleans for the second time in 3 years.
Winner: Saints

There you have it. So now it's likely that the Giants will shock the world again and beat Tebow in the Super Bowl. (My ideal is Bengals over Houston, New England over Cincinnati, and New England over the Ravens. Then New England facing Green Bay. But this is all fairly unlikely.) Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!

2011-2012 NFL Preview

2011-09-04T01:03:00.006-04:00

Well, the strike is over (Yes, it was a strike.) which means it's that time again! Time for another edition of JMO's NFL preview! (Is it unfortunate that few things get me to post now a-days? If you think so, skip the post and comment. Let me know what you'd like to read about on JMO) For those of you still reading: Get out those pencils and jot down what you'll read here because it's sure to be completely incorrect by week 5!

As you've become accustomed, I'll be going division by division predicting the winners of each. We'll begin with the NFC seeing as they won the Super Bowl last year.

NFC North (Bears, Lions, Packers, Vikings)
The Lions have been making great strides over the past few off-seasons. They are a very trendy pick to make the post season this year. However, I don't think they'll be able to overcome the powerful Packers and I don't think they'll wind up as one of the two best non-division-winning teams in the NFC. It will be close, but I expect them to be watching the game come January. And while Chicago and Minnesota (who acquired a younger QB in 34 year old McNabb) have made some improvements, Green Bay is going to run away with this division.

winner: Packers

AFC North (Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Steelers)
There are some questions in this division. But they mostly are regarding if the Browns and Bengals will win more games combined than the Steelers. Big Ben managed to stay out of hand-cuffs and courtrooms in this off-season so they won't have those distractions. Considering how they did last year, maybe that's a strike against them. The Ravens do stand a chance at the playoffs. But Flaco will likely only be able to get them there as a wild card.

winner: Steelers

NFC East (Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins)
Here is a division that's gotten lots of attention in the off-season. I'd be remiss if I started by discussing any team other than the Eagles. They've certainly become the Miami Heat/New York Yankees of the NFL. The question is can this team of divas mesh into a cohesive unit? If not, will the on-again/off-again Giants or the they're-so-full-of-talent-but-can't-win-when-it-counts Cowboys take 1st in this division. The problem is, like the Miami Heat, the Eagles have now set them up with expectations: The season will be a failure if they don't win the Championship. The Heat couldn't live up to it. Will the Eagles learn from their mistakes?

winner: Eagles

AFC East (Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Patriots)
Wow! This is a division that had an off-season chess match. The Jets and the Patriots both improved their rosters. If any team other than New England signed both Albert Haynesworth and Chad ~~Johnson~~ Ocho-Cinqo I'd say they were headed for disaster. However, somehow Belichick and company manage to succeed with characters such as these (see Corey Dillon and even Randy Moss for a season and a half. And remember, they got Randy for a 4th round draft pick and traded him for a 3rd round pick!) Yes, you can infer from these comments that the Bills and Dolphins will be irrelevant this year. When all is said and done, I'm not drinking the Sanchez kool-aid.

winner: Patriots

NFC South (Buccaneers, Falcons, Panthers, Saints)
This may become one of the hottestly contested divisions in the NFL. With Matt Ryan at the helm the Falcons are poised to take the division back from the red hot Saints. You can't even count out the Buccaneers this year. It will be interesting to see how Cam Newton does for the Panthers, but they are in a rebuilding year. The Saints have not fared as well this year in free agency as some other teams. I think they'll make it to the playoffs -- but not as the division winner.

winner: Falcons

AFC South (Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Titans)
This division is shrouded in uncertainty more than any other time in recent memory! Peyton had neck surgery over the summer and was not able to work-out with his regular trainer due to the strike. Everyone expects him to start week 1, but can he be effective? And if he's not, who takes first in this division? The Texans, who everyone loves in the preseason but who collapses in the regular season? The Titans, who some think are in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes? The Jaguars, who are built to beat the Colts but no one else? Even if they lose the first 4 games, they will still make the playoffs -- but can the Schaub/Johnson tandem make it so that the Colts slip into the post season as a wild card? Nope.

winner: Colts

NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Rams, Seahawks)
Can the Seahawks ride the wave they created when they became the first team to enter the playoffs with a losing record, and then advanced past the first round? Kolb to the Cardinals, Rice to the Seahawks, McDaniels with the Rams, a complete defensive overhaul for the 49ers. Which of these teams will become first round fodder in the playoffs? The team with the most weapons is Arizona.

winner: Cardinals

AFC West (Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, Raiders)
It is still a quarterback driven league and this division is rife with quarterback controversy. Can Campbell be the hero for Oakland? Cassel lost his major supporter (McDaniels) in Kansas City, the Broncos have three quarterbacks: the coach wants one, the locker room the second, and the fans the third! And then there is Rivers. And while his supporting cast may have changed, he is still an excellent quarterback who just seems to have some difficulty delivering when it counts. But this is, after all, a quarterback driven league.

winner: Chargers

NFC Wild Card Teams: Cowboys & Saints

AFC Wild Card Teams: Jets & Ravens

And here's how the playoffs would play out:

NFC:
BYE: Packers & Eagles
Wild Card Weekend: Saints defeat the Cardinals in a thriller and the Cowboys fall to the Falcons.
Divisional Round: Eagles beat the Falcons in the battle of the birds and the Packers send the Saints packing
Conference Championship: Eagles over Packers

AFC:
BYE: Patriots & Steelers
Wild Card Weekend: The Ravens beat the Chargers and the Jets shock the Colts
Divisional Round: Patriots end the Ravens' season and the Jets beat the Steelers
Conference Championship: Brady gets his revenge on Sanchez and sends the Jets home

Super Bowl:
Patriots vs Eagles

And in the rematch of Super Bowl XXXIX the result is the same. The Eagles fall to the Patriots and suffer the same fate as their NBA counterpart -- a stacked deck that folds on the river.

Those are my predictions. What are yours?

A New Horizon

2011-07-23T19:24:00.005-04:00

After much consideration and some assistance, I have entered the world of YouTube!

Shortly, Fillion Films will have it's first short film on YouTube. In the meantime, you'll have to settle for the trailer. Please visit this site:

Paint by Numbers Trailer

Don't forget to check back soon for the outtakes of this movie!

("Like" the trailer and tell your friends!)

Now that you've seen the trailer, Check out the short film:

Paint by Numbers

Write your review in the comments section of this post!

"King Dirk"

2011-06-12T23:37:00.000-04:00

There are only two "King James" that I'm aware of: The king of England from 1603-1625 and the English translation of the Bible that he commissioned.

Dirk Nowitzki just did in Dallas what Lebron has never been able to accomplish in Cleveland: Win it all with "one great player." Not only was Lebron unable to win in Cleveland, but he also couldn't win in Miami with one of the most impressive "supporting casts" ever assembled. Perhaps his move to Miami has shown that he isn't as great as everyone previously supposed.

Even if Miami had won both of these games at home, the story wouldn't be about "King James," rather it would have been "King Dwyane." If anyone has proven himself to be a leader and a talented player regardless of the game situation, it's Dwyane Wade.

Congratulations MVP Dirk and the Dallas Mavericks on your hard-fought, well-deserved NBA Championship!

Things That Make Me Angry

2011-04-26T22:36:00.018-04:00

I have three things that I feel the need to share that really get my goat, rub me the wrong way, ruffle my feathers, and other animal related colloquialisms that mean "increase one's ire."

First: People who misuse percentages. This may sound a little wacky but hear me out. I was watching a news story regarding the rising cost of gas. The anchor displayed four categories that together make up the price of fuel. They were "Distribution, Taxes, Refining, and Crude." She was comparing 2010 gas data to the current trends using percentages. Her claim was that we shouldn't feel so terrible about the increase in crude prices, because the amount we were paying for distribution, taxes, and refining had decreased based on the percentages. Well DUH! With the price of crude sky-rocketing the way it is and everything else remaining the same, of course the percentages are going to decrease!

Here's the table they were displaying:
.................2010....2011
Refining.......36%......20%
Taxes..........14%.......7%
Distribution...15%.......8%
Crude..........35%......65%

"Taxes and Distribution are down nearly 50%" the TV personality tried to assert, "and Refining is down by 16 points!" Come on!

Now, work with me here: (For the sake of argument, let's use round numbers) let's say that gas in 2010 was $2 a gallon and it's now $4 a gallon. Now, we'll plug actual numbers into this table instead of percentages:

..................2010......2011
Refining.......$0.72......$0.80
Taxes..........$0.28......$0.28
Distribution...$0.30......$0.30
Crude..........$0.70......$2.60

Anyone really think that average Joe watching this news cast is going to break out their trusty TI81 and calculate this fallacy? No, Ms Newscaster, the other three portions of the cost of gas are not decreasing. Crude is so expensive it's name is literal and figurative. It's time to stop misusing percentages (and open up the US reserves, but that's for another post).

Second: Hypocrisy in unions. The NFL Player's Union, to be specific. The NFL players are trying to claim that they are pawns in the greedy hands of the overbearing owners. And in a show of solidarity they've asked the incoming rookies not to attend the draft celebration in New York on Thursday. Anyone paying attention to this so-called lockout knows that the player's union is going to "concede" to a rookie salary cap in order to get some of their own demands met. (I say "concede" because there's no reason for the Player's Union to fight the cap. Why should an 8 year veteran be making less than someone who's never played a down in the NFL?) Why, then, would this trodden-on group of players turn and do the same thing to the incoming rookies?! Hey, players: They aren't part of your union, so they aren't part of your strike (I mean "lockout"). They are going to be your pawns at the bargaining table so please allow them to be knights at the podium on Thursday.

Finally: I've decided that if I can't afford the things I really want, like my iPhone, Internet, cable, (basically the overall lifestyle to which I've become accustomed) I'm just going to go to my neighbors and demand money from them. After all, that's what the government does, right? Cut spending? What's that? No, I'm just going to require everyone to give me cash. And if you were giving me money before, now you have to give me more. I know everyone has less right now. The economy is hard, but how else can I continued to live the way I want to live? Now, if the "powers-that-be" decided that they were going to lead by example, tighten the belt a little bit, then I might be encouraged to do so as well. However, until that happens: If you've taken the time to read this post, please send me $5.00. Thank you.

30 Hour Famine

2011-02-18T07:43:00.000-05:00

Thank you for reading this post.

During the weekend of February 25th & 26th I will be purposefully fasting for (at least) 30 hours. Why do such a thing? Well, when Jesus was talking about our "acts of righteousness" in Matthew 6 he says, "When you fast..." signifying that, as one of His followers, this is an activity in which I should be participating. Additionally, disciplining your body when it's telling you it needs food can assist you in disciplining yourself when you are tempted by sin. Finally, I'll be fasting on these specific dates in an effort to raise money to help feed starving children around the world.

That's right, I'm going hungry for food.

That's where you come in. I would like to give you the opportunity to sponsor my fast. Sponsoring me at $1 per hour that I fast would feed a child for 1 month. If $30 is not an option for you, any amount that you can give is greatly and sincerely appreciated. You do not need to feel bound by the "amount per hour" model, even if you can donate $2, that is money that will help those in need. (Donations of over $30 are also welcome).

The organization through which I participate in the famine is called World Vision. Please feel free to visit their website and if you have any questions regarding the famine, please contact me or you can visit the 30 Hour Famine Website.

You can donate online on my personal donation site here. Any amount that you give will also be counted in the total amount for the Youth Group that I co-lead. We are expecting between 30-40 high school students to willingly go without food for more than a day to raise money for starving people worldwide.

If you are unable to give financially, please pray for me, my fellow leaders, and the youth that will be participating. This can be a live changing event. It truly helps to put into perspective the abundance that we are blessed with in America.

If you are feeling adventurous, feel free to support us by fasting with us. We will have our pre-fast meal at noon on Friday the 25th and we will Break Fast on Saturday the 26th at 6 PM.

Thank you for reading this post. Thank you for visiting my donation website. And thank you for your support.

All Four Super Bowl Previews V

2011-01-22T09:52:00.007-05:00

It's hard to believe I've been doing this post 5 years in a row! Even though the Patriots loss was painful, and they really should be included in this post, I still enjoy breaking down all four possible Super Bowls, discussing who would win each one, which I'd like to see, which I think we'll 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; 2009, Steelers over Cardinals; and 2010, Saints over Colts.

Once again, you can expect me to set in stone the destiny of two teams by predicting that they will do well this week.

And now, all four Super Bowl break-downs, from least compelling to most:

Bears vs Jets
Even though they were in the Big Game in 2007, the Bears seem to be a surprise candidate this year. They've been fairly terrible since they fell to Peyton and the Colts. They've been picked against every round and the final game would be no different. If Ryan and Sanchez can defeat Manning, Brady, and Reothlisberger consecutively to get to the Super Bowl they'll have not trouble with Lovie and Culter. Winner: Jets(Loser: Next year's NFL fans having to listen to a victorious Rex Ryan)

Bears vs Steelers
Even though no one (except people who live in Illinois) really expect the Bears to put up much of a fight against either AFC team, they did get to the Super Bowl and could cause the Steelers some fits. If this is the game we see, the Steelers would likely be double digit favorites. This game does have the advantage of being a battle of two historic teams and CBS could leverage that. While this would give Big Ben his third ring (matching Brady) it would be his third win against teams that he was expected to beat but struggled (as he likely will if we see this game) just like he did against the Seahawks, Cardinals, and now the Bears. Obviously, he'll take a Super Bowl ring however he can get it, but Ben would rather face Green Bay. Winner: Steelers (Loser: Franchises with 5 Super Bowl wins as the Steeler would now be up by 2)

Packers vs Steelers
This game has a better storyline: Experienced Super Bowl QB vs an up-and-comer that everyone expects to elevate to the ranks of the likes of Brees, Brady, and Manning in the very near future. This is the game CBS will be bribing the refs to see. Two teams with nation-wide fan bases, two well loved QBs, and two teams that nearly everyone respects. The Steelers would have over-come the stifling D of the Jets but can they stop the high-octane Offense of the Packers? If Ben can win here, it would solidify him as worthy of his Super Bowl victories. This would be a very hard fought high scoring game and while I didn't pick this one as the most compelling game of the four, this is the game I think we'll see. Winner: Packers (Loser: Both Defensive Coordinators)

Packers vs Jets
This is the game I want to see. While I'd love to see Rex "Disrespect" Ryan lose two years in a row in the AFC Championship Game, the chances that the Steelers could beat the Packers and win their seventh ring is too great for my tastes. That and, honestly, Rex has devised a defense to stop Manning, Brady, and Reothlisberger; I'd love to see what he comes up with to try to stop Rogers and the Packers. The league would be more than happy to have this match-up as it represents what many are saying is the next generation of great Quarterbacks. Finally, I can't resist hoping to see both #6 seeds making it to the Super Bowl. To me, this would be the best possible game. Winner: Packers (Loser: Brett Favre)

There you have it. Is there a game you'd rather see? Did I pick the wrong winners? If you've got somethin' to say: be heard!

2010 - 2011 Playoff Preview

2011-01-06T21:50:00.004-05:00

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
Look, I got one!

West
Prediction: Chargers
Actual: Chiefs
At least I got the first two letters right!
(Other notable prediction: Raiders didn't finish last)

North
Prediction: Bengals (stop laughing)
Actual: Steelers
My biggest error was underestimating Pittsburgh without Big Ben. No MVP for him this year, huh?

South
Prediction: Jaguars
Actual: Colts
Up until the last two weeks of the season, this looked like it was going to happen! Especially when the Jaguars beat the Colts in the first half of the year.

Wild Card
Prediction: Jets & Ravens
Actual: Jets & Ravens
Wow. I don't know what to say! That's pretty impressive!

NFC
East
Prediction: Cowboys
Actual: Eagles
I couldn't have been more wrong in this one! I predicted Eagles last and Giants second to last. Ended the exact opposite.

West
Prediction: 49ers
Actual: Seahawks
In my defense, the Seahawks are the first time in NFL history to win their division with a losing record. And the 49ers weren't all that far out!

North
Prediction: Vikings
Actual: Bears
Can anyone make any sense out of this division?

South
Prediction: Saints
Actual: Falcons
I did say that the Falcons would surprise a lot of people. They even surprised me and took the division! I did have them in the playoffs as a wild card team.

Wild Card
Prediction: Redskins & Falcons
Actual: Packers & Saints

I predicted 5 of the 12 Playoff Teams. Not too shabby. However, my predicted Super Bowl isn't even possible.

Playoff Predictions
If my playoff predictions are anything like my season predictions this year then be sure to bet on the opposite of whomever I choose! I only had 5 weeks were I was able to predict more than 11 winners! And I had weeks where I was less than .500! It was sad!

Anyway, here we go:

AFC
Wild Card Round:
Jets at Colts
Tough tough game to call! The Colt's running game seems to be draped on the back of UConn's Donald Brown which leads one to believe that Peyton will be chucking the rock all over the field. But the strength of the Jet's defense is their cornerbacks, and they have two this year. Peyton can't just throw to his tight end all day, it's not Dallas Clark, he's out with injuries. Couple that with the fact that Manning has already thrown 17 INTs this year and while Revis and Cromartie only have 3 INTs between them, it's because QB's don't like to throw in their direction! Though I know the Colts are dangerous in the post season, I just don't think they can get past the Jets.
Winner: Jets

Ravens at Chiefs
I'm not really sure how the Chiefs snuck their way out of the AFC West. But I do know it's past their curfew and they will have to go back home. Cassel won't be able to compete with the Ravens solid Defense.
Winner: Ravens

Divisional Round:
Ravens at Steelers
The AFC Divisional round is a pair of Divisional Match-ups! The Ravens and Steelers split their games this year, each winning by three on the other teams turf. This will be a great game. Smash-mouth, up the middle, in your face football. In the end (hang on, let me flip a coin) the Ravens will end the Steelers bid to be the first team to win six rings.
Winner: Ravens

Jets at Patriots
One of the things the Patriots have going for them in this game is that they lost to the Jets earlier in the year. "Nobody beats the same team three times in one year" is a favorite mantra of many analysts. The other thing the Patriots have going for them is that they are playing the Jets. Without some favorable bounces, poor decisions by opposing teams, and, frankly, some dumb luck, the Jets aren't even in the playoffs. The match-ups they face against New England will prove to be insurmountable.
Winner: Patriots

Championship Round:
Ravens at Patriots
The Patriots will devour the chance to avenge the embarrassing loss they suffered to the Ravens in the Playoffs. Bending but not breaking, the Patriots young Defense gets all of their "Big game" jitters out of the way as Brady has his second post season game without an INT.
Winner: Patriots

NFC
Wild Card Round:
Packers at Eagles
This game is just as hard to predict as the Jets/Colts game. The difference is, while neither the Jets nor the Colts would make it to Dallas, I could see either of these teams headed to the big dance. That's what makes this game so difficult. Sending either team home could mess up all of my future predictions! When all is said and done, I think that, under the pressure, Vick will try to do too much and the Packers will come out on top.
Winner: Packers

Saints at Seahawks
Listening to sports radio, analysts are searching for any reason why the Saints might lose this game: the trip might be too much, the injuries to their running game, the field surface, playing with a ball specially designed to be invisible to the Saints. None of these will make a difference. Seahawks: You made history by being the only team with a losing record to host a playoff game. Enjoy playing golf next week.
Winner: Saints

Divisional Round:
Saints at Falcons
The Saints are in rough shape. The Falcons are firing on all cylinders. Unable to get a running game going the Saints are forced to the air where the Falcons intercept three of Drew's passes. This is where the defending champions bid for a repeat ends.
Winner: Falcons

Packers at Bears
I've never been able to put much stock in the Bears. And Aaron Rogers seems to be doing amazing things with Favre's old team. When all is said and done, I think the first three quarters will be competitive, but the Packers pull away in the fourth.
Winner: Packers

Championship Round:
Packers at Falcons
The NFL won't be thrilled that they have a couple of non-huge market teams in this game, but after the incredibly competitive battle that ensues, this game will be remembered for a long time! Ryan vs Rogers. Not the changing of the guard, but rather the new guard. A couple of QBs who will meet many more times in the post season. Home field advantage prevails.
Winner: Falcons

Super Bowl
Falcons vs Patriots
The Patriots bitterly remember their last trip to the Super Bowl. There is no chance that Bill Belichick let's that happen again. Young defense? No problem. Rookie Tight Ends? Best in the game. No Pro Bowl receivers? That's nothing new. This isn't the best possible Super Bowl for the casual fan. A more competitive game would be Falcons/Ravens, or even Packers/Steelers. But the way New England is playing, they are unstoppable. Patriots, true to form, win by 3.
Winner: Patriots

There you have it. So it's likely that the Eagles will beat the Packers and go on to beat the Colts in the Super Bowl, because I predicted otherwise. Feel free to provide your predictions. What a great time of year!

DOH! I had the NFC seeded incorrectly! The Packers were a Wild Card team which means they would have faced the Falcons if they won! I've already picked that game as I predicted the Packers defeating the Bears. Which means I have the falcons topping the Packers. My original picks would have had the Saints facing the Bears and I would have picked the Bears over the Saints. Which would lead to a Bears/Falcons Championship game. I don't see the Bears going into Atlanta and beating the Falcons. So my Super Bowl pick remains. Go Patriots!

The Danger of Twitter

2010-11-25T11:07:00.005-05:00

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-Twitter 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 Twitter 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 know one would know why I felt that way. Put that on your phone and Tweet it!

The Basic Difference

2010-10-13T22:22:00.002-04:00

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?

Stephen Hawking's Leap of Faith

2010-09-14T00:20:00.002-04:00

In his newest book, ironically titled The Grand Design the brilliant physicist Stephen Hawking made the following statement:

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?

2010-2011 NFL Preview

2010-08-30T21:39:00.004-04:00

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.

Please Choose Wisely

2010-07-30T23:34:00.009-04:00

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.

Review: Twilight

2010-06-27T22:19:00.002-04:00

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 with ~~Nina 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.

Review: Avatar

2010-06-04T01:43:00.002-04:00

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.

Review: The Invention of Lying

2010-05-04T23:00:00.002-04:00

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.

An Important Question

2010-05-02T23:44:00.004-04:00

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?

My Boy

2010-03-25T17:51:00.006-04:00

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.

The Bill (Post I)

2010-03-23T01:37:00.004-04:00

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)

An assumption made by the crafters of this bill.

Consequences if individuals choose not to pay for health insurance.

Post II (The next post)

The ramifications of fining companies that don't provide coverage for their employees.

The bogus claim that this bill will somehow decrease health care premiums

Post III

The ridiculous way this bill plans to pay for itself.

The type of coverage that companies are now required to offer.

Post IV

The Constitutionality of this bill

When everything is scheduled to take effect.

~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
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:

The Bill (Post II)

2010-03-23T01:35:00.003-04:00

Problem #3
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."

Problem #4
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)

2010-03-23T01:34:00.001-04:00

Problem #5
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?

Problem #6
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)

2010-03-23T01:29:00.002-04:00

Problem #7
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.

Problem #8
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!

Final Thoughts
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)

Bad Religion

2010-03-09T23:13:00.002-05:00

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.

Oprah's Failure

2010-02-04T23:25:00.002-05:00

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.

Payton vs Peyton

2010-01-24T22:30:00.002-05:00

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!

All Four Super Bowl Previews IV

2010-01-21T18:31:00.004-05:00

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!

NBC-ya

2010-01-21T06:19:00.000-05:00

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.

41.

2010-01-20T21:08:00.000-05:00

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!

Irony

2010-01-18T22:27:00.002-05:00

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!

Reflections on the Playoffs thus far

2010-01-17T20:02:00.002-05:00

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!

Imagine

2010-01-15T18:05:00.004-05:00

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.

Dodd's Done!

2010-01-06T23:07:00.007-05:00

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

2010-01-06T00:29:00.004-05:00

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!

And Then There Were None

2009-12-31T18:18:00.003-05:00

While I'd like to believe that the Colts decision to give up on Sunday against the Jets was their way of admitting that they really did lose to the Pats when the refs blew the call on the "fourth and 2" play, but somehow I doubt it.

Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis Head Coach) decided to thumb his nose at history. The Colts are too good to make an attempt at the undefeated season. It's below them. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.

I have a few opinions about this. (Is anyone surprised?)

First, that's moronic. Only one team has ever had a perfect 16 game regular season. The 2007 New England Patriots. Every year somebody wins the Super Bowl. Who won the 1995 Super Bowl? What about 1982? 1977? What team went undefeated through the regular season? That's what I thought.

Perhaps Coach Caldwell was attempting to alleviate the pressure of going undefeated. All succeeded in doing was put even more pressure on the team to win the Super Bowl. It would be understandable if they went 18-1. Other teams have done that. One team in particular suffered their only loss in the big game. Now, the Colts have purposefully lost "to keep their stars healthy so they can win it all." Guess what. Now they really need to win it all.

What else has Coach Caldwell done by benching his starters? He's created controversy where there was none. No one was debating if they should play everyone or not. The question was will they. If they played everyone, and won, no one would have faulted them. In fact, Coach Caldwell has now created a situation where they absolutely must lose to the Bills this week. If they leave their starters in, why did they pull them last week? If they pull their starters and their scrubs are able to defeat the Bills, then they should have left Peyton in last week so their perfect season would still be intact. For last week to make any sense, the must lose this week.

The Colts claim that the perfect season wasn't of importance to them. They wanted to hold the record for most consecutive regular season wins (Which they don't, due to their loss to the Patriots this year), and they wanted to hold the record for most wins in a decade. If these records were truly important, and not lip service after the fact, then they should have wanted to beat the Jets to add another tally to both records. They didn't, which leads me to believe the Colts brass were struggling to find any reason as to why they made their terrible decision.

Those (few) that defend the decision claim that the coach would be under even more fire if he'd left the starters in and someone (Peyton) got hurt late in the game. Why do people assume this is going to happen only at the end of a game that doesn't mean anything? Is Peyton immune to injury at all other times? If the logic is we don't want him hurt during a meaningless time in the game then any time the Colts are up by three touchdowns (which wasn't very often this year) he should be out of the game. Funny, I didn't see him out at any other time this year. I guess the teams logic is completely and utterly faulty. But that isn't very surprising.

What did Peyton think of the decision? I don't care what he said verbally after the game. I care about what he said non-verbally during the game. I've never seen anyone out of the game leave their helmet on with the chin strap fastened longer than Peyton Manning. He didn't toss on a Colt's ball cap or one of those knit hats that have the team color on the bottom and fade to black near the top. He didn't relax on the bench like one pleased that he was finally out of the game. He walked the sidelines like a kid in time out, like that star player in little league that has to sit an inning so that everyone can play. "Come on coach, put me in! Put me in coach! I wanna play!" I think even Mr. Manning agrees with me: Coach Caldwell made the wrong decision. Period.

On a final thought, some people are pointing to the utter collapse of the Colts once Peyton was benched as proof that he ought to be the MVP this year. This, too, is an ignorant belief. It would be one thing if Peyton were the only player taken out of the game and Painter failed while sharing the field with Wayne, Clark, and Adai. But no, they were also riding the pine. As were some of the Colts' starting offensive linemen. If this is the evidence that Peyton is MVP worthy, then so is every other starter that was removed in the third quarter. If anybody is the MVP of the Colts, it's Dallas Clark. No one has been more clutch for them this year!

Bottom line: Wrong decision to lay down and die for the Colts. This caused controversy, created a situation where they must enter the playoffs having lost their last two games, and adds even more pressure on the team to win the big game, which isn't going to happen.

The Tip Jar

2009-12-30T21:37:00.003-05:00

The Tip Jar is a funny thing.

This oddity of nature is most often located in places where one wouldn't normally consider tipping as being an option.

Allow me to explain what I mean: You never see a tip jar at the end of your restaurant table. Why's that? Everybody tips the waitstaff (unless they didn't deserve it. Even then, we still leave a little something). Taxi drivers in New York City don't have a tip jar in the passenger seat. Why not? "Keep the change." That's why not. Bell Hop's don't carry your suitcase to your room with a tip jar dangling from their belt. "Thank you, my good man." The pizza delivery person, your dry cleaner, bar tender, the shoe-shine boy, a Maitre D'. Tip jar? No where to be seen.

So what is the purpose of this silent "suggestion?" I suppose it started out as a way to propose that a tip might be appropriate for certain people who are often overlooked. At your local deli, where someone takes the time and effort to create a sandwich to your exact specifications. I can understand that.

What has it become? An obligation to prevent some college student from spitting in my coffee. Why does Dunkin Donuts have a tip jar? "You had to reach really high to get my chocolate cruller, here's a little something for you." "You put two whole scoops of sugar in my coffee. Don't mention it." How come my local pizzeria has a tip jar inside their store? "Thanks for letting me drive out to pick up my own pizza. Keep the change." What about the ice cream shoppe? "Thanks for putting the regulated amount of peanut butter cup crumbles on my cone. This is for you."

And yet, companies find even more outlandish places for the dreaded Tip Jar. Friends of mine recounted to me a tale of the most recent, most audacious offender. They spotted a Tip Jar at the drive up window of a Starbucks. The drive up window! Now they have another excuse to expectorate in my Latte.

What's next? Am I going to see a Tip Jar at my doctor's office? Will there be one as I leave church? Let's just get rid of them altogether. If I want to tip you, I'll tip you. If I don't, I won't.

An NFL Prediction

2009-12-15T21:21:00.003-05:00

I'm predicting it right now: Two teams will finish the season undefeated (according to the NFL) and neither of them will make it to the Super Bowl.

New Orleans has the easiest path to undefeated. Their toughest test is this week when Dallas comes to town. But it's Romo and it's December which means the 8-5 'Boys are gonna lose. Then the terrifying 1-12 Buccaneers limp into the Superdome for their beating. And finally, New Orleans travels to the 5-8 Panthers for the Saints' 16th win of the year.

The Colts don't have it quite as easy. First they travel to the 7-6 Jaguars. This is definitely their toughest challenge remaining as well because Jacksonville is built to beat the Colts. They rarely do it, but it's what they are designed to do. After Jacksonville, Indianapolis welcomes the 7-6 Jets to town. No contest. And then they travel to frosty Buffalo to beat T.O. and the Bills for the Colts' 16th victory.

I know what you're thinking: How can I foresee two teams going undefeated yet neither of them making it to the big dance? I'm glad you asked.

Neither Indy nor New Orleans has really impressed this year. The teams that the Colts have played average .500 so far this year and the Saints have played teams that average a paltry .333! Not only that but the Colts had a stretch where they had to mount a fourth quarter comeback five games in a row! Against San Fran (6-7), and twice against the 6-7 Houston Texans!

So, who's going to beat these "undefeated" teams? Well, the Patriots have already proven that they can handle the Colts. If their game were a backyard match up (you know, where first downs and pass interference calls are made accurately) the Patriots walk away with the victory. But, the way the Patriots are playing, they're lucky if they make it out of the wild card round. Even if they do win there, it's likely the Bengals lose which means for the Patriots to knock off the Colts they'd have to go through the Chargers and that's not going to happen. Speaking of the Chargers: They are on an unbelievable winning streak and they are peaking at the right time. The Chargers will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.

Will they face the undefeated Saints? Nope. 5 of the Saints 13 wins are against teams over .500 and 3 of those teams are sitting at 7-6. They've almost lost to the 1-12 Rams and the 4-9 Redskins. This is the first time this team is in the limelight. Once they hit the post season, they won't know what to do with themselves. So who will unseat them? To be honest, of the playoff teams (were the season over today) I think several have a good chance at defeating the Saints. The Cardinals secondary could put an end to the deep threat but their line is still good at stopping the run. The Eagles definitely match up well against New Orleans. But the team that the Saints definitely will not get past is the Vikings. The Purple People will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

Now, the real question is: Let's say my prediction turns out completely incorrect. Let's suppose the Saints and the Colts both make it to the Super Bowl undefeated. One team will complete the feat of 19-0. Which team do you root for?

One Percent

2009-12-15T00:47:00.009-05:00

A faithful reader of JMO requested that I read this article by Thomas Friedman and respond. With pleasure! I'm always happy to discuss the things that interest my readers! If you have something you'd like my opinion on, please don't hesitate to ask!

If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.

Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.

Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").

Surprise!

I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.

Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...

Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.

Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.

Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.

I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.

Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.

Your thoughts?

New Rankings

2009-12-11T07:06:00.001-05:00

As requested by a reader, I have removed the "Marketability" ranking. I have also shifted a few stations around after further perusal and here are my new findings:

Ranking) (Previous Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Mascot Connection #)] (Any change in category ranking is signified in paranthesis)

32) (29) Saints: 23.75 (21) (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, MC: 26)

31) (30) Giants: 23.75 (21.8) (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, MC: 32)

30) (31) Ravens: 23.5 (24.2) (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, MC: 13)

29) (32) Browns: 22.5 (24.6) (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, MC: 29)

28) (28) Bears: 22.25 (21) (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, MC: 31)

27) (23) Chiefs: 20.25 (19.2) (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, MC: 25)

26) (18) Forty-Niners: 19.5 (17.8) (I: 28, H: 4, A: 18, MC: 28)

25) (26) Jets: 18.75 (19.8) (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, MC: 8)

24) (20) Chargers: 18.25 (18.6) (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, MC: 10)

23) (22) Jaguars: 18.25 (19.2) (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, MC: 15)

22) (27) Redskins: 18 (20.6) (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, MC: 7)

21) (19) Falcons: 18 (17.8) (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, MC: 17)

20) (16) Texans: 17.75 (15.6) (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, MC: 21)

19) (24) Dolphins: 17.75 (19.4) (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, MC: 1)

18) (9) Bengals: 17.5 (14.4) (I: 16, H: 28, A: 2 (3), MC: 24)

17) (25) Bills: 17.25 (19.6) (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, MC: 18)

16) (11) Packers: 17.25 (14.6) (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, MC: 27)

15) (21) Seahawks: 17 (18.6) (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, MC: 20)

14) (13) Panthers: 16.25 (14.8) (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, MC: 14)

13) (8) Titans: 16 (13.8) (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, MC: 22)

12) (14) Colts: 15.5 (15) (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, MC: 23)

11) (17) Lions: 14.5 (17.2) (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, MC: 4)

The New Top Ten:
10) (15) Buccaneers: 14 (15.4) (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, MC: 12)

9) (5) Cowboys: 13.75 (11.8) (I: 21, H: 3 (4), A: 1, MC: 30)

8) (12) Rams: 12.75 (14.6) (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, MC: 5)

7) (6) Broncos: 11.25 (12.6) (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, MC: 19)

6) (2) Eagles: 11.25 (10.2) (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, MC: 16)

5) (3) Vikings: 11.25 (10.6) (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, MC: 2)

4) (7) Cardinals: 11 (12.8) (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, MC: 10)

3) (4) Steelers: 10.75 (10.8) (I: 24, H: 2, A: 11, MC: 6)

2) (10) Raiders: 10.5 (14.4) (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, MC: 9)

#1 NFL logo:
1) (1) Patriots: 7.5 (6.4) (I: 17, H: 7, A: 3 (2), MC: 3)

So even though I dropped the Patriots a notch in a category and removed the "Marketability" category they still fall to the top spot.

I encourage any of you to create your own rankings. Or even your own categories. If you have new categories that you think I should include, I'm happy to do so! Keep those suggestions coming!

NFL Logo Rankings

2009-12-07T23:27:00.025-05:00

Faithful readers of JMO will no doubt remember my season of Power Rankings. I've decided to rank all 32 of the NFL teams' logos instead.

Rather than simply look at them and say "I like that one, I don't like that one." I decided to be systematic about this process. I devised five categories and ranked all 32 logos for each category. I then calculated the average to see where each logo fell out. Here are the categories:

Intimidation: Does the logo itself strike fear into it's opponent. This is simply the image, not the actual skill of the team. For example the Steelers are a great team and I would not want to face them, but their logo is not intimidating. On the contrary, the Buccaneers are not exceptionally good, but their skull and cross bones flying on a sword is pretty intimidating. Top intimidator: Panthers.

Historical Significance: This is where the historical weight of the team is rated. While the Cowboys' star isn't very intimidating, historically, Dallas has been a very good team and they would do well in this category. Something considered here was a change in logo. Had the Buccaneers been good under their previous logo, they would have suffered in this category as they have since radically changed their image. However, a team like the Patriots moves up because their winning ways have occurred under the new logo. Logo with the most history behind it: Packers.

General Aesthetics: Is the logo nice to look at? Is it well balanced? How artistic is the image itself? I took nothing else into account, I just asked: Is it pretty? Best looking logo: Cowboys.

Marketability: This rated the likelihood that people would buy something with this image on it. I was not attempting to calculate the total fan base of each team. Some of the characteristics I considered: "Is it fashionable?" "What would it look like reduced in size?" "Is it trendy?" "Are the colors 'In'?" Most marketable logo: Bengals.

Mascot Connection: To determine this, I imagined a non-football fan with the following quiz: One side of has all of the logos, the other all of the mascot names. Which ones would they know right away, which ones might they confuse for other teams, and which ones would be outright guesses. Best mascot connection: Dolphins.

In the case of a tie, I looked at the highest ranking each team had. For example: the Saints and the Bears both had 21. The highest placement for the Saints was a 10 in Marketability. The Bears ranked 5th in Historical Significance and therefore ranked higher overall.

Here are how the logos ranked: [ Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Marketability #, Mascot Connection #)]

32) Browns: 24.6 (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, M: 32, MC: 29)

31) Ravens: 24.2 (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, M: 27, MC: 13)

30) Giants: 21.8 (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, M: 14, MC: 32)

29) Saints: 21 (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, M: 10, MC: 26)

28) Bears: 21 (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, M: 16, MC: 31)

27) Redskins: 20.6 (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, M: 31, MC: 7)

26) Jets: 19.8 (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, M: 24, MC: 8)

25) Bills: 19.6 (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, M: 29, MC: 18)

24) Dolphins: 19.4 (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, M: 26, MC: 1)

23) Chiefs: 19.2 (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, M: 15, MC: 25)

22) Jaguars: 19.2 (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, M: 23, MC: 15)

21) Seahawks: 18.6 (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, M: 25, MC: 20)

20) Chargers: 18.6 (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, M: 20, MC: 10)

19) Falcons: 17.8 (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, M: 17, MC: 17)

18) Forty-Niners: 17.8 (I: 28, H: 3, A: 18, M: 12, MC: 28)

17) Lions: 17.2 (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, M: 28, MC: 4)

16) Texans: 15.6 (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, M: 7, MC: 21)

15) Buccaneers: 15.4 (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, M: 21, MC: 12)

14) Colts: 15 (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, M: 13, MC: 23)

13) Panthers: 14.8 (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, M: 9, MC: 14)

12) Rams: 14.6 (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, M: 22, MC: 5)

11) Packers: 14.6 (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, M: 4, MC: 27)

Top Ten:
10) Raiders: 14.4 (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, M: 30, MC: 9)

9) Bengals: 14.4 (I: 16, H: 28, A: 3, M: 1, MC: 24)

8) Titans: 13.8 (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, M: 5, MC: 22)

7) Cardinals: 12.8 (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, M: 20, MC: 10)

6) Broncos: 12.6 (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, M: 18, MC: 19)

5) Cowboys: 11.8 (I: 21, H: 4, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 30)

4) Steelers: 10.8 (I: 24, H: 2, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 6)

3) Vikings: 10.6 (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, M: 8, MC: 2)

2) Eagles: 10.2 (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, M: 6, MC: 16)

#1 NFL logo:
1) Patriots: 6.4 (I: 17, H: 7, A: 2, M: 3, MC: 3)

Now, I know this looks like a major case of "homerism" but I worked very hard to be impartial. The Bengals' "B" ranked higher than the Patriots for Intimidation because of it's slicing stripes. I was surprised at how high the Arizona Cardinals made it overall. I'd be more than happy to list each category. I can do it with the logo images in future posts, or I can do it without images in the comments of this post. Please let me know which you'd prefer if you want me to list the five categories separately.

No doubt you have some emotional reaction to this list! Sound off! Let me know what I got right or what I got terribly wrong! This is my opinion. What's yours?

An Article of Note

2009-11-27T18:00:00.000-05:00

I read an article the other day about the state of unemployment in our country. What struck me was the headline. In a moment, I'll share with you the title of the article.

I found the heading of the article so fascinating that I did some research about how the situation was handled in the past. I found that, historically, unemployment and the president were inexorably connected. As the article dealt with the fact that we have a high jobless rate right now, I focused my research on that specific situation. Here are some of the headlines I found from the past:

From G. W. Bush's era:
"Bush's Economy: Unemployment Soars"
"Bush Can't Revive Economy"
"How the Bush Tax cuts reduced employment."

From the Bush Senior era:
"Bush can't create jobs"

From Carter's era:
"Carter's jobless rate a big plus for Reagan"

Now, here we stand, close to a year since Obama's Economy saving stimulus package was unveiled and distributed. This package was to create 3.5 million jobs. Where are they? In February, when the stimulus passed into law the unemployment rate was 8.1%. It had increased from 6.8% when Obama was elected. Now it stands at 10.2%. Not only did the stimulus package not create jobs, it didn't even save the ones that were already in existence!

California, that received over $7.2 Billion currently has a 12.5% unemployment rate. Michigan stands at 15.1%. According to the US Department of Labor nine states saw a "significant change" in their unemployment rates since September, all of them increased.

So what are the current headlines saying?

"Obama's stimulus can't revive economy"
"Stimulus unsuccessful at creating jobs"
"White House needs a new plan to cut Unemployment"
"Obama can't create jobs"

One would think this is what we'd be reading.

Here is the headline that I saw:

"Higher Jobless Rates Could be the New Normal"

As though the jobless rate were completely unrelated to the efforts of the current administration. "It's not their fault, it's the new normal." It doesn't matter that historically we've blamed to the president in times like these. We can't point a finger at this president because it's just the new normal.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that there is no such thing as the Liberal Media?

Boo! Facebook!

2009-11-20T20:30:00.002-05:00

I once had an average of 30 people a day visiting my blog.

I once had posts with 15+ comments.

I once had friends who would post interesting, intelligent, thought provoking things. Funny, poignant, and occasionally some mundane things. I had friends who would post.

Then came "Facebook"
My friends stopped posting on Blogspot. My comments dwindled. My hits suffered.

Why?

Because once we have a taste of convenience we can't go back. One can go on their own Facebook page and see the comments, status', and thoughts of all of their friends.

People began "posting" through their Twitters and Facebook status. So few people now take the time to formulate a cohesive argument, put it in logical order, type it out in a cognitive fashion, and post it for others to read. Instead of theological treatises, we get sound bytes. Instead of well founded political discussions we get "Yes we can" or "The postal service lost 3.8 Billion dollars this year. I have an idea: Let's put the federal government in charge of healthcare."

What did I do? I caved. I set up my Facebook to read my Blogspot and automatically post it in Facebook. So people read my posts but I once put a lot of effort into my Blogspot. I had an ever changing sidebar. I had bi-monthly opinion polls, links to my friends' blogs, A "This Day in History" segment, I'd update funny or timely quotes, I had a list of every movie I'd watched with a quick rating and a place for people to request that I do a more thorough review. (For those of you reading this on Facebook: To see what I'm referencing, visit my blog here.) Now all of that is missed. Why?

Facebook.

Please. Stop using Facebook. Come back to Blogger. Start posting again. Start commenting again. Let's not let "technology" dictate how we share our thoughts, let's let how we share our thoughts dictate what type of technology booms.

Indy Is Not Undefeated

2009-11-19T21:54:00.010-05:00

Indianapolis was handed a victory this week. Handed over. Given by the refs. Terribly officiated. Ripped from the Patriots. And, as we've grown accustomed to, I have visual evidence.

This was called pass interference.

Please note: The cornerback is playing the ball. The wide receiver is stopping. This contact is initiated by the stopping wide receiver and therefore, if there is any penalty, it is offensive pass interference. It certainly is not defensive. This was a 40+ yard penalty. The Colts scored.

Then came the most controversial decision of the game. Fourth and two, up by six, on your own 28 yard line. The Patriots go for it. If they succeed, they are brilliant. If they fail, they should have punted. What's the verdict? The Patriots converted the first down but the refs made sure the Colts got the ball.

Here is my proof:

Please note: Kevin Fault, at this point has complete control of the ball. His down field foot is on the thirty yard line (what they needed to cross for the first down) and the ball is in his upfield hand. There is no way that the ball is behind the 30. Here is a close up look so you can see that he has the ball and it is further up the field than his left foot.

Faulk was tackled backward and the ball was placed at the 28 yard line, where he hit the ground. The referee needs to be reacquainted with the concept of forward progress. I know it's a new concept and the Colts can't win if you call the play the way it actually happened. But Patriots first down is the right call!

The call on the field was Colt's ball. They were incorrectly given the ball at the Patriots 28 yard line. They scored and won the game by 1 point.

NFL network does a segment called "Official Review" where they ask Mike Pereira (VP of NFL refs) to account for or explain some of the more difficult or questionable calls from the previous week. Here is the Week 10 episode. Now, usually, the really egregious game changers are not discussed so I was shocked when they opened with the 4th and 2 play. Occasionally, Mike says "we blew the call." Of course, he only says that when it didn't decide the game. He couldn't say that now, because blowing the call means giving the game to the Colts. Here is what he said about the call on the field: "It's almost near impossible to tell where the receiver had possession." Why don't you just say, "Nearly, almost, somewhat, close to being, kinda really hard to know." Way to make an excuse as to why the wrong call was made on the field. But he did say, "The one thing that I appreciate is that it was a quick decisive decision by [the referee]." Give me a break! Oh, that's right, I want a fast call. Forget about making the right call. I don't care if it's right or wrong ~ you better make that call fast! I want the same thing in other things, like pregnancy tests. I don't care how accurate it is but that test better be fast! It was the wrong call. The Colt's lost.

I have now removed the Colt's from the undefeated list on the sidebar. Had either of the above calls been made correctly the Patriots win this game. End of story!

Happy Hallo(bama)ween

2009-11-01T23:03:00.000-05:00

I can't take credit for this first part, but it really made me laugh:

We should have an Obama Halloween. When the children come to the door, we should use it as a "teachable moment" in regards to how the future of America's economy will be.

We take their plastic pumpkins, pillowcases, plastic bags, back packs, and other candy carriers and we redistribute their candy. That way it doesn't matter how long the children have been out trick-or-treating and it doesn't matter the amount of effort the children put into their costume. Each child will have about the same amount of candy. You've been out for three hours and you just started three minutes ago: You've got about the same amount of candy. You spent weeks planning, designing, and creating your costume, you went to Wal*mart yesterday and bought the last clearanced Transformers costume: Doesn't matter, you've both got about the same amount of candy.

I hope they go home and complain to their parents about the redistribution of candy.

Along the same Obama-line: I also nearly fell off of my couch laughing at SNL this week when they pointed out Obama's lack of accomplishments thus far.

You can see the video here. To quote a few of my favorite lines:

"There are those on the right who are angry, they think that I"m turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that's just not the case, if you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far: and that is: nothing, nada, almost one year and nothing to show for it."

"I said I'd make improvements in the war in Afghanistan. Is it better? No, actually I think it's worse."

and "So looking at this list I'm seeing two big accomplishments: Jack and Squat!"

Good for you SNL for being a comedy outlet, and not a political outlet. Thank you for lampooning both sides of the aisle! Keep it up!

And one final thought. So, SNL finally takes a shot at a Democrat who's name doesn't rhyme with Mo' Slidin' and look who jumps to the rescue: The "non-liberal" media! Even if you don't choose to click on this, the link starts with the word "news". News! What is "news" about coming to the defense of the President? Where was the "news" to back George W.?! It wasn't even listed as a column. No mention of opinion. Nope. This is "news": SNL was wrong in their take on the President's accomplishments (Or, to be more precise, lack thereof). And if you read the biased opinionated "news" story, they don't even say that SNL is inaccurate; just that the things SNL claimed he hadn't done yet were planned! They are yet to come, in the future, on the way! I guess I'm a success at giving that big presentation at work because it's in my calendar to do next month! I'm also great in that new position because I hope to have it by the end of next year!

How long will we allow ourselves to be deceived by accepting that which is NOT news as though it were news? And why does that deception so often lean to the left?

Are You Kidding?!

2009-10-26T22:45:00.007-04:00

The Umpires for the ALCS once again proved that they had money on which team went to the World Series.

I've proven in my previous posts their ineptitude. Now there's more. (As if I needed more proof).

Take a look at these two images:
How many of these runners are out? Are any of them making contact with the bag when they were tagged? Well, let's ask the runners. Posada, Cano, are you both out?
Yup. The runners clearly both think they are out. Here they are walking back to the dug out with no argument. What does the "umpire" say? Only one is out.

If that's not bad enough for you. Take a look at this:
Now, unless that runner is Gumby, Plastic Man, or Mrs. Incredible, then he's out. The "umpire" calls him safe. This one is not as egregious because the crew chief calls this runner out on third for leaving too early on a sacrifice fly. He didn't, but he never should have been on third, so they made up for that one.

I'm sorry, I've lost count, exactly how many blown calls have gone in favor of the Yankees?

And so now we have to resign ourselves to probably the most boring World Series imaginable. The defending world champions vs the team everyone expects to be there. Snooze-fest. There's not Cinderella team, no underdog, and no storied franchise in search of a long lost victory. The only interesting facts of this are match up is that it's A-Rod's first World Series (I'm expecting A-Rod to return to is usual October self) and Pedro has another opportunity to shut down the Yankees.

Hamels, Lee, Pedro vs Sabathia, Petit, Burnett. Edge goes to the Phillies.

Baseball Costumes

2009-10-17T22:19:00.006-04:00

Two part post. (If you don't like sports, just skip to the second part of the post)

First: Apparently the Umpires in the Angels/Yankees games are normal people disguised as umpires. "I'm not an Umpire but I play one in the post season."

The situation was runners on 1st and 2nd with two out. Full count on the batter and the runners were stealing with the pitch. Ball four, wild pitch. The ball careens off of the catcher and into the stands. The umpires only award the runners the bases they would have gotten due to the walk. I guess nobody read their rulebook today. MLB Rule 7.05h states:

[Runners shall be awarded] One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher’s plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead;
APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead. (emphasis added)

The runners had already advanced due to the steal/walk. They then should have been awarded one base because of the passed ball: runner on 3rd scores, 2nd moves to 3rd and 1st to 2nd.

This is key because the pitcher then threw another wild pitch. In the game it allowed the tying run to cross the plate. He should have scored on the walk and this wild pitch should have allowed the runner who was on 2nd to score the go ahead run. But it's the Yankees and they get a little bit of favoritism.

Think I'm just jealous? This runner was called out: Need some more proof? Here it is nice and big for you: (As if I needed more ammunition for my argument. The "proximity out" (which has driven me crazy my entire baseball life) is apparently only an out every time in every game... unless it's extra innings in the post season in favor of the Yankees.) (Ok, sports ends here)

Second: There seems to be a bit of hoopla about this year's Halloween Costume. An alien, wearing an orange jump suit that says "Illegal Alien" on it. People have written to the stores carrying this and to its manufacturers calling it "distasteful, mean-spirited, and ignorant of social stigmas and current debate on immigration reform." Really? Does "Immigration reform" include allowing people to cross the boarder illegally? I must have missed that paragraph in the new laws being proposed. "Mean-spirited?" I know. How dare anyone poke fun at felons. We need to remove the Bernie Madoff mask this year, (Anyone else find it slightly humorous that he "Made Off" with billions?) and how could we have possibly carried the Ted Kazinski costumes? Oh, wait, those people broke laws that we agree with? I see. What's that? Oh, it's because it's a large group that's being offended? Well, every space alien that I've spoken to doesn't seem to mind.

Truth be told, the "Green card" may be crossing the line. If they have a green card they are not an illegal alien unless they've over stayed their welcome. Get rid of the accessory and you've got yourself a funny, poignant, timely costume.

Tax Curiosity

2009-10-16T20:20:00.002-04:00

When filling out your taxes, have you ever noticed some of the strange things that can be deducted from your taxes? Ever think about what that means? Basically, the government is saying that these are things they won't tax.

Interest on your mortgage, tax free. Interest on a student loan, tax free. Do you rent? Rent-payments, tax free. Charitable donations? Tax free. Putting some money away for retirement? No tax on that.

Ok, charitable donations I understand. I do not benefit from that money in the slightest, thanks for not taxing it. I also understand not taxing the money I put in my 401K (which doesn't have anywhere near $401K in it!) You want to be able to tax it when I take it out and you are at least decent enough not to tax the same money twice. Or are you?

Why do you tax the money that I pay in taxes? In CT, if I buy a $1 item, I pay $0.06 in taxes. That's money that's already been taxed! If I get an income tax refund, I have to declare that on my next year's taxes as though it's new income! I don't think so! It's not new income, you just took out too much of what I already earned! You taxed me on that last year, and now you are going to tax me on it again! (I won't even go down the road of if I pay you late I owe you interest but if you hold my money for the better part of a year you keep my interest!)

Here is what I propose: Provide everyone with an individual tax ID number (We can call it our TIN). Embed it into our credit cards, debit cards, put it on our drivers' licenses. It records the total amount of taxes paid throughout the year: Sales tax, entertainment tax, luxury tax, death tax, airport tax, tourism tax, car registration fees, property tax, etc etc etc etc etc (there are lots of taxes) etc etc. This amount gets deducted from our taxable income. Therefore, I'm no longer sending $0.20 of every dollar to the Feds plus at least 5% of every dollar I have left that I spend. I'm no longer paying taxes on money on which I've already been taxed.

Can anyone tell me why the government has decided that the money I give to my mortgage company isn't taxed but the money that I give to my credit card company is? Why is the money that I use to buy and education not taxed, but the money that I use to buy electricity or heat is? I really have a hard time making sense of much of this.

Fatherhood: Day VI, Return of the Mommy

2009-10-11T23:14:00.001-04:00

This morning again began at 3AM. However, either I'm getting better at getting her back to sleep or her heart wasn't in it this morning because it was only an hour this time. She then woke up at 6:30 and was not going back to sleep anywhere! I think she realized she'd fallen victim to the oldest trick in the book, "put the tired child in the car and you will soon have a sleeping child" and felt the need to pay it back. I attempted my usual "you play in the playroom, I sleep on the couch." She was having none of that either. I drifted for as long as it took for her to toddle her way from the train table to the couch and awoke to one little hand smacking the couch in front of my face and the other little hand pointing to her high chair and a little voice going, "Eh eh eh eh." Alright, I'll feed you!

Full House wakes up around 7:30 and we start to get ready for church. Now, on any other day I could tell him that we had to visit a pig slaughter house and he'd be marginally excited about it. Tell him that we are going to church, a place at which he has fun every time he's there, and he screams and cries.

I learned that it's surprisingly easier to get three people ready to go than it is four. And while my daughter's strategy was one of retaliation, it actually facilitated a more efficient morning than I'm used to. With her insistence that I feed her before 7AM that meant there was less I needed to do as we approached our time of departure as her hunger was satiated and she was dressed before her brother even woke up.

Full House, on the other hand, fights getting dressed, doesn't want to eat and cries most of the way to church. We work through the tears and actually get to the building and he's thrilled when he sees our friends driving in (Friends that I rarely beat to church, I might add). Once inside he practically leaps from my arms and runs to our friends. Why can't I figure out my 3 year old?

Full House is in his Sunday School. Wild Card reluctantly joins him but is not happy that neither mommy nor daddy is there. Daddy is teaching the high school youth group (The current series: "Epic Fails of the Bible." Discussing how "great men and women of God" failed and yet were still so highly regarded and attempting to learn from their shortcomings. We've done Jonah and Esau so far. Barak is next (Judges 4).)

*Side note* To answer your inquiry: My preparation was so "impeccable" for two reasons. As promised, I've begun reviewing and forming the lesson a little bit each night throughout the week. However, I'm still completing everything on Saturday night so it is very fresh in my mind when I go to teach it Sunday morning. I've toyed with preparing before hand, say Friday night, and reviewing on Saturday night, but it's just not the same. I've found that my lesson is most cohesive and I present it best when I've finalized it mere hours before I teach it. It's also still fresh to me, so I'm not bored by it so (hopefully) I don't bore others with it. I hope that answers your question. *End Side note*

After church we rush home to see if the QoH has contacted us to say when to pick her up. Little Miss Muffet (as she's referred to on my wife's blog) has, again, fallen asleep in the car (insert maniacal laugh here). No contact yet. Lunch and rush to nap time because I know I'm going to have to wake him up to get his mommy.

The call comes in. Pick up the QoH at the train station at 5.

The reunion is set. I've been mulling over some things that I've been tempted to say to her as soon as we see her. Here are some of my favorites:

11) Don't be surprised if we get a call from the FBI...
10) Good news! Full House is immune to poison ivy!
9) What? No, he had that when you left.
8) The doctor says there will hardly be a scar.
7) Did you know our health care covered snake bites?
6) My turn.
5) I'm 90% sure this is the right baby.
4) So, remember the car?
3) At least this child is still walking.
2) Don't worry, the police have been notified.

and my personal favorite:

1) Didn't you take her with you?!

I rouse my son to go get his mommy. He proceeds to cry the entire way to the station for his mommy to hold him because he's so tired because I woke him from his nap so we could go get his mommy. Why can't I figure out my 3 year old?

As soon as he sees my smiling wife he is an excited cherub. Of course, I say none of the things listed above. We go out to dinner. On the way home Wild Card does not fall asleep in the car, but the QoH does. She'd been traveling for nearly 24 hours. I get the younglings into bed and sit down to write this final instalment of my adventure.

My closing thoughts: I think my daughter and I will have a stronger relationship because of this time. When Full House was about 4 months old we had just moved and I was out of work. I had more time than we could afford to be home and present in his life. Wild Card missed out on this. I think this odyssey has provided us with an opportunity to bond more fully.

I have a better understanding of the thrills and monotony that my wife goes through day in and day out.

To my male friends with children I have some bad news: If I can do it, you can do it. You may want to hide this series from your wives if it isn't too late already.

Thank you all for your thoughts, prayers, calls, and comments. Before my wife left, I joked that my daughter's first words would be, "Daddy, when are you going back to work?" And truthfully, I didn't think I'd be saying this but: I'm not really looking forward to returning to work tomorrow. I will miss the time with my little ones (and my wife, now that she's home.)

Thanks for "experiencing" this with me. I hope you enjoyed these posts.

Fatherhood: Day V, The End is Near

2009-10-11T00:28:00.002-04:00

I've endeavored to have each post begin and end at midnight of each day. Therefore, this post would begin at 3AM when Wild Card woke up. It would continue until 4:30 when she finally went down and then it would start up again at 6AM when she woke up again. I could not get her down in her own bed so I figured I'd try what the QoH always does. My daughter was kind enough to fall back asleep next to me until almost 8!

With this being my final full day on my own, as it were, I packed it to the gills. We had breakfast and I figured I'd attempt the same maneuver I tried on Thursday. I got my little lady to sleep in her crib for her nap and prepared to take everyone to our local Apple Harvest Festival. That took about an hour so even though I managed to get her into her car seat asleep, when I put her in the car she woke up. No problem.

Full House was very excited to take the school bus shuttle from the high school to the festival. Some kind strangers helped me with the stroller on and off the bus while I juggled two children and a diaper bag. Clearly the highlight of the festival was the ferris wheel and the little kiddie roller coaster. We went to those three times.

Gia met us at the festival and we had fun walking around, looking at crafts. Full House got a froggy balloon animal. We got to see the annual bed races and I got to be a responsible father and register both children with the Amber Alert system.

Then it was time to go home, have lunch and nap time. All went without a hitch.

Seeing as I wasn't able to have my car looked at yesterday, I arranged to have it seen today. I took Full House and Wild Card over to Gia's house and drove to my mechanic friend's house. I packed dinner for them and began to execute a premeditated plan.

Seeing as they ganged up on me last night, I figured I'd stage a counter-offensive myself. I purposefully kept them out just a little longer than I should have. Little Miss fell asleep in the car on the way home and Little Man couldn't wait to crawl into bed. How do you like dem apples?!

What a fairly uneventful day.

Fatherhood: Day IV, Lessons Learned

2009-10-10T09:30:00.001-04:00

They are working together. I'm sure of it. Yesterday morning it was Wild Card that wouldn't go to sleep. This morning Full House wakes up because he "heard a bear" and will not go back to sleep. He wants to play. See the last post for an explanation of what I did.

The morning was uneventful. I had planned earlier in the week to have a friend of mine come over to look at our cars. More on that later. Originally, he was going to stop by around noon and I had some errands to run. Great, we'll go out and get those done before he gets here.

Get everybody ready and see Wild Card give a great big yawn. Oh No! It's 10:15. Nap time. Yesterday taught us not to miss this nap so, what do I do?

I'll tell you! I got her to sleep in her crib. Got my Little Man and everything we needed out to the car. Then transported a sleeping little girl from her crib to her car seat, threw a thick blanket over the car seat to keep it nice and dark and brought her out to the car. She didn't wake up until our third stop! :)

We got home around noon and learned that my friend couldn't make it until later in the afternoon. No problem. Lunch. Playtime. Nap time.

That's right. I got both of them down for a nap at the same time! Then I took one.

About forty minutes after I put her down, Wild Card woke up. That wasn't a long enough nap. I got her to go back to sleep!

For as much of a novice that I was day 3, on day 4 I was a professional.

Oh, and for those of you "in the know", it should be no surprise when I inform you that my friend never made it.

That evening it was clear that my children sensed my confidene and decided to test it.

First Wild Card did a bedtime feign by pretending to be tired around 7:30. I was surprised but didn't want to keep her up if she was tired. So we started the bedtime routine. I got her into her room and she pulled the bait and switch and started crying. Ok, she didn't have a whole lot for dinner, maybe she's still hungry. She had a few pieces of banana. Replay a few of her bedtime steps so she understands. More crying (and not normal bedtime crying). Ok, maybe she wasn't really tired. Let's play. More crying. Diaper? Nope. Teeth? Nope.

Wild Card has since given the secret signal to Full House and he starts getting antsy. "Daddy, can you come play with me?" "Daddy, read me a story." "Daddy, I'm getting tired." "Daddy, I'm hungry!" Each time a little more upset.

And Wild Card has begun phase two. Pretend to be asleep until Daddy closes the door. Then stand and scream. Full House sees me come out of the room and has a book in hand. I go into stop her screaming and he starts.

Finally, two hours after their little ruse began, Wild Card falls asleep. I exit the room with trepidation, fully expecting to be back in within a few moments. Full House and I read some stories, pray, brush his teeth, sing and head to bed. He drifts off around 10pm.

So, was I Rommel being tricked by the Allies in June of '44 or was I Belichick slowly dismantling the explosive offense of the L.A. Rams in '00? I'm not sure, you tell me.

You Gotta Be Kidding Me!

2009-10-09T19:27:00.003-04:00

This runner was called safe.
And this runner was called safe.
(In both cases the defensive player has the ball in his glove.)

The real kicker is that these runners are the same player! And the umpire was the same ump!

I wonder what Howard Kendrick has on CB Bucknor. Or what does Bucknor owe to Kendrick? Or what did Kevin Youkilis ever do to Bucknor? Or perhaps the umpire just thought it would be fitting for a man named Bucknor to make a couple of errors at first base during a Red Sox playoffs game.

Whatever the case. I sincerely hope that this man's performance removes him from any future series. And I hope that for the next four games he is regulated to the right field foul line!

Fatherhood: Day III, Romans 1:22

2009-10-09T15:09:00.006-04:00

The day started out great! my daughter woke up early and I wasn't able to get her back down, but... no big deal. I just did what I would normally have done even if the QofH were home: Brought her to the playroom and fell asleep on the couch.

We were going to her library program and then to a local children's museum. I thought ahead. The night before I'd planned what I'd take for their lunches. That morning I gathered everything: food, drinks, diapers, wipes, sweatshirts, shoes, you name it: if I needed it, I had it.

I put the food in the cooler, I put the cooler on the floor. I put the diapers in the baby bag, I put the baby bag next to the cooler. I put the wipes next to the baby bag on the floor.

We head out to the library program and arrive on time! (For those of you who don't know our clan, this is incredibly shocking!) So there I am, one of perhaps two or three fathers with my two excellently behaved children singing and clapping. Wives looking at me like "I wish my husband would ..." I was the man.

We head to the museum. I'm thinking, "This day is going to be so easy. Library. Museum. Lunch. Museum. Home for naps. Dinner. Bed. Cake." (Not that I would have cake, but rather the day would be easy as cake.)

"...Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22 KJV)

Does anyone else know how hard it is to keep tabs on a 3 and 1 year old in a children's museum? At practically no time did they want to do the same thing at the same time (save the water table.) Lunch time rolls around and I'm so thankful because I'm beat. Full House doesn't want what I brought him for lunch. No problem I buy the reasonable lunch at the museum (Truthfully. Reasonable. $4.50 gets Easy Mac, juice box, Smartfood, and a scoop of ice cream with sprinkles!) Wild Card is cranky. Why is she cranky? Oh yes. Daddy forgot about her nap. It's already after noon. And Full House didn't nap yesterday so we are reaping those benefits as well.

Feed little Miss Cranky while Mister Complainy-pants waits impatiently for his Easy Mac to cool. Alright, time to start to rock little Miss Whinny to sleep. Oh, she needs a diaper change. I'll just grab the wipes that are still sitting on the kitchen floor! No problem. Children's museum equals lots of children, right? Not today! What was a blessing the entire morning (no waiting, no obnoxious other kids) suddenly exacerbates my problem. Sorry little girl: a napkin and a cup of water to the rescue.

Ok, she's sleeping in my arms. He's finished his lunch and has moved on to the ice cream. Now I get to devour my food and back to the museum.

Twenty minutes later for absolutely no reason she wakes with a crazy start. She calms down but will not go back to sleep. We enjoy the rest of our time at the museum.

Piling children into the car and Full House smells funny but refuses to let me change his diaper because he saw what I had to do for his sister. He also refuses to sit in his car seat because it's uncomfortable. You gotta make a choice, Buddy. He chooses to wait until we have wipes to get changed.

Home. Snack and nap for Full House but not for Wild Card. If I put her down at 3 she won't go to bed until after 9. I feed her at 5 and I wake him up at 6 for dinner. She's in bed by 7:30 which totally throws him off schedule. He seems to think I'm letting him stay up later than usual and practically begs to go to bed around 8.

Me? I figure I'll post my adventure after I relax for a few minutes and fall asleep on the couch around 9.

Half way through the day I was thinking that I was The Natural. Turns out I was more like The Rookie!

Now Daddy, what did we learn?

Fatherhood: Day II, The Adventure Continues

2009-10-07T22:21:00.001-04:00

Today started out great! Wild Card woke up at 5AM (As she usually does) but I was able to get her back to sleep in her own bed. This is somewhat of a feat. I did not do this out of selfishness, but rather because my bed is not surrounded by bubble-wrap three feet deep.

I fell back to sleep. I was awoken at about 8ish by two children yelling for me. One with words and one without. Not sure how long they were in this state but they were fine once I went in. No harm, no foul.

Breakfast was easy (does this mean I didn't feed them enough last night?) Basically, it felt like a Saturday. We bummed around the house. Wild Card took a nap. Then it was time for lunch.

Any grace I'd received from my children ended here. I think Full House had the following thought: "If he's staying, he's gonna pay for it." I'm not sure how long it took for him to eat 1/2 of a PB&J. I probably could have visited the QoH before he was done.

To break the monotony we went to a park. On the way, Daddy realized he forgot about Full House's nap. Oh well! Apparently there was a tornado in the area but Wild Card thought the wind was the funniest thing she'd ever seen.

Got home, friends brought dinner: pizza (Suddenly my children were saints). Don't worry, Wild Card had Chicken and frozen fruit.

PJ's and bed. I think Full House was out before his head hit the pillow. Wild Card decided that she was too easy on me at lunch and chose to cry for 45 minutes before determining that I'd suffered enough.

I wonder what they'll devise for me tomorrow!

Adventures in Fatherhood

2009-10-06T22:31:00.002-04:00

The Queen of Hearts was invited to a wedding! In Europe!

Truth be told, the entire family was invited but, after mulling it over, we determined that the best course of action was to send my fantastic wife back to her favorite city without three tag-alongs.

I hope to chronicle my six day odyssey here on JMO for two reasons. Hopefully, it will get me back into the habit of posting. Second: If my wife finds an Internet kiosk in Praha, she can rest assured that, at the very least, her precious ones are still alive.

The QoH flew out of JFK and the plan was that she would catch a train to Grand Central, hop on a shuttle and soar into the stratosphere.

We missed her train. So I offered, with our semi-reliable car (which is more reliable than our other car) to drive her right to the airport. Everything goes without a hitch and we see her off (and her children took it better than she). Full House, Wild Card and I watch some planes take-off. We wave to "mommy's plane" and say goodbye (Good thing little ones can't read. "Daddy, I thought mommy was flying Delta, that plane says 'JetBlue'") We leave the airport just after 3PM.

We arrive at home at 7.

Was it the car? Nope. The semi-reliable car proved reliable for the whole day! Nope it was traffic: Bridges, accidents, cities, morons. Thank goodness for our new GPS! It has a "Detour" button. I saw more back streets in more towns than I ever care to again. Why did it take so long seeing as I had a GPS? As soon as I saw the traffic I'd hit that handy little button and sit in traffic that wasn't moving to get off on an exit onto a road that clearly has more street lights than it needs.

Now, having said all of that: my children have been fed and are now sleeping all snug in their beds. I am so proud of how they conducted themselves today and that is a testament to their fantastic upbringing.

My kids are the best and it's because of my wife!

2009-10 NFL Preview

2009-09-09T22:03:00.003-04:00

Can you believe this is my fourth Preseason Preview? Last year I went with a simple power ranking, for this year I'll be returning to my old ways of breaking down each division.

Here we go! I feel like the AFC is easier to predict so we'll start there:

AFC East (Dolphins, Jets, Patriots, Bills)
Lots of shifting in the AFC East: No more Favre in NY, T.O. to the Bills, The Patriots have said good bye to their offensive coordinator and their back up QB. What does it all mean? Nothing and I'll tell you why: Brady's back. End of story. If the Patriots could win 11 games under Cassel, imagine how many they could have won under Brady. Buffalo is in too much disrepair for one piece to solve their problems. The Jets are re-rebuilding. Patriots walk with this division.

winner: Patriots

AFC West (Raiders, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs)
With a new offensive minded head coach, Denver should have been the easy pick but they traded Cutler. Not only does that drop them out of first to Rivers and San Diego, but it may even drop them out of the Wild Card race as well. The Chiefs acquisition of New England's phenom Matt Cassel could have catapulted them over the Broncos, but Matt may be hurt. Here's a prediction I know is correct: Raiders finish in last place.

winner: Chargers

AFC North (Bengals, Ravens, Browns, Steelers)
Yawn, wake me at playoff time. I think my local high school team could finish in second place in this division. The Bengals lost T.J. The Browns still don't know who their QB will be, and the Ravens may have a great D but they need an O. Pittsburgh gets a free pass to the post season.

winner: Steelers

AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
This is the year. For as long as many can remember the Jaguars have been constructing a team to overcome the mighty Colts. Jacksonville's off season moves coupled with the loss of some major key players for Indianapolis (not the least of which being a head coach and wide receiver) is an equation for a coup of sorts. Tennessee will also make a good showing but will finish in their typical third place.

winner: Jaguars

AFC Wild Card Teams: Colts & Titans

And now on to the NFC

NFC East (Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins)
What an interesting predicament we have in the NFC East. It's rare that a team has a back-up QB who is better than the starter. It's even more rare when it occurs on two teams in the same division. If the Giants realize they are one of those teams they can walk away with this division. If the leave Eli at the helm, it's not so clear cut. The Eagles have Vick backing up a man who doesn't want to be there playing for fans who want to see him leave. If that isn't a recipe for failure, I'm not sure what is. Dallas found addition by subtraction by getting rid of the problem child T.O. And though the Redskins try to compete, even in their overpaying for "talent," they still remain at the bottom of the pack. Even if they keep Eli, I think the Giants can squeeze past the 'Boys.

winner: Giants

NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, St. Louis)
Here is another easy street to the post season. Arizona is basically the same team they were last year. Except that they have another year under their belts playing, and winning, together. The only team who will give them a run for their money is Seattle with their signing of T.J. Let's remember, though, that when you take an adequate WR (like Branch or T.J.) and combine them with a better than average QB (like Brady or Palmer) they look really good. We saw what happened with Branch when he was paired with Hasselbeck. Expect much of the same from T.J. The Rams and 49ers will fight to the death to see who comes in last. Rams win that battle.

winner: Cardinals

NFC North (Vikings, Bears, Lions, Packers)
This may be my favorite division in which I don't have a vested interest. This group of former perennial powerhouses has turned into a gaggle of lovable losers. Not any more. With their stellar running game and the addition of their arch nemesis, the Vikings have set themselves apart from the rest. With the addition of Cutler, the Bears will find a way to win more than expected and steal second place from the Packers. The Lions will manage to win two games this year.

winner: Vikings

NFC South (Panthers, Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers)
We go from my favorite division with no vested interest to a division that I occasionally forget even exists. I'm tempted to say "who cares" to who wins this division but it is the last one. Carolina wins as Jake Delhomme continues to throw air balls to his receivers who will average the fewest Yards After the Catch in the league. The Falcons do their best to take the division, but fall just a few wins short.

winner: Panthers

NFC Wild Card Teams: Cowboys & Falcons

And here's how the playoffs would play out:

AFC:
BYE: Patriots & Steelers
Wild Card Weekend: JAX defeats INDY and SD beats TN
Divisional Round: NE sends SD home and it's JAX over PITT
Conference Championship: NE ends JAX's season

NFC:
BYE: Vikings & Carolina
Wild Card Weekend: DAL exacts revenge on NYG and AZ sends ATL packing.
Divisional Round: MN hands DAL another divisional L and CAR beats AZ
Conference Championship: MN over CAR

Super Bowl:
Patriots vs Vikings

Brady shows why he's the best in the game as he lifts the Patriots over Favre and the Vikings. Favre retires yet again only to come back and play for 1 more season.

Review: Swing Vote

2009-08-08T22:17:00.005-04:00

2008/PG-13/Comedy

Swing Vote is a masterpiece of American cinema! Truly there are so few weak links in this film that I was astonished. An all-star cast, amazing writing, fantastic premise, and a message every American needs to hear.

When I saw who would be appearing in this movie I had some expectations: That this would be an amazing cast with one notable exception. Nathan Lane, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Hopper, Judge Reinhold, newcomer Madeline Carroll, and Kevin Costner. Like with the great film Thirteen Days I expected that the cast would shine and Kevin Costner would be beyond annoying. I am happy to say that I was very surprised to have been wrong in the case of Swing Vote. Kevin may have been the best of the bunch (which is a great compliment considering the performances given by Nathan, Stanley, and Kelsey.)

One of the reasons I thoroughly enjoyed this movie is that it managed to succeed in the very place that Recount failed. This movie completely avoided any kind of bias. While I believe it was written with a shred of the common Hollywood bias: The Republican incumbent may have been a little on the soft side intellectually. But Kelsey turned him into someone very honest, genuine and likable. Kelsey's performance thankfully removed the last bit of bias.

**Spoiler Alert**
A brief plot synopsis: The election comes down to the electoral votes from New Mexico. The election in New Mexico comes down to one small town. That one small town was an exact tie with the exception of one voter whose vote wasn't counted due to a computer malfunction. That person will be allowed to recast their vote deciding the winner of the town, state, and election.

The best part of this movie is how it handles politics as a whole and politics individually. The two candidates repeatedly change their stances in order to woo Kevin Costner's character's vote. One of the candidates even complains that the other "stole his platform" because they both are dancing across the political aisle based on what this one man says he wants. The Republican candidate announces a large environmental conservation plan. The Democrat goes Pro-Life and references our Intelligent Designer. The exposure of the fact that a politician will do or say anything for a vote is both believable, realistic, and disturbing.

Our individual political responsibility is a parallel message of Swing Vote. Eugene "Bud" Johnson (Costner) comes to learn that he'd been neglecting this responsibility. He gives a rousing speech that's impassioned and honest enough to spur any complacent American into the voting booth. You can watch the beginning of that speech here.

If the film exhibits any weak points, it's two fold. The movie went a little long. Secondarily, a journalist has an opportunity to break the scope of a lifetime and she chooses not to. Sorry, I don't buy that!

The strengths of the film by far outweighs its weaknesses. Overall: 4.5 out of 5!

Too Funny!

2009-08-08T08:08:00.000-04:00

Of Course, It's a Cubs fan. "I know I bought this hat for a reason, now, what was it?"

Disturbing

2009-08-07T03:20:00.001-04:00

There is a car dealer who wants you to know that he can get his customers financing for their new car. His slogan is "He just wants to get you a loan." But, it sounds really creepy. It sounds like the ad is saying "He just wants to get you alone."

What's worse? With his new ads, he's got his 12 year old son saying it. Eck-ch!

Seriously, give it some thought before you put something on the air! (At least his competitor's slogan is "He just wants to get you approved!" There's somebody who put some thought into his ad!)

More Thoughts on Obama

2009-08-05T06:12:00.002-04:00

I have held my tongue for quite some time on this issue, and I thought it best to comment while on vacation. That way you all have to wait for me to get back to respond.

So, I want to inquire to those of you who voted for our current president: Any voter remorse?

Allow me to point out some of his decision that have driven me bonkers.

Did you know: We are now giving Maranda rights to enemy combatants and terrorists? That's right: They now have the "right to remain silent!" That's the surest way to find out what they are plotting, where their troops are, and how to protect American lives: Tell them they don't have to tell us. Reverse psychology? Somehow, I doubt it!

Did you know: That the first qualities our President looked for when determining whom he would present to the Legislature for their rubber stamp into the supreme court wasn't any kind of professional qualifications? No no: Truth be told, The President actually had two qualifications in mind: 1) a woman. 2) Hispanic. Let's see. When I pick someone based on their race or gender that is... what are those terms again? Oh yes: Racist and sexist.

Did you know: Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice has often allowed racial bias cloud her decision making? Two perfect examples: She determined that there was racial bias when a school board decided to demote a black child from 1st grade back to kindergarten yet ruled that there was no racial bias when a city threw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because no minority firefighters qualified for promotion. In regards to the Second Amendment, Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In other words: The states can outlaw whatever they want and are not beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America. Frightening? Well, here is probably the scariest thing I've read about Ms. Sotomayor: "In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." Silly me. In all of my extensive study on the subject of law, I thought the legislature was where policy was made. But I guess the judge knows best!

Did you know: That few Presidents have been better at the "it's not my fault" game than our current Commander in Chief? (Clinton actually played the opposite game, taking credit for some of the things his predecessor set in place.) How many times can one man use the word "inherited"? Enough is enough! Look, you inherited a problem. You took an extended look at said problem. You provided a solution for the problem. It didn't work. Guess what: you didn't inherit your poor solution. Nor will you have inherited the further recession we are headed to once your government money runs out. What will he take credit for?

So, just wondering, for those of you who cast your vote for our first black President: Any voters remorse? Anyone?

Culture Wars

2009-08-03T07:02:00.000-04:00

While attending a Christian men's conference, I saw something that made me cringe! It was this:

How long are we, as Christians, going to follow in the footsteps of culture as though we are it's pitiful little brother? For years, Christians created culture! Galileo, Copernicus (you have to be a Christian to be excommunicated), Michelangelo. Now we are so far behind culture we've been lapped. There is an enormous vault of examples of the Christian subculture imitating American culture. Guitar Praise (which is Guitar Hero with Christian music) is just the most recent offender in this long line of wannabes.

Interestingly enough, recently, culture has begun to imitate (or perhaps, more appropriately mock) the Christian subculture. We all remember the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) movement? I believe this was the first victim of the reverse imitation.

"What would Jerry Do" was one of the first to appear (left). I have to give "What Would Jason Do" an honorary mention. I have also seen personalized bracelets ("What Would Henry Do" and the like). I've also seen it turned into "Who" rather than "What".

Then next Christian item to fall victim was the dreaded bumper sticker!

became

One of the most interesting "conversations" between the Christian subculture and the ... non-Christian subculture is expressed in the following icons:

The Icthus Fish was an early Christian symbol stemming from the days of persecution. A believer would draw a semi-circle in the sand. If the person they were with was also a believer (or a follower of "The Way," as they called themselves then.) they would complete the fish by drawing the second half of the circle that crosses the first creating the tail. If not, they would usually either do nothing, or complete the full circle.

Misunderstanding the Icthus, anti-Christians created this symbol, "evolving" the Icthus with feet (and just in case we followers of The Way were too dumb to understand, they tossed Darwin's name in the fish, so we'd be sure to get it.)

Not to be outdone, Christians fired back.

And then the "anti-Christians" struck a blow that most believers didn't understand. This is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." What does this have to do with anything? It was a response to the letter to the Kansas Board of Education regarding Intelligent Design. Because ID doesn't specifically mention God, but rather any "Intelligent Creator", opponents wrote a letter stating they believed that a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was the Intelligent Creator. Somehow, this has flown almost entirely under the Christian Subculture's radar. I think, however, that sometime soon we will see something like this:

Terrified Yet?

2009-07-25T01:25:00.005-04:00

I toyed with several different titles for this post. Included on that list were "Lies My Government Told Me." "'I Am Not A Socialist.'" and "Get It While You Can." But none of these seemed to do justice to the gravity of the situation facing our nation.

I apologize for the large delay between posts. Vacation. Spending time outside. Other unforeseen obstacles. That and I have several posts in progress, but this one simply could NOT wait.

You may have heard that Obama's "Healthcare" plan is most likely going to be rubber stamped through "Congress." Let's take a look at some of the details of this program:

Where to start. Well, I want to begin by saying that this is not the healthcare that the Senators have. I seem to remember that being a campaign promise. I'm pretty sure President Obama said in more than one debate that he'd make available the health plan that Congress has. What happened there?

Under this plan, the President states that you can keep your old healthcare program if you want to. You'd be considered "grandfathered" and you would not have to take the government's healthcare. Of course, you'd still be paying for the government's plan in your taxes, you just don't have to use it. You can keep your own private healthcare company. *Phew* that's a relief. That is, of course, until employers begin to realize that they don't have to offer healthcare anymore. What a major savings! What a great way to increase the bottom line! So, if this passes, we can expect employers of non-unionized employees to no longer offer healthcare. Why should they? The government can take care of those people now.

Besides, there is a clause in this bill that says that you cannot transfer your private healthcare coverage. Bet you didn't know that, huh? What does that mean? It means that if you switch jobs then you cannot: A)Bring your healthcare with you or B)get healthcare from your new job. They cannot offer it to you. Period. If you switch jobs you are also switching to the Federal Healthcare Program. So, what's to stop companies from no longer offering healthcare coverage? They can't offer it to new people, why should they continue to offer it to their tenured employees?

What's the end result of these two inevitable results of President Obama's plan? Private Healthcare companies will be forced to shut down. Without new people coming in, and with so many companies no longer offering the coverage, these companies will have to close their doors. They will have to tell those few companies that are still offering healthcare that they can no longer provide it. When all is said and done, everyone will be part of the government's program and thousands of people will be out of work due to the collapse of the private healthcare industry.

Is that how you planned on creating jobs, Mr. President? By choking every private health insurance company out of business? What are all of those people going to do? Who are they going to work for? Nothing like stimulating the economy by forcing people out of work.

Oh, and don't grow old! That's for sure. One of the ways this plan is going to "keep costs low" (You know, less that $1 trillion per year) is by limiting end-of-life care. That's right, when it comes to old folks under Obama's plan the slogan is "let 'em die. It's cheaper that way."

The best part about this program? Reporters are asking the members of Congress if they would sign up for this healthcare program. I've yet to hear one of them answer "yes."

But, to be honest, here is the most terrifying part of this plan. While most things that a President does can be undone by the next administration, (Obama was an excellent example of that principle!) this can not simply be undone by our next President. If this passes ~ that's it: the government will have yet another massive huge bureaucratic monstrosity that we can never get rid of (See: Medicare, Social Security, Homeland Security, IRS, Medicaid, Welfare, etc). All of the results I've explained above are inevitable: Once companies stop offering healthcare as a benefit which will lead to the slow strangulation death of all private healthcare companies there will be too many Americans relying on this terrible program for it to be ended. Where would they go? There is no way the existing private healthcare companies (if there are any) would be able to withstand an influx of insureds in the numbers that would suddenly find themselves uninsured. Not to mention the numbers that would be considered uninsurable, or people with "pre-existing conditions." Once we have started down this spiralling path, anyone who tries to right the ship would be seen as either heartless or stupid.

Oh, and let's not forget that the plan also has that incredibly sensible aspect that fines you if you don't have healthcare. So if you can't afford healthcare, you have to pay more for not having it. What I want to know is, will the President's plan cover me as I recover from starvation because I can't afford my food and my taxes to cover my new "affordable" healthcare plan?

Now, indulge me as we go one more speculative step forward. Without much difficulty, one can envision the government trying to lower costs by regulating what doctors can charge. This could cause the good doctors to decide that either they don't really want to practice medicine anymore, or they just don't want to practice it here. And let's not forget the complaints from countries that have socialized medicine: it takes forever to get anything done. The only country without that complaint is Germany and that country is going bankrupt. Granted, this paragraph is not as likely to happen as the rest of the post. But it is, by no means, out of the question!

In the end, either the President is incredibly short-sighted and can't foresee these obvious inevitable results or he is incredibly devious, recognizes that these things will happen but hopes he can pretend they were unintended and his dream of taking another step towards a socialist society will be complete.

Either way, that's not the type of leadership I'm looking for from the Oval Office. Please, write to your congressman or congresswoman. Tell them to vote NO on this bill. Let's leave Obama's plan where we left Hillary's: In the waiting room where it belongs. You know, that place we'll end up if this thing passes!

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-04T21:52:00.003-04:00

I've shared my thoughts on the Fourth of July in the past, but I had a new thought this year:

If you are going to be in one of those big city Pops/Orchestras, I hope you don't like fireworks.

They never get to see them. Whenever I've seen them play they are always facing away from the fireworks display. And even when the fireworks are off to the side, these poor people have to share their view between their music and the conductor (who gets to face the fireworks). Not you, musicians: No fireworks for you.

Thanks for making that sacrifice. We owe you one!

And that's this year's Fourth of July Opinion.

The Weather

2009-07-03T11:24:00.005-04:00

You gotta love the Global Warming theory. Global Warming shares a distinct position with only one other theory: Evolution. What distinction is that? These two theories are so mailable that nothing, absolutely nothing, could ever prove them wrong.

Take this most recent spring and now summer here in New England. Unseasonably cool. Amazingly rainy. Global Warming states that our average temperatures should be steadily rising. And yet this is not the case this year. And what is the climate change activist's response? That the factors that go into Global Warming are causing the changes to our climate to create what we are experiencing now.

So let me make sure I understand: When it's getting hotter, that's clearly Global Warming. But when it's not getting warmer that is climate change caused by what is associated with Global Warming and, therefore, still proves Global Warming.

The problem with these two theories is that they are patently unscientific. A theory should lead to experimentation and prediction. I've not heard a single Global Warming proponent predict that Global Warming would cause a cool and very wet spring. (And I'd love to hear how one can experiment with the theory of evolution seeing as at the very heart of the theory is that the only force acting on it is natural selection and unguided mutations. As soon as we start experimenting either the only force is now longer natural selection or the mutations are no longer unguided.)

The Theory of Gravity allows me to predict that something I toss up will come down. Or I can determine how much force I'd need to get something to escape gravity. The theory of Global Warming apparently is unable to predict the future of our planets climate. And let's not forget this, now notorious, article from the April 28, 1975 edition of Newsweek: The Cooling World

I'm gonna rest assured that the earth will not become too hot for life until the earth's creator decides it's time.

Review: Recount

2009-06-22T00:16:00.001-04:00

2008/R/Drama

Recount is the dramatization (based on actual events) of the fight for Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election between Bush and Gore. **Spoiler Alert** Al Gore looses. This movie, produced by HBOFilms, stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary, Ed Begly Jr., Tom Wilkinson, and Mitch Pileggi. If the mere fact that this movie was made didn't communicate it, the fact that it's HBOFilms starring these people made it more than apparent prior to viewing that this movie would lean left.

Recount was everything I thought it would be an nothing I'd hoped it would be. Lean left? Yeah, if you can call a boat that's capsized "leaning." While I expected a bias, the extent to which the filmmakers went was surprising. What I found was had the bias been less exaggerated, I might have been more receptive to some of their talking points.

How bad was the bias? I'll list just a few comparisons in regards to how the portrayed the competing sides:

The Candidates:
While neither Senator Gore nor Governor Bush was fully portrayed, they were represented throughout the movie. Gore was in charge of the legal proceedings that his team of lawyers was pursuing. He was compassionate, concerned with the American people and his image. Bush was absent. His team was run by the head lawyer. Gore's people were on the phone to him repeatedly. No one ever checked with Bush regarding the actions they were taking. The only time we heard Bush was when he was snooty to Gore on the phone. We hear Gore several times leading and directing his troops.

The Lawyers:
There are several ways the director and writers chose to expose their bias through these characters. There is a very telling scene that bounces between the two camps as the set their strategy when it first appeared that Florida was going to become a post-election battleground. The Democrats would say something that sounded gentle and altruistic. They'd follow it up with a comment about something they certainly couldn't do on moral or ethical grounds. Cut to: The Republican lawyers proclaiming they needed to do the exact verbatim thing the liberal lawyers just said they could never do. This was done not once, not even twice, at least three times throughout the course of the movie. While it garnered a laugh, even from me, it moved this piece from fictional retelling to melodrama.

The Design:
I debated which heading to use for this section. "Design" encompasses lighting, costumes, and set. The lawyers for the two sides were purposefully portrayed as polar opposites. The democrats were in business casual: respectable yet approachable. The republicans were in business suits: stuffy, stodgy, rich. Gore's team was headquartered in a comfortable, brightly lit, campaign-style storefront filled with big windows, folding chairs, campaign signs, and folding tables. The Bush team was in a dark, enclosed conference room filled with heavy law books, heavy curtains, and a big heavy table. The Liberals were lit warmly, attractively, comfortably with key lights and fill lights. The conservatives were consistently back lit with a single harsh cold light.

There was a moment when they almost made the Republicans appear to be human. However, when juxtaposed with some of the things the Democrats said, even that was slanted. A fellow lawyer asked the Chief Republican attorney why he switched parties, as he was once a Democrat. The man replied that at a difficult time in his life, a politician was very kind and understanding: G. Bush I. "Oh, how sweet." Right? Consider this: Following their loss, a few of the Democrats were saying that they didn't even like Al Gore. What am I getting at? The Democrats are doing what they are doing because the believe in the party and it's platforms. The only reason the lawyer was a Republican was due to friendship. No intelligent person would ever be a Republican based on the party platforms (unless you are rich.) Even in their "pet the dog*" moment, they still bashed the right.

In the end, some of the Democrats are sitting around opining that hopefully, the right man was in office, even if it wasn't their guy. While they are discussing this little hints are being dropped: Brown appointed as FEMA chair on a newspaper, Iraq mentioned in a broadcast. They don't go so far as to drop any foreshadowing of 9/11, but their feelings on the overall situation is clear (as though we needed to be reminded how the makers of the movie truly felt...)

We all remember the questions surrounding the Florida election of 2000. In my extensive studies on the counts and recounts I still cannot say for certain who won the state. The filmmakers certainly had a very compelling story with valid points on both sides. The fact that they couldn't simply tell the story and felt they need to spin it (more than spin it: catapult it) to the left negated any points either side had. Basically, the inability of the writers, director, and producers to suppress their own political viewpoints made this movie a waste of time.

The message of the movie is unmistakable. So, even though it was completely counter productive, they were successful in communicating their purpose. They get a half star for that. The acting, constrained as it was by the script and overall bias, was fairly decent. One star for that.

Overall 1.5 out of 5 stars.

* A "pet the dog" moment is when you have your stereotypical villain pet a dog, or do something else humane, to show that he isn't all evil. A good example of this would be when Nicholas Cage's character cares for his brother in Face/Off. This ability to care shows he's somewhat human.

Once, Twice, Three Years a Daddy

2009-06-22T00:15:00.002-04:00

Today Full House turns three.

THREE!

I cannot believe that so much time has passed.

I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.

I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.

I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.

I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.

I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.

So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.

I love you, buddy!

Father's Day

2009-06-21T00:15:00.003-04:00

I was running around my yard with my son hoping that my love and attention would help him grow into a man that I, my wife, and even he, would be proud of.

In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!

But still, sometimes I wonder...

Seeing Stars

2009-06-18T01:21:00.001-04:00

No, this isn't a post about my years in Hollywood. And I haven't seen a cartoon character take a mallet to the head recently. I'm talking about big gaseous balls of fire in the heavens.

I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...

When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
We do not see the same stars they did!
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:

This is basically what we see now:

Imagine seeing this:

I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.

Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."

The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"

Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"

To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!

I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.

International Politics

2009-06-14T18:27:00.001-04:00

I think it's a rare event that JMO delves into the realm of international politics, but there are two issues that have burst onto the scene of current events on which JMO has an opinion. (Surprise, surprise, right?)

Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.

I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.

Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.

Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?

Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.

Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.

So, that's my opinion. What's yours?

Dismantling Food

2009-06-13T22:15:00.019-04:00

Recently, I admitted to myself that I have a strange eating habit. I dismantle food (If this confuses you, you'll understand more as you read). I used to think this was localized only to one or two snacks. However, the more I reflected on this abnormality, the more I concluded that, when it comes to dismantling food, I practically do it whenever possible.

I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.

How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.

Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.

I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)

I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)

I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I devour the candy bar).

I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:

Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.

Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.

Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!

Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!

Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!

(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!

Review: Premonition

2009-06-12T18:28:00.008-04:00

***Spoiler Alert***
Seriously, I'm totally going to give the movie away
I'm not even kidding, if you want to watch the movie and be surprised, stop reading now

(But let me say this: it's really not worth skipping the review to watch the movie. If you have to pick one, pick the review)

2007/PG-13/Drama

Premonition is my movie. And when I say that, "my movie" is a movie that never got made, for good reason. I'll explain:

For my final project in film school, we had to pitch a movie idea to the producers (Professors). They'd select which five movies would be made out of the twelve that were presented. I pitched a movie called Photo Finish. The very short synopsis is: Due to the consequences of his own actions, fate gives a man a Polaroid Camera. The camera begins to lead him to strangers who, unbeknownst to him, are about to die. He takes their picture and when it develops it turns out to be a picture of their death, which is imminent. He decides to try to do good and the each time the camera leads him he tries to save the person's life. His actions end up causing their death, and when he does nothing, they still die. Finally, the camera leads our anti-hero to a mirror. He takes his own picture and sees how he will die moments before it happens. The movie ends with an apparition of our hero passing the camera off to the person who was responsible for his death, and they cycle continues.

This is the movie I pitched. The producers didn't like the fact that there was no redemption for the main character. They told me my movie would be made, but I had to rework it so that his actions saved people from their imminent demise. What the producer says goes and Photo Finish was made.

What does this have to do with Premonition? If you've seen the movie, I hope you'll see the correlation. First, let me say that I didn't like this movie. It had so many things that annoy me. Not the least of which was some supernatural plot gimmick that had no explanation. Why is Sandra Bullock living the days of this specific week out of order? Was the priest supposed to provide some type of explanation? Hardly! So, basically, this was a time travel movie without being explicitly marketed as one.

Having said that, this time travel movie suffers from the same problem that many others do. In fact, it is the exact same complaint I have with Minority Report (Which was a much better movie). Her premonition is the direct cause of his death. If she did not have the premonition he is still living so what caused the premonition? He's not dead. (With Minority Report it was the Pre-cog's vision that causes the dominoes to tumble eventually ending with Cruise's character committing the murder the Pre-cog saw. No Pre-cog, no murder) No premonition, no death.

How did this movie get made? In my movie, the camera leads the anti-hero to a place where he causes peoples' deaths. In Premonition, the foreknowledge of how and when her husband dies causes Sandra Bullock to take actions that cause his death. If she lived the day he died like any other day, then he lives.

The producers who green lighted Photo Finish with their required changes made my movie better. The producers who green lighted Premonition (especially with it's clearly altered audience tested moronic ending) should not have made their movie.

Even though Bullock, Shyann McClure, and Courtney Taylor Burness (the girls playing her daughters) put forth fairly remarkable performances, considering the subject matter, they still weren't able to rescue this movie from its own storyline. (And what is with Sandra doing all these movies with weird time plot gimmicks? See The Lake House.)

Taking into account the acting: 1.5 out of 5 stars.

I Can't Believe This Exists

2009-06-03T21:04:00.008-04:00

This may become a regular (or semi-regular) installment on JMO. If that does become the case then here is the first episode:

I can't believe that this exists:

That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.

The Nissan

2009-05-22T19:59:00.001-04:00

With all of the failing car companies in the news, I can't help but wonder why people buy Nissans.

Noun 1. Nissan - the seventh month of the civil year; the first month of the ecclesiastic year (in March and April) in the Hebrew calendar.

Here's why I ask: When I think of all of the things a car could focus on, I don't think there is a Nissan that is primary for any of them!

A Nissan isn't known for being:

Reliable like the Honda Accord or a Saturn
Safe like a Volvo
Fuel efficient like the Honda Civic or the Toyota Prius
Powerful like the Sliverado, Ram, Bronco, or Tacoma
a Muscle-car like the Mustang
a Family mobile like the Dodge Grand Caravan or Plymouth Voyager
a Chick magnet like the Mitsubishi Mirage or Eclipse
Luxurious like a BMW, Infinity, or an Audi
a Status symbol like a Lexus or a Jaguar
Stereotypical like the El Camino or the Monte Carlo
Eco-friendly like the Yaris
Sporty like the Pontiac Bonneville or Corvette
Versatile like the Subaru Outback or Ford Edge
Fun like the Dodge Neon or VW Passat
Classic like the Toyota Corolla or VW Bug
Aesthetically pleasing like a Ferrari or an Eagle Vision
an Old Person car like a Cadillac, Oldsmobile, or Lincoln

In fact, the only category that I could come up with that a Nissa might be first in would be "Nissan-y." But even in that category I might put the Mazda G6 as more "like a Nissan" than a Nissan.

So, please, why would anyone purchase a Nissan?

Translation, Please?

2009-05-20T07:27:00.008-04:00

Ever notice how toddlers and young children seem to be speaking another language, and yet their parents somehow understand them?

Such is the case with our little Full House. His vocabulary is growing by leaps and bounds, he is speaking in full sentences, and he is finding creative ways to let us know what he is talking about. While, on one hand he is an excellent speaker and everyone he interacts with finds it easy to communicate with him; on the other hand, he does say a few things that could pass for other, sometimes humorous, words or phrases.

Below is a pictorial quiz to see how well you can speak "Full House-ese." The pictures are visual representations of what it sounds like he is saying. Can you determine what he means?

The first comment on this post will be what one might hear when he speaks, the "literal translation" if you will. Later in the week, I'll put the answers of what he actually means. See how well you can do. Feel free to put your answers in comments and let us all know if you used just the picture, or the picture and the explanation, to form your guess.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)
Happy guessing. Don't forget: The first comment is the "literal translation" of each picture and check back later for what he is really saying!

Selling Medocrity

2009-05-11T21:28:00.003-04:00

I saw a preview for Tom Hank's newest film that proclaimed:

"Audiences and critics around the world agree: Angels and Demons is better than The Davinci Code!"

Is that the best they could come up with? I picture people standing outside the theater, shrugging and saying off-handedly, "Well, at least it was better than The DaVinci Code."

Isn't that like saying: "Sportscasters and fans alike believe that the 2007 Dolphins (1-15) were better than the 2008 Lions (0-16)!"

"Chefs and patrons both concur: week-old moldy mushroom soup is better than month-old maggot filled road kill!"

"Families everywhere declare: living in a run-down apartment is better than living in a cardboard box!"

Are we supposed to be impressed when they compare new crap with old crap and decide that new crap is better? Just wondering.

Outrageous!

2009-05-08T08:04:00.002-04:00

"Filmmaker" Kirby Dick is at it again! The very first movie review on JMO was of this embittered man's attempt at a documentary regarding the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system. It ended up being "a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it." -JMO.

In his new "documentary," called Outrage, Dick purposefully outs closeted homosexual politicians who actively campaign and vote against the gay liberal agenda. In interviews, his stated purpose of this "documentary" is to expose the hypocrisy in these politicians. He states that a fringe effect of this is the unauthorized outing of these supposed closet homosexuals (all of whom happen to be members of the Republican party ~ surprise, surprise.) It has little to do with his support for the gay agenda.

This is wrong on so many levels! For years, one of the staples of the Left's gay agenda, and one of their repeated points as to why their legislation should pass, is that "what happens in someone's bedroom is private and the government should not intervene." I guess it's only private when it suits them. If they deem it counter-productive it becomes everyone's business.

Another complaint of the liberal left arose when a homosexual was outed by the media. This was "none of the public's business" and it was a despicable act by the media to out this person. It was their prerogative when and how they announced their sexual preference. Unless it was deemed counter-productive to the homosexual cause, then it becomes everyone's business.

Now, again, Kirby Dick states that this "film" is primarily to expose the hypocrisy in Washington. If that is the case then I look forward to his upcoming "documentaries":

Up In Smoke - Politicians who smoke but pass anti-smoking laws.

Gun Shy - Politicians who own guns and vote for gun control laws.

Color Blind - African-American politicians who actively oppose Affirmative Action.

Straight & Narrow - Heterosexual politicians who support the homosexual cause.

Life & Death - Politicians who believe in Pro-life for themselves yet vote for Pro-choice legislation.

Rabid Pacifist - Draft-dodging politicians who support and wage war.

I.O.USA - Tax-evading politicians who vote to increase taxes.

Party Poopers - A two-part documentary that focuses on Republicans who vote for Socialist programs and Democrats who vote for pro-American legislation.

Once Dick has finished his comprehensive project on the hypocrisy in Washington, he should move on to his crowning jewel: Private No More: An expose on how those entrenched in the gay agenda will ignore their mantra of "the government should stay out of the bedroom" so that they can out anyone they chose if they feel it furthers their cause. And perhaps the most hypocritical act is to hold the view that homosexuals deserve equal rights, that the government should stay out of the bedroom, and then out people who had chosen to exercise their right to have their sexual preference remain private. I smell an Oscar!

I sincerely hope that those who earnestly believe in the cause of homosexuals will call this "documentary" what it is: detrimental, unethical, disrespectful, and hypocritical. And that is Just My Opinion!

The Father's Blessing

2009-05-02T00:59:00.008-04:00

Abraham blessed Isaac.
Isaac blessed Jacob.
Jacob pronounced a blessing over all twelve of his sons.
Even Jesus received a blessing from his Father when he was baptised.

This weekend, our church provides an opportunity for parents to give this kind of amazing, life changing blessing to their children as they welcome their 7th and 8th graders into adulthood.

And the church has begun to take steps to actually back up the concept that they are adults by allowing them to become voting members. By seeing them, not as the future of the church, but as the church of today. And by slowly but surely listening to the voice of the youth.

Why is this important? Our society is filled with children who are trying to find their way without the intentional blessing of their parents. In particular, their father. Someone who has not received this blessing typically seeks acceptance from everyone and has difficulty if someone does not accept them. They are concerned that they never quite measure up. They search in as many places they can find for the blessing they never received as they entered adulthood.

Read through some of the Biblical blessings. Gary Smalley and John Trent in their book The Blessing have accurately found that a blessing consists of "a spoken message of high value, a message that pictures a special future for the individual being bless and one that is base on an active commitment to see the blessing come to pass."

I am a dad. I will devote myself to blessing my children. Daily if I can. As often as I remember. And intentionally bestow upon both of them a complete Biblically based blessing as they enter adulthood.

I hope to bless them with, not only words, but action. By introducing them to Christ. By supporting their development: emotionally, intellectually, physically, and spiritually. By pastoring my family, modeling a husband striving to love his wife, setting an example of unconditional love in parenting.

Will I fail? You bet! I already have. Will I give up? Absolutely not!

Have you missed your blessing? Don't let that fall to your children as well. Think you've missed your chance to bless your children? It's never too late to start over. Has God blessed you with offspring? Be sure you bless your offspring with your actions and words!

I found an amazing passage recently: Isaiah 49:15 (God speaking to Israel) "I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands." How true! He chose to engrave my name onto the palm of his hands using the nails that held him to the cross.

Epidemic

2009-05-01T07:48:00.000-04:00

The cause of the swine flu epidemic has been discovered!

Eight Short Commentaries

2009-04-23T07:37:00.000-04:00

Just a few short (and this time, though each successive one gets longer, by JMO standards these are all very short) thoughts on various subjects:

The roads in New England are not made for post surgery travel.

Before we had the medical ability to take out the appendix, was severe pain in your lower right side a death sentence?

"Obama looks to cut $100,000,000 from the federal budget." I know a couple of recent spending bills that could be cut...

Struggling to cut $100 Million from the $3 Trillion federal budget is like having a $3,000 budget and struggling to cut ten cents.

Note to supporters of "same-sex" marriage: The majority of the nation still opposes "Same-Sex" marriage (not a commentary for civil unions). Stop acting like your stance is main stream and stop slamming people when they express an honest opinion.

If there is to be a separation of Church and State, it needs to go both ways: Hey Church, don't tell my government how to govern. Hey State, don't tell my church how to handle its finances, don't tell my church who it must and must not marry, don't tell my church who it can and cannot refuse to hire.

The IMF is guesstimating that the world's economy won't recover until 2010! This is being reported as though we still have a long way to go. Wait a minute, I thought this was the greatest recession since the great depression. Two years doesn't quite make this the recession of the century! I guess this was over hyped too. Anything to get into office, right? (Of course, Obama will take credit for this recovery. Even though I still believe that after the "stimulus" money is gone, the US will see another dip, a more severe dip in our economy before we recover.)

Let us briefly note the difference in stimulus programs compared to the parties that authored them. The Republicans (remember: for big business and the rich) gave a stimulus to the people. The same amount to everyone unless you had kids, then you got a little more. The Democrats (remember for the little guy, against big business) gave a stimulus to HUGE businesses (AIG, GMC, Fannie and Freddie Mac, ETC) and to states to give the money to the lowest bidder (IE: other big businesses) for special projects. Wake up American voter! Stop guzzling the Kool-Aid! Look at the facts and think for yourself! Which party is favoring "the little guy" and which one is favoring "big business?"

Those are some of the things rattling around in my skull. Feel free to share your thoughts on them or add your own!

I Am A "Right-Wing Extremist"

2009-04-20T07:53:00.004-04:00

At least, according to Janet Napolitano, the head of homeland security, I am.

And you might be too!
You may have heard the hubbub over Napolitano stating that returning Veterans would be targeted by these "Right-Wing Extremest" groups as possible recruits, and how up in arms the Veterans, and those who support them, were.

Not willing to just take someone's word for it, I found the declassified report. Low and behold, not only does it say that disgruntled veterans would be prime targets, but it also says that I am one, too! The report states:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Here we must note a few things. First, true to Washington's absolute narcissism, the only "government" that matters is the federal government. According to this paragraph, those that are "antigovernment" "reject federal authority in favor of state..." Apparently, state government doesn't exist. Second, did you find the immigration bias in this paragraph? I'm sure "Right-Wing Extremists" don't oppose immigration, but rather illegal immigration. Based on context elsewhere in the report, illegal immigration is listed as simply "immigration." As JMO has stated before, I refuse to refer to illegal aliens as "immigrants" as that term implies paperwork, visas, and law. As opposed to wire cutters, dark clothes, and the circumvention of the law

Now, while I don't fall into the hate category. I definitely favor state authority over federal authority and I am defiantly in opposition to abortion and illegal immigration.

Truth be told, my stat counter has already registered a hit from the House of Representatives.Maybe they are keeping an eye on me! Little do they know, I am keeping an eye on them!

I also had to chuckle that, according to this report, if you are a "Right-Wing Extremist" you are automatically breaking the law. Read this sentence:

Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition.

That's right, "Rightwing Extremists" as well as law abiding citizens ~ And ne'er the twain shall meet.

To recap: I appose abortion. I favor states rights over federal authority, I oppose illegal immigration. Therefore, according to this report, I am a potential threat to the government. Are you?

Another Advertisement

2009-04-11T21:55:00.004-04:00

In my last post, I mentioned an ad that I thought was humorous due to its claim that somehow doughnuts were better for your children than cartoons. Well, in this post, I'm going to destroy an advertisement that drives me absolutely crazy!

Mastercard has often assembled some of the more touching or thought provoking ads with their "Priceless" campaign. Their most recent attempt, however, falls well short of the mark. (You can view the commercial here.)

For those who haven't seen it, an eight year old boy is participating in everyday activities with his dad: brushing their teeth, buying light bulbs, and grocery shopping. With each activity the boy helps his dad be more eco-friendly. "Water glass... five dollars" says child's voice over as the youth turns off the running water. "Energy saving bulb... four dollars" and the child hands the dad the low power bulb while daddy returns the standard one. "reusable bag... two dollars." The son hands the plastic bag back to the cashier and gets a reusable one for his dad. "Helping your dad become a better man: Priceless."

I've often complain that Hollywood puts out too many films where the adults are morons and the kids/teens have all the answers. Now Mastercard has fallen into that same trap. I find few undercurrents more demeaning, more offensive, more detrimental to society than the one that puts forth that the youth know more than the aged.

What are we to infer from this ad? Somewhere this child learned how to be eco-friendly and needs to pass his eight-year-old wisdom on to his dad. Who did he learn if from? TV? His teachers? His friends? What else does dear-ole-daddy not know? What else has dad taught him that he should question or completely ignore? Nothing like undermining what should be the loudest strongest voice of influence in our lives: Our Dad.

Wanna make an eco-friendly commercial? Go right ahead. But have the dad teaching the child how to be environmentally responsible. The dad gives the kid the glass, shows him the better bulb, explains why he's bringing bags into the store. Need a tagline? "Raising the generation you are saving the world for: Priceless." "Passing the world on to a more responsible generation: Priceless." Teaching our children to be responsible is part of the job description. They could even leave my version with "Being a dad: Priceless." letting everybody know: This is something that all dads need to be doing.

Telling Mastercard where they can stick their commercial: Priceless.

300

2009-04-09T21:03:00.011-04:00

Three years, seven months, twenty-five days.
Just under 44 months
Three days over 190 weeks
One thousand three hundred thirty-three days.
Thirty-one thousand nine hundred ninety-two hours

That is how long it has taken me to reach my three hundredth post.

Don't be fooled! This is not a review of the movie 300. This is my third "Let's look back" episode!

My first one hundred only took seven months, twenty-seven days

The next were posted over a period of one year, nine months, eighteen days

The most recent one hundred took one year, two months, and eleven days

These past 100 posts have seen some milestones!

The birth of my beautiful daughter!

The beginning of my wonderful wife's blog: It's Called Guilt

The most comments on a single post
(52 sparked by Intelligent Design, blowing the previous record of 39 on a post about immigration out of the water)

The addition of high-speed Internet at home (leading to a great increase in photos being used to improve the JMO experience)

Here is just a quick review of the subject matter covered over the past 100 posts. (the link is to my favorite post in each category):

Politics won with 21 posts
Of those
12 of them were episodes of the "Voting Booth"
7 were aimed squarely at Obama, and
4 were about the economy

Sports was second with 20 posts
12 of them were about the NFL

General Culture grabbed 10 posts
15 were movie review posts (multiple reviews on a single post totalled 18 reviews)

As with all "Flashbacks" one has to pull out their favorite moment, Ross' leather pants from friends, the nose-slap from Cheers, and the following from JMO's "Holiday Compromise":

You will not have December 25th off and while you are working you will not be earning double time.

Clearly the day has no meaning for you. I don't take Rosh Hashanah off. I'm working on the Summer Solstice. I don't sleep late on Eid Al-Fitr. I don't stay up till midnight on January 25th. You don't get my religious holiday off. Now, if it's your argument that exchanging gifts with loved ones on the 25th day of the 12th month is cultural and that's why you should get the day off, then that would be called "Christmas."

Now, one can only have so many of these without introducing something new in them. I believe I've reached that limit. Here is a new thought that you haven't read yet on JMO:

Dunkin Donuts has an ad campaign out right now that cracks me up. The children are in a dim living room watching cartoons. Hulu would be glad because they are transfixed, clearly rotting their brains.

Enter: Dad. He's returning home after a visit to Dunkin Donuts. Magically, the hypnotic trance of the television is broken. The children rush into a brightly lit kitchen and feast on the dozen doughnuts their father has purchased. In the background, the family dog is being unwillingly drawn in by the power of the TV.

The message of the ad? Hey kids, stop watching that crap, come over here and eat this crap!

If you like what you've seen over these last 300 posts, let me know! Want to see more of something? Less of something else? Here's to another hundred episodes of Just My Opinion!

Allianced Intermingled Greed

2009-04-05T20:11:00.010-04:00

While investigating the "Watergate" scandal, Woodward and Bernstein (Co-authors of "All the President's Men") were admonished to "Follow the money."

As history has shown us, that has turned out to be very sound advice. So, let's take a few minutes today and follow the banking bail-out money.

We know that some of that money went to pay bonuses for certain employees of the bail-out companies. In response, several high ranking government officials expressed their outrage that AIG, in particular, would dare use the bail-out money for these bonuses. Many people don't know these were bonuses that AIG was contractually obligated to pay.

The outrage came from all over Washington, including the Oval Office!

But the money continues, let's keep following:

What else has AIG done with their bailout money? What a surprise! They've donated it to certain politicians' campaigns! What do you know? They are not the only bailed-out bank to be doing this!

Bank of America (which received $15 billion in bail-out dollars) has donated $24,500 in contributions in the first two months of 2009 alone! The lucky recipients? Democrat Steny Hoyer and members of the House and Senate banking committees. Citigroup (Which was handed $25 billion of our tax dollars) has donated $29,620 and UBS (who didn't receive funds directly but was paid as an AIG "counterparty" to the tune of $5 billion) has offered $10,000 to political parties.

Excuse me? Where is the outrage? Our government has passed a bill taxing 90% of the AIG bonuses, are we taxing the post-bail-out campaign contributions to the same degree? Oh. We only tax when the money is going to someone else. I get it...

Is there more money to follow? You bet!

AIG has sent nearly $100 billion to other banks. Over half of that has been sent to foreign banks! AIG is using US Taxpayer money to bail-out the rest of the world! Included, but not limited to $36 billion given to French and German banks alone!

But wait, there's more! (JMO never just scratches the surface!)

CBS is reporting that the Obama Administration and members of Congress knew that the bonuses were going to be paid months before the checks were actually issued! Yet they did nothing to stop it! Why would they do that? Two answers:

First, they could then fake outrage and appear to be morally incensed that the tax payers money was going to pay these undeserved huge bonuses (in the hopes we'd ignore the tax dollars being given back to the politicians as campaign contributions). This is the same tactic that Obama used regarding Rev. Wright. Wait for the story to break, feign outrage, encourage him to continue speaking and distance yourself from the problem.

The second answer? They could get the money back into the pockets of the government by taxing said bonuses. If Washington stopped the bonuses from being paid, they wouldn't have 90% back in the treasury! They'd have 0% and AIG would still have all of that money!

An interesting side note to this whole debacle is that in 2008 the bailed-out banks gave an awful lot of money to the very politicians who spear-headed this bail-out process. Let's use just AIG as an example: (Remember, this is only the contributions of AIG. Imagine what these people have received on the whole from the bailed-out banks and auto makers!:

Here are the top twenty.
(D-IL) Barack Obama ....... $104,332
(D-CT) Chris Dodd .......... $103,900
(R-AZ) John McCain .......... $59,499
(D-NY) Hillary Clinton ........ $37,965
(D-MT) Max Baucus .......... $24,750
(R-MA) Mitt Romney ......... $20,850
(D-DE) Joseph R Biden Jr .... $19,975
(D-CT) John B Larson ........ $19,750
(R-NH) John E Sununu ....... $18,500
(R-NY) Rudolph W Giuliani .. $13,200
(D-PA) Paul E Kanjorski ...... $12,000
(D-IL) Dick Durbin ............ $11,000
(D-CO) Edwin G Perlmutter . $10,500
(D-NY) Charles B Rangel ...... $9,000
(D-NC) John Edwards ......... $7,850
(R-TN) Bob Corker ............ $7,400
(R-NJ) Chris Smith ............ $6,900
(D-MA) Richard E Neal ........ $6,500
(D-WV) Jay Rockefeller ....... $6,500
(D-RI) Jack Reed .............. $6,000

Totals:
Donations to Republicans:
Total number of donations: 17
Average per donation: $6,132
Total donation amount: $104,249

Donations to Democrats
Total number of donations: 18
Average per donation: $18,229
Total donation amount: $328,122

I want to know where the major media journalists are. They are usually so fast to break stories like this. Sounds to me like Chris Dodd is set up to be the fall guy for all of these people who took money, gave a ton of money, and are now continuing to receive money from these very people.

Fishy-fishy!

Because it has taken me so long to finish this post, there is something that I must comment on: Our President has publicly shamed America while in Europe. Anyone else incensed? Obama worships at the alter of the EU because it's headed down the socialist path. America doesn't.

New School Rule

2009-04-02T06:22:00.003-04:00

A child from Milford Connecticut's middle school had to be hospitalized after being struck in the groin by a classmate. The school authorities took quick action and instituted a policy to prevent this from ever happening again.

Did they strengthen the school's rules regarding fighting? No. Did they add a "horseplay" clause to those regulations? Nope. Rather, they instituted a "No Touching" rule. This rule states that touching of any kind could result in "parent conferences, detention, suspension and/or a request for expulsion from school!"

Come on, they can't mean no touching at all!? Can they?

YES! No touching. No pushing. No hugging. No high-fives. No holding hands. No Patty-Cake. No Touching Period.

Let's extend this out logically. This rule means: No tag. No football (Well, maybe flag football, but no blocking). No baseball (Or if you do play, once you are on base steal steal steal! If they can't touch you, they can't tag you out!). Theater would be difficult (Imagine Romeo and Juliet unable to come in contact with each other!).

How indicative is this of our culture?! Something happens that's bad, so we over-react! The "Shoe bomber" happens and every traveler in or going to America has to remove their shoes at the gate (Because when something fails, terrorists often try that exact same thing again.). A few people believe that immunization shots cause autism, so we cause a hysteria regarding them. (This action in no way saves our children from autism, but it does open the door for "extinct" diseases such as small pox, polio, mumps and measles.) A few people are offended by Christmas, so it's illegal to have a tree on the town green and companies won't wish you "Merry Christmas." (Let's remember that without the commercialism of Christmas most stores would be out of business! And Santa still makes money so we'll charge people to have their picture taken with him in the mall.) What's next? Some people are dying in car accidents: NO MORE DRIVING! (But when it comes to teens and sex, well, they are going to do it anyway...)

And what's next for this middle school in Connecticut? Are children having their feelings hurt from name-calling? No talking! Is that student making you nervous because he's staring at you menacingly? Don't look at each other! Whoever suggested this rule should be fired and whoever agreed to it should be demoted!

Kudos to the students, however, who protested the new ruling by coming to school wrapped in blue duct tape. My high school principle was wrong when he said that the school was there for the administrators and the faculty. Peacefully voice your dissension, students! Don't let them usurp your school!

That's my opinion. What's yours?

Review: Fireproof

2009-03-29T20:43:00.003-04:00

2008/PG/Drama

(I've done my absolute best not to include any spoilers in the following review. )

This the third installment from the church in Georgia that made Flywheel and Facing the Giants. Kirk Cameron (from Growing Pains fame) plays Caleb Holt. He's a firefighter who never leaves his partner behind in a fire, but can't seem to keep his partner happy at home. Facing divorce, he takes forty days and participates in "The Love Dare," a process by which he increasingly shows his soon-to-be ex-wife that he loves her, even though she returns zero affection back to him. In the meantime, she's getting a little friendly with a co-worker and believes that her soon-to-be ex-husband's attempts are simply a plan to butter her up so he can keep the house.

I'm going to give my overall feeling first, then elaborate on it:

Fireproof was adequate.

There was nothing amazing about the movie, it had it's bright spots and it had it's stab me in the eye with an ice pick moments. But overall, it was adequate.

If I hadn't known better, I would have assumed this was a written and directed by first film. The script was clearly never viewed by a fresh set of eyes and the ones that wrote it probably only revised it once. It definitely could have used a rewrite, especially by someone other than the writer, someone who wasn't in love with certain lines or scenes. The movie opens with a "Because-we-can" crane shot yet includes a fairly convincing fire scene. As with all films slapped with the "Christian" label, this one rents a billboard with it's salvation scene, yet handles the fact that Caleb is addicted to pornography with tact and subtlety. So much so that it lead one reviewer to believe that it was being played as a small marital problem.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In this situation, it's simply the difference of how the characters handle their anger, hurt, and frustration. In the bigger picture, I have the opposite complaint with Christian films as I have with Hollywood. While Hollywood takes their message and buries it in story, Christian movies kill their story by slamming a salvation sermon in the middle of it. The pornography was dealt with expertly: It was never mentioned "by name" but everyone knew what was going on. Pay attention next time you are watching a great movie: You come into conversations mid-stream and are forced to play catch-up. You have to deduce what is being discussed. That is how this was portrayed and it was well done. The Caleb Conversion scene, however, was another story. All that was needed was for Caleb to say "How am I supposed to show love to somebody over and over and over who constantly rejects me?"; see the cross then cut to the "I'm in" scene between he and his friend, Michael. We understand the point, we assume the decision, we see the reaction. I will say, though, that this was one of the tamest and most well-acted conversions that I'd seen in recent memory. No tears, no "sinners prayer," no crying out to God.

Yes, most of the acting left something to be desired (Kirk Cameron and Ken Bevel being the notable exceptions) and yes, their "twists" were predictable (with one brief moment of surprise) and yes, the movie came off as preachy. But it did have its good parts. The juxtaposition of what Christ did for us and how Caleb's wife was treating him was inventive and powerful. And I was very glad to hear a movie finally say "Don't follow your heart. Lead it." Too much of Hollywood (and our culture) is the "if it feels right" "follow your heart" crap that leads to shirked responsibilities, broken marriages, and poor decisions.

You can read other's opinions on Fireproof here and here.

While not on par with the great movies of our time, Fireproof warrants a viewing. It has a good message and, for the most part, is palatable. If you don't expect much, you'll be pleased.

(The book "Love Dare" was written after the movie was finished. Normally I'd hold that against the film but Kirk Cameron didn't get a fee for his performance, he simply accepted a donation to his camp Camp Firefly. These two events cancel each other out.)

2 out of 5 stars.

One one final note. I'm pleased to report that Fireproof earned twice as much as Religulous. Take that Mr. Bill "I'm-smarter-than-God" Maher

Things That Make Me Go "Huh?"

2009-03-26T20:18:00.002-04:00

General

Parents letting their teens have virgin alcoholic drinks.

Nothing like encouraging your children to drink. Strawberry Daiquiri? Sure, without the liquor. And what do they do when mommy and daddy aren't there? I wonder...

I saw this at Target:

How hard can they be?

Regardless of what you are doing, if your phone rings it is suddenly the most important thing in the world.

People could be having a heated argument, eating dinner, or watching a movie. It doesn't matter. When that phone rings, the world stops. People will get out of the shower to answer the phone. And call waiting compounds this. A few minutes ago, the person on the line was most important, but now someone else is calling and they are more important that the current caller.

Obama

"Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half" -Politico.com

How? By spending trillions of dollars that we don't have? By sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan? I think he failed to mention that if you make over $150,000 a year you can expect your taxes to increase by 80%. (Actually, the truth behind this statement is that he's vowing to cut the projected deficit. See, the projected deficit includes his current spending and projects out from there. He's not really promising anything.)

"'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name" -The Washington Post.

Change is change, right? We may be increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, but at least we changed the name of the war! Now it's the "'Overseas Contingency Operation." Once again the brilliant rhetoricist has come through. "Contingency": 1. An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended. 2. The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty. 3. Something incidental to something else. So it sounds good, but it doesn't exactly instill confidence in me! Incidental? Uncertainty? Unintended? What are we doing over there?

Sports

$2.5 Billion dollars is wagered on the NCAA Tournament.

This is overshadowed only by the Super Bowl. Why do sports nuts risk their hard earned money on an untested group of 18-22 year-olds who notoriously crack under pressure?!

The NFL resists putting a salary cap on first round draft picks.

These college students have never played a down in the NFL but they are signing for more than seasoned veterans make? Who was the last 1st rounder to actually earn their millions? Just like with any other company, there should be a starting salary and you can go up from there.

The NFL considers expanding to 18 games.

See the post below...

Two More Games

2009-03-25T06:03:00.010-04:00

At their annual meeting, the owners of all of the NFL teams are considering adding two more games to the NFL regular season moving it from a 16 games season to 18 games.

This is a terrible idea!

The original plan was to take two of the four preseason games and make them count. However, coaches felt they wouldn't be able to give prospective starters a fair shake if they lost two of the preseason games so this idea was scrapped. But not the whole idea. Now they are talking about adding these games to the end of the season.

Here's why this idea is for the birds (and I don't mean the Cardinals, Falcons, Eagles, Seahawks, or Ravens).

First and foremost: Injuries. The human body can only take so much punishment even if you are in prime condition. Compound that with the fact that a hit week sixteen is exponentially harder to take than a hit week one. Now we are talking about week 17? Week 18? With a hit week 18 being like 3 week two, this would also shorten the careers of players even more. Instead of being football-ancient at 30, now running backs have to hang up their cleats at 28. Imagine what that would do to players salaries! They already claim they need to make millions upon millions because their tenure is so limited. With an 18 week season, it would be even more so.

Second: Exposure. There is no question that the NFL has taken over from Major League Baseball as America's favorite game. Why is that? It has a reasonable season length. Or rather, it has the perfect season length. Every game in the NFL is a must see game. Every win is important. Every loss is crushing. What do people say about the other three major sports? Their seasons are too long! Let's compare them:

MLB

Regular Season

Playoffs

Months playing

Total games

NHL

Regular Season

Playoffs

Months playing

Total games

NBA

Regular Season

Playoffs

Months playing

Total games

NFL

Regular Season

Playoffs

Months playing

Total games

Why would they want to start down the road that leads to disinterest? Why did the XFL and Arena football leagues fail? Because football is 16 hard fought games and a short Championship tournament. That's why.

Finally: Money. How does money make this a bad idea? Because that is what is fueling the push for this change. If the NFL expands it's season by two weeks, not only would we have the Super Bowl on President's Day, but the league could charge more for the network and satellite contracts (The most recent of which had the Satellite NFL provider paying the NFL $1 Billion per year!)! The owners could charge more for season tickets. They may end up alienating more fans with their money grabbing ways (see NFL Network) just like baseball did by taking Friday Night Baseball off of free TV.

Keep the season at 16. Accept your $1,000,000,000 per year and be happy.

Kings is Not

2009-03-23T07:44:00.008-04:00

*Forgive me, I've been trying to get this posted for a week!*

NBC's new show "Kings" is actually 1 Samuel, not the book of Kings.

The Queen of Hearts and I were first suspicious as we watched the previews for this new series. Our suspicions were confirmed when we watched the two hour premiere episode:

The main characters:

David Shepherd

1 Samuel 16:11

King Silas Benjamin

1 Samuel 10:1

1 Samuel 9:21

Nathan Samuelson

1 Samuel 10:1

2 Samuel 7:17

Michelle Benjamin

1 Samuel 14:49

Jack Benjamin

1 Samuel 14:1

Jesse Shepherd

mother's

1 Samuel 17:12

Eli Shepherd

1 Samuel 17:28

Places

Gath

1 Samuel 17:4

Shiloh

1 Samuel 4:4

Events

Goliath

1 Samuel 17:50

Parade

1 Samuel 18:7

Courtship

1 Samuel 18:20

Music

1 Samuel 16:23

God's favor

1 Samuel 15:26

Annointing

1 Samuel 16:1

The reason I mention this is two-fold:

First, during the previews when the Queen of Hearts and I were growing suspicious that this show was in fact Saul and David, one of the quotes from the critics was "Innovative." I had to chuckle. Innovative? This story has been told for 3000 years! (My pastor pointed out that they may have meant "innovative" in that no one has taken a Biblical story, set it in modern times, and made it into a TV series.)

Second, I wonder how many people recognize this story? 40 years ago, there'd be no doubt that the majority of the population would nearly imediately see the corilation. What's the percentage now?

I hope this series does well. Not only because I've kinda always had a soft spot for NBC, but because I think this is good for TV. Let's set Moses in the 1860's. Let's set Abraham in the wild west. Let's set Daniel during WWII occupied France. (This is fun!) Anyway. Watch Kings. Good writing. Good acting. Good story.

I wonder what season two would be? Solomon? (They'd probably call it Second Kings!)

The "Pepsi" Administration

2009-03-13T20:53:00.005-04:00

Have you seen this billboard? Did you do a double take as you opened up Just My Opinion during your daily routine? (You need your JMO like your morning cup of coffee, right? Like the morning paper?)

I did a double take on my way to work a few weeks ago when I first saw this advertisement. It looked just a little to similar to this:

At first I scolded myself for assuming that Pepsi's advertising department would stoop to such blatant unimaginative levels as to plagiarize the President's symbol and slogan. But then I thought, "What does Pepsi give me in which I can place my hope?" Too much sugar in my diet? Aspartame? Pepsi One?

Ok, maybe they are simply wishing the President well. Maybe they buy into his messiah-like status and they just want the world to know. If that's the case, their billboard should say something to the effect of "We're behind you President Obama!" and then at the bottom "Sponsored by Pepsi." This sentiment also would not have required changing their logo. Also, if they were simply cheerleaders for our Commander in Chief then this campaign (and logo change) would have occurred following the election on November 4th.

As a good reporter should, I did a little research and found the following:
A) Pepsi altered their logo during the Presidential election (the first mention I found of it was toward the end of October 2008 (the 24th is the earliest reference I could find), when it began to look like Obama had it in the bag)
B) People were already noting the similarity between the new logo and the Obama logo before this billboard was erected.

But, maybe I'm crazy. Are they really trying to do what I'm alledging? Look at this progression:

Not so far fetched now is it?

The only conclusion that I could come
to was that they were hoping to tap into something subconscious in the American populous and ride the wave of Obama's ~~rapidly declining~~ approval rating. What's that website say? "Refresh Everything?" Yeah, except the originality of your advertising campaign. Maybe you should try "Got Pepsi?"

I think the aspect of this advertising campaign that irks me most is less that they've plagiarized from the Obama's graphic designers, but more along the lines of: Seriously, what does Pepsi offer that deserves our hope? Hope is a serious term. Hope is immense. People without hope end their lives and Pepsi is going to trivialize it by sticking their logo in the middle of the word? I understand hoping in government. So many people have ignored the real hope that we have in Christ that they cling to the "next best thing." Pepsi does not fit that bill!

I have met people who have no hope. They aren't turning to Pepsi. Nor shall I. Until this advertising campaign is ended, I will not be buying any Pepsi products (including but not limited to):
Pepsi, Pepsi One, Pepsi Max, Diet Pepsi
Mountain Dew, Mountain Dew Code Red, Mountain Dew Voltage
Mug Root Beer, Sierra Mist, Tropicana Twister Orange Soda
flavored and non flavored Propel and Aquafina waters
any and all SoBe drinks
Amp Energy Drink, No Fear Energy Drink
Brisk Tea and Lipton Tea, all variations
all Dole Juice Drinks Tropicana juice drinks
Bottled Starbucks Frappuccino, Canned Starbucks Iced Coffee
Gatorade and Gatorade G

After all is said and done, I couldn't help but wonder what Pepsi would have done if McCain had won...

Give It Some Time!

2009-03-12T18:07:00.016-04:00

The Obama's have been in the White House for just over 50 days. That's less than three months. Let's take a look at some magazine covers and books that have already been out for a few weeks:

.......February 18, 2009 .........................February 4, 2009.......

To quote Seth and Amy from SNL: "Really?" Do they really know what it's like to be a "White House" family? As of February 4th (15 days after the inaugeration), did Michelle really have some "secrets of a White House Mom" to share? Really? Two weeks later was there really an "Our life in the White House" expose that just needed to be reported on? Really? A children's book? Really? What educational value does speculating about the Obama's life in the White House hold for my eight year old? Really? I've had a daughter for alomst 6 months! Do I have some secrets to share on how to raise a girl? Really!

I have an idea: Let's let them be a family first. The President second. And celebrities third. Or, we could cut out that last part all together! That'd be just fine with me!

The Biblical Economist

2009-03-12T06:43:00.002-04:00

I thought this was an apropos quote for what we are facing in these days and regarding the "solution" that has been proposed and enacted by our Federal Government:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

By Rev William JH Boetcker (Written in 1916) (9th quote in the link)

When plainly laid out in this fashion, to go against these observations seems to defy logic. Why are these tenets so hard to understand?