Here's something I never thought I would say: Good for you, Starbucks! That's right, I'm heartily patting the back of the "we sell coffee for $52 a gallon" leftwing loving, beatnik, WiFi, "we don't say large we say Grande" cafinee pushers. Why? Because they are being fair and balanced.
You may recall a post from September regarding Starbucks. They had on their cups a quote from a homosexual regarding their homosexuality and Baylor University (A Christian place of upper education) asked Starbucks to remove those cups from the cafe that was on their campus. Starbucks obliged. People were outraged.
The cups were part of Starbucks' "The Way I See it" Campaign. They have many quotes from many people covering many walks of life. Environmentalist, Economists, Homosexuals, Civil Rights Activists, Athletes and Politicians. If you'd like to read some, click here.
Well, then next quote that Starbucks will be adding to their cups will be one from Rick Warren's Best Seller "The Purpose Driven Life." (Cup #43, if you are looking for it) The quote is as follows, "You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance and our destiny." So good for Starbucks for offering both sides of the coin to truly foster discussion, which is the purpose of this campaign according to their press releases.
Not so good for their patrons. Margery Egan did a column asking Starbuck's patrons what they thought of the new quote. Most of them were outraged. "As an atheist, can I request a different cup?" As a straight person, can I? As a non Muslim may I request another cup? No, then I am being hateful and intolerant.
But aren't they being intolerant of Christianity? Aren't these the same people who pat themselves on the back for being "tolerant" of homosexuals, radical Muslims, terrorists, peaceniks, Pagans, Wiccans, and Communists? But they don't have to be tolerant of people who talk about God! Oh no! We'd be tolerant of drunk drivers and murderers before we'd be tolerant of people who talk about God!
Think about this: If these people were truly tolerant, they would not know what they were being tolerant of! Why? Because they wouldn't even notice it! Is anyone "tolerant" of women in the workplace? NO! Why not? Because there is no need to be "tolerant:" There is nothing wrong with it! The mere fact that people claim to be tolerant shows that they inherently know there is something wrong with what they are tolerating! But someone mentioning God... they won't tolerate that!
I encourage Starbuck's to continue putting controversial quotes on their cups. The more our society sees they aren't truly tolerant, the quicker we can move to a culture that acknowledges right and wrong!
The cups carry a disclaimer that the opinions "do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks." This post does represent the opinion of me. In fact, it's just my opinion.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The illegitimate victors
A loud congratulations goes out to the MLB umpires for winning the 2005 World Series! Oh, and to the Chicago White Sox for being the chosen team of MLB to be crowned the victor.
Alright, I'll be honest. The White Sox won yesterday without the help of the men in black! This may have been their first such victory since game 3 of the ALCS (and perhaps only their second time completing this feat in the post season.) Of course, a team should win 11 games without any outside assistance to be considered the champions, not 2.
Here is a review of some of the interesting events in the White Sox post season.
The key play to the post season was during game 2 of the ALCS when Peirzinski illegally took first base after striking out, and illegally being allowed to stay there. Had the umpires been unbiased and made the right call, chances are good (based on the pitching match ups vs which part of the line-ups were about to appear in extra innings) that the LA Angels of Anaheim would have won that game, taking an 2-0 lead in the series. Had everything progressed as it did (minus umpire interference) the Angels would have taken game 4 as well. Leading 3-1. Truly, the White Sox did not even deserve to be in the World Series.
Some have argued that they basically swept all three teams they faced, dropping 1 to the Angels during that feat. So why would a team that appears to be such a power house require any assistance from MLB to win? Here's why: The White Sox faced off against the Red Sox and the Angels 14 total times during the regular season. They went 7-7 during those match ups (3-4 vs the Red Sox and 4-3 vs the Angels.) They were out scored 61-64 (36-36 vs Boston, 25-28 vs LA/Anaheim). MLB could not be sure that the White Sox were sure to win! In fact, chances were good that they would not get past both teams!
But, the record books will forever record the Chicago White Sox victors of the 2005 MLB World Series. Just as the record books record the Cincinnati Reds the victors of the 1919 World Series against a Chicago White Sox team that took money to throw the 9 game series. Are the Reds legitimate champions? If (as I would argue, the evidence exposes) the White Sox received undue assistance from the umpires/MLB, are they legitimate victors? I don't think so.
There is it: Just my opinion
Alright, I'll be honest. The White Sox won yesterday without the help of the men in black! This may have been their first such victory since game 3 of the ALCS (and perhaps only their second time completing this feat in the post season.) Of course, a team should win 11 games without any outside assistance to be considered the champions, not 2.
Here is a review of some of the interesting events in the White Sox post season.
The key play to the post season was during game 2 of the ALCS when Peirzinski illegally took first base after striking out, and illegally being allowed to stay there. Had the umpires been unbiased and made the right call, chances are good (based on the pitching match ups vs which part of the line-ups were about to appear in extra innings) that the LA Angels of Anaheim would have won that game, taking an 2-0 lead in the series. Had everything progressed as it did (minus umpire interference) the Angels would have taken game 4 as well. Leading 3-1. Truly, the White Sox did not even deserve to be in the World Series.
Some have argued that they basically swept all three teams they faced, dropping 1 to the Angels during that feat. So why would a team that appears to be such a power house require any assistance from MLB to win? Here's why: The White Sox faced off against the Red Sox and the Angels 14 total times during the regular season. They went 7-7 during those match ups (3-4 vs the Red Sox and 4-3 vs the Angels.) They were out scored 61-64 (36-36 vs Boston, 25-28 vs LA/Anaheim). MLB could not be sure that the White Sox were sure to win! In fact, chances were good that they would not get past both teams!
But, the record books will forever record the Chicago White Sox victors of the 2005 MLB World Series. Just as the record books record the Cincinnati Reds the victors of the 1919 World Series against a Chicago White Sox team that took money to throw the 9 game series. Are the Reds legitimate champions? If (as I would argue, the evidence exposes) the White Sox received undue assistance from the umpires/MLB, are they legitimate victors? I don't think so.
There is it: Just my opinion
Two interesting games
During game 3 of the World Series, the White Sox won despite the umpires suddenly switching loyalties on them, as the umps did what they could to offer the Astros a victory in this series. Several Chicago residents had to restart their pacemakers when, for the first time in the postseason, a bad call went against the White Sox when a ball that was not a home run was called one by the second base umpire. (There was the phantom tag call that was made in favor of the Angels, but that call was overturned. The only bad call the umpires ended up correcting was originally made in favor of the White Sox opponent.) Then, Jermaine Dye, (You remember, he took a note from his teammate A.J. Peirzinski's book, "How to get first base without deserving it" when he took three steps to first after a 3-2 pitch hit his bat (not his person) in a successful effort to give the home plate umpire a reason to send him to first.) was not awarded first base after the ball grazed his jersey. Some Chicago fans began to wonder if they were existing in some twisted parallel dimension! But the White Sox (Like the Angels in Game 1 of the ALCS) played only 9 players and defeated a team of 15 (the 9 positions + the 6 umpires).
During game 1 of the ALCS vs the Angels, they failed to win even with the assistance of the men behind the masks (and this after 3 extra days rest and the Angles playing their third game in a row in their third time zone! Don't even try to tell me the White Sox were a better team!) This issue was nearly the case again during game 2 when all 9 innings had been played and we were headed to extra innings (a game that over 80% of baseball fans believed the Angels would have won had it actually gone to extras.) when Mr. "I have no feeling in my left hand" A.J. Peirzinski illegally took first base, and was illegally awarded it.
Here are the other posts regarding this controversial post season: The Honor of the game. Now there can be no doubt. Owner of the game.
During game 1 of the ALCS vs the Angels, they failed to win even with the assistance of the men behind the masks (and this after 3 extra days rest and the Angles playing their third game in a row in their third time zone! Don't even try to tell me the White Sox were a better team!) This issue was nearly the case again during game 2 when all 9 innings had been played and we were headed to extra innings (a game that over 80% of baseball fans believed the Angels would have won had it actually gone to extras.) when Mr. "I have no feeling in my left hand" A.J. Peirzinski illegally took first base, and was illegally awarded it.
Here are the other posts regarding this controversial post season: The Honor of the game. Now there can be no doubt. Owner of the game.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The honor of the game
The following in no way overpowers my theory (some would say fact) that MLB desires the White Sox to win and will stop at nothing to make it happen. However, this is still an issue:
Where is the honor in baseball? Honor is gained through the discipline of self officiating. Let me count the number of times I've seen either team in the world series self officiate in a manner that didn't benefit them: um... oh yeah, I haven't! I believe we've diluted ourselves into thinking that baseball is a gentleman's game.
Take, for example, the situation with LPGA Tour golfer Michelle Wie. During a three day tournament she takes a drop on an unplayable ball on day two. She goes on to place 4th in the tournament. After Ms. Wie has finished the tournament, it is brought to the official's attention (by a golf reporter, but that's another rant) that her drop on the second day may have been dropped closer to the hole, thus incurring a two stroke penalty, rather than just the one she incurred for taking the drop. After much questionable "investigation" and "measuring" it is deemed that the ball was 1 foot closer to the hole and Wie, therefore, signed an incorrect score card and was disqualified.
Had she self officiated (or been able to determine at 100+ yards that her drop was about a foot closer to the hole) she'd have been fine. However, she didn't self-officiate, but there were still consequences. Consequences that she endured after she'd completed the tournament and was in line to receive over $50,000. In the end, she was disqualified.
Yet, we all know that in game 2 of the ALCS, Pierzynski's 3rd strike did not hit the ground. In Game 3, Pierzynski's glove was hit. In Game 2 of the World Series, Jermaine Dye was not hit by the pitch just before Konerko's Grand Slam. The players know it too. Yet there will be no consequences.
What is the lesson here? Win at all costs? We shall forever point to the post season of 2005 and say, "See, cheaters CAN prosper." And let's suppose the umpire's were not wearing the Chicago Pinstripes, each time there has been a dishonorable action taken by a White Sox player.
I suggest that the White Sox be disqualified. And if not the whole team, A.J. Pierzynski at the very least.
If the White Sox would like to restore the honor to baseball, take the umps out of it. If they make a bad call and it falls in your favor, let them know: "Hey, he hit my glove, he gets first base." "No, that didn't hit my arm, it hit my bat." "Actually, sir, I missed laying the tag on him."
If you wanna win, win honorably! But that's just my opinion.
Where is the honor in baseball? Honor is gained through the discipline of self officiating. Let me count the number of times I've seen either team in the world series self officiate in a manner that didn't benefit them: um... oh yeah, I haven't! I believe we've diluted ourselves into thinking that baseball is a gentleman's game.
Take, for example, the situation with LPGA Tour golfer Michelle Wie. During a three day tournament she takes a drop on an unplayable ball on day two. She goes on to place 4th in the tournament. After Ms. Wie has finished the tournament, it is brought to the official's attention (by a golf reporter, but that's another rant) that her drop on the second day may have been dropped closer to the hole, thus incurring a two stroke penalty, rather than just the one she incurred for taking the drop. After much questionable "investigation" and "measuring" it is deemed that the ball was 1 foot closer to the hole and Wie, therefore, signed an incorrect score card and was disqualified.
Had she self officiated (or been able to determine at 100+ yards that her drop was about a foot closer to the hole) she'd have been fine. However, she didn't self-officiate, but there were still consequences. Consequences that she endured after she'd completed the tournament and was in line to receive over $50,000. In the end, she was disqualified.
Yet, we all know that in game 2 of the ALCS, Pierzynski's 3rd strike did not hit the ground. In Game 3, Pierzynski's glove was hit. In Game 2 of the World Series, Jermaine Dye was not hit by the pitch just before Konerko's Grand Slam. The players know it too. Yet there will be no consequences.
What is the lesson here? Win at all costs? We shall forever point to the post season of 2005 and say, "See, cheaters CAN prosper." And let's suppose the umpire's were not wearing the Chicago Pinstripes, each time there has been a dishonorable action taken by a White Sox player.
I suggest that the White Sox be disqualified. And if not the whole team, A.J. Pierzynski at the very least.
If the White Sox would like to restore the honor to baseball, take the umps out of it. If they make a bad call and it falls in your favor, let them know: "Hey, he hit my glove, he gets first base." "No, that didn't hit my arm, it hit my bat." "Actually, sir, I missed laying the tag on him."
If you wanna win, win honorably! But that's just my opinion.
Friday, October 21, 2005
You can't do that! You're only 16!
Our society (and by that I mean the people whose job it is to create the laws of the land (and by that I mean the legislature (and by that I mean not the courts))) needs to decide what age is the age of adulthood. Here's why:
Some of you may have heard about the woman who was murdered in the trailer on the land where she and her husband were having a house built. Turns out the primary suspect to this crime is a 16 year old guy.
The article that I read said that he was too young to face the death penalty for delivering this beating to this woman. First, let me say a few things: 1) he has not been convicted, so this argument is not about this specific case, but the law in general. 2) I do not necessarily endorse the death penalty. In fact, right now at this very moment, I am against it. But hear me out.
In a previous post, I complained that an entire article was about a supreme court candidate's stance on abortion. While researching that post, I came across some laws that said that in some states a 16 year old does not require parental permission to have an abortion. They don't even need to give the child's parents notification of the event! Yet this 16 year old who has committed murder is too young to be considered an adult?
At 16 you can drive, but at 18 you can vote on the laws that effect your driving. At 18 you can go to war, but at 21 you can drink away your sorrows. 16 you can quit school without parental permission, but you can work full time at 18.
What is going on!? Shouldn't we perhaps pick one age where you are no longer under your parent's supervision? At 18 you are allowed to have consensual sex and have an abortion without telling your folks. At 18 you can drink and then drive with your new (soon to be revoked) license. At 18, if you kill someone, your life could be forfeit.
We contradict ourselves so often with our laws! Let's get them straight! After all, it's just my Opinion.
Some of you may have heard about the woman who was murdered in the trailer on the land where she and her husband were having a house built. Turns out the primary suspect to this crime is a 16 year old guy.
The article that I read said that he was too young to face the death penalty for delivering this beating to this woman. First, let me say a few things: 1) he has not been convicted, so this argument is not about this specific case, but the law in general. 2) I do not necessarily endorse the death penalty. In fact, right now at this very moment, I am against it. But hear me out.
In a previous post, I complained that an entire article was about a supreme court candidate's stance on abortion. While researching that post, I came across some laws that said that in some states a 16 year old does not require parental permission to have an abortion. They don't even need to give the child's parents notification of the event! Yet this 16 year old who has committed murder is too young to be considered an adult?
At 16 you can drive, but at 18 you can vote on the laws that effect your driving. At 18 you can go to war, but at 21 you can drink away your sorrows. 16 you can quit school without parental permission, but you can work full time at 18.
What is going on!? Shouldn't we perhaps pick one age where you are no longer under your parent's supervision? At 18 you are allowed to have consensual sex and have an abortion without telling your folks. At 18 you can drink and then drive with your new (soon to be revoked) license. At 18, if you kill someone, your life could be forfeit.
We contradict ourselves so often with our laws! Let's get them straight! After all, it's just my Opinion.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Need help? Here catch!
This is a bit of a continuation of a previous post entitled "My government failed me." It is there that I make the claim that the government should not be involved in charitable work for the poor saying that such work should be done by the general public. I also claim that the reason the general public does not meet these needs is because it is perceived that the government is taking care of such things. I make that claim based on the belief that the government's end goal is self preservation and therefore any assistance that the government may offer would be a double edged sword insomuch as it would assist the poor but also make them dependant on the government, thus ensuring it's existence.
Having said that, I'd like to revoke most of it. I recently had a conversation with Mudflaps and he asked some excellent questions. But before I get into that, let me explain what has evoked this topic. It has been widely reported that many of the Katrina evacuees that were being housed at Edward's Air force Base have been documented using the $2000 debit card given them by the government to purchase alcohol (with which they participated in public consumption and drunkenness) and strippers. To me, this simply reinforced my belief that the government should not be involved in charity work.
Mudflaps does not agree. He asked me what the point of government was, if not to care for the less fortunate of their citizens? While I still believe that the government's first aim is self preservation, I no longer agree that the government should leave charitable work solely up to its citizens.
I do, however, believe that throwing money at people (as this administration did in a knee jerk "look-at-us-we're-helping" reaction) is neither charitable, nor useful! Does the government want to be involved charitably in the rebuilding of New Orleans? Offer tax breaks to companies, laborers, and general citizens who volunteer their time and labor to rebuild that city. Offer future government contracts to companies who donate the necessary raw materials to the effort. Use the $2000 given to each evacuee to purchase food for them, or to repair the levees, or to move the black bears someplace else so that the levees can be reinforced.
This in no way removes the liability from average citizens to care for the poor among them, but it does call for a more creative solution to the government's desire to be charitable than to toss a couple thousand dollars at people. Give them what they need, not what they want!
there you have it, just my opinion.
Having said that, I'd like to revoke most of it. I recently had a conversation with Mudflaps and he asked some excellent questions. But before I get into that, let me explain what has evoked this topic. It has been widely reported that many of the Katrina evacuees that were being housed at Edward's Air force Base have been documented using the $2000 debit card given them by the government to purchase alcohol (with which they participated in public consumption and drunkenness) and strippers. To me, this simply reinforced my belief that the government should not be involved in charity work.
Mudflaps does not agree. He asked me what the point of government was, if not to care for the less fortunate of their citizens? While I still believe that the government's first aim is self preservation, I no longer agree that the government should leave charitable work solely up to its citizens.
I do, however, believe that throwing money at people (as this administration did in a knee jerk "look-at-us-we're-helping" reaction) is neither charitable, nor useful! Does the government want to be involved charitably in the rebuilding of New Orleans? Offer tax breaks to companies, laborers, and general citizens who volunteer their time and labor to rebuild that city. Offer future government contracts to companies who donate the necessary raw materials to the effort. Use the $2000 given to each evacuee to purchase food for them, or to repair the levees, or to move the black bears someplace else so that the levees can be reinforced.
This in no way removes the liability from average citizens to care for the poor among them, but it does call for a more creative solution to the government's desire to be charitable than to toss a couple thousand dollars at people. Give them what they need, not what they want!
there you have it, just my opinion.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
What is newsworthy?
What's this? A short post? Not on Just My Opinion, they're always really long! Not this one: it's short and sweet.
So often I hear people decrying the mainstream media is not biased. There is no such thing as the liberal media. And yet....
Let's take this article from the Washington Post for example. The headline is "Miers Backed Abortion Ban." This is the subject of an entire article? Why don't I see articles saying things like "Kennedy Supports Abortion"?
Well, it's in the Constitution! It's a Constitutional Amendment! You can't support something that bans a Constitutional right! Two Words: Prohibition!
If there is no liberal media, why is this woman's stance on Roe v Wade (from 1989, by the way) the subject of an entire article!
I'll tell you why, because there is a liberal media, and they are outraged that someone can oppose a "woman's right to kill" ...I mean "choose."
But what do I know, it's all just my opinion.
So often I hear people decrying the mainstream media is not biased. There is no such thing as the liberal media. And yet....
Let's take this article from the Washington Post for example. The headline is "Miers Backed Abortion Ban." This is the subject of an entire article? Why don't I see articles saying things like "Kennedy Supports Abortion"?
Well, it's in the Constitution! It's a Constitutional Amendment! You can't support something that bans a Constitutional right! Two Words: Prohibition!
If there is no liberal media, why is this woman's stance on Roe v Wade (from 1989, by the way) the subject of an entire article!
I'll tell you why, because there is a liberal media, and they are outraged that someone can oppose a "woman's right to kill" ...I mean "choose."
But what do I know, it's all just my opinion.
Monday, October 17, 2005
You can bank on it!
Ah, banking, the great American institution where other people make money off of your money. But banks are always finding new ways of making money. Often they make their extra cash on little extra fees that they hide in their contracts with people (because making anywhere from 3%-8% on their loans and giving somewhere between 0.3%-2% to their savings accounts doesn't make them enough (just as an example, on a typical house loan ($250,000) at a modest 5% they would make $12,500, giving back 2% to an equal savings account they'd give $5,000, netting $7,500 on that one loan!)) And when they make their extra money, they make them sound so nice. Here are my two favorites:
"Personal Attention": This one's great! Some banks charge you for actually talking to someone! Either at the bank or over the phone! It's free to use your bank's ATM, or automated phone service, but make sure you don't actually get a human! Or you are looking at a $5-$25 fee.
"Courtesy overdraft": This means if you accidentally charge more to your debit card than you have in your account, the back will cover the difference so that you can purchase the item instead of facing the embarrassment of being declined. Then the nice bank will demand the money they courteously gave you plus anywhere between $25-$40 for this "courtesy."
Bank of America hasn't been making enough extra cash on these nice sounding fees so they are offering some free services that encourage you to take advantage of them. Most notably the "courtesy overdraft."
Bank of America has introduced the "keep the change" program. Whenever you use your debit card to purchase anything, Bank of America nicely rounds the purchase up to the next dollar, takes the difference and moves it from your checking account to your savings account. So if you buy a cup of coffee for $1.10, your receipt says, "$1.10" but $2 has been removed from your checking account. $1.10 to Dunkin Donuts, and $0.90 to your savings account.
I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for my bank to start messing with my checking account so that my receipts don't match up with my actual balance! I guarantee they will have a surge of "courtesy overage" fees that by far out weigh the small amount of extra interest they'll be doling out to the savings accounts that have an extra $1.56 in them!
What will they think of next? People's creativity to lawfully take other's money will never cease to amaze me!
But that's just my opinion.
"Personal Attention": This one's great! Some banks charge you for actually talking to someone! Either at the bank or over the phone! It's free to use your bank's ATM, or automated phone service, but make sure you don't actually get a human! Or you are looking at a $5-$25 fee.
"Courtesy overdraft": This means if you accidentally charge more to your debit card than you have in your account, the back will cover the difference so that you can purchase the item instead of facing the embarrassment of being declined. Then the nice bank will demand the money they courteously gave you plus anywhere between $25-$40 for this "courtesy."
Bank of America hasn't been making enough extra cash on these nice sounding fees so they are offering some free services that encourage you to take advantage of them. Most notably the "courtesy overdraft."
Bank of America has introduced the "keep the change" program. Whenever you use your debit card to purchase anything, Bank of America nicely rounds the purchase up to the next dollar, takes the difference and moves it from your checking account to your savings account. So if you buy a cup of coffee for $1.10, your receipt says, "$1.10" but $2 has been removed from your checking account. $1.10 to Dunkin Donuts, and $0.90 to your savings account.
I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for my bank to start messing with my checking account so that my receipts don't match up with my actual balance! I guarantee they will have a surge of "courtesy overage" fees that by far out weigh the small amount of extra interest they'll be doling out to the savings accounts that have an extra $1.56 in them!
What will they think of next? People's creativity to lawfully take other's money will never cease to amaze me!
But that's just my opinion.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Now there can be no doubt
No doubt about what? No doubt that MLB has conspired against the previous champions (The Red Sox and the Yankees) and that they continue to do so in favor of the team who hasn't won a post season series in 88 years, the Chicago White Sox.
In a comment on my post regarding MLB's desire that the Chicago White Sox win the World Series I said that Crede struck out twice before he was actually called out because of a swing and a miss. The umpires have found a way to circumvent even that and now there can be no doubt that MLB is leaning toward the northern end of route 66 which connects the two dueling cities.
How did they do this? I'll explain for those who aren't sports enthusiasts. If the ball hits the ground before being caught on strike three, the runner has the right to attempt to steal first if 1)the base is open or 2)there are two outs (the base does not need to be open if there are two outs). Last night, bottom of the ninth, two out, tie score and Escobar shutting down the White Sox, AJ Pierzynski swung and missed for strike three. The Angels' catcher clearly caught the ball before it hit the ground. The umpire called the batter out! The Angels began to leave the field of play. AJ ran to first base. Instead of telling him to go to his dugout to put on his catching equipment to catch the top of the 10th inning, the umpire behind home plate reversed his call claimed that the ball hit the ground and called AJ safe at first. The Angels argued the call, but the home plate umpire refused to correct himself. Even after he saw the replay after the game where there is no evidence of the ball touching the ground, he refused to admit he was wrong!
A pinch runner was put in, he stole second on defensive indifference and Crede (the man who struck out three times in one at bat the night before) lined a double to win the game.
When the Queen of Hearts asked me who won last night, I said, "the umpires."
What would have happened? Well, over 80% of baseball fans believed that had the game gone to extra innings, the Angels would have won. I'm sure the umps believed this as well, which is why they decided to give the game to the ChiSox in the 9th.
What should have happened? The umpires should have conferred to correct the call. When they didn't, the manager of the Angels should have taken his players off the field in protest and sent up the next batter, Vlad Guerrero, to the plate for the top of the 10th. Picture it: AJ stands at first, Vlad at the plate, the field is empty. The manager is unable to continue play "under protest" as that is not allowed when the protested action is a judgment call by the umpire. Even though replay shows the ball was caught cleanly, it is still considered the umpire's judgment.
In protest, I suggest that the Angels catcher tag every batter on every third strike on Friday, whether the ball hits the ground or not.
The Angles will win the next game, the umpires will see to that. You can't gift wrap two games in a row for the same team. Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for instant replay for baseball during the playoffs.
Though this action has added credence to my theory, I'm still not happy that the integrity of the game is in jeopardy... let's see, when was the last time the integrity of the game was this tainted... oh yeah: 1919 when the Chicago "Black" Sox threw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.
I hope MLB is happy, they are ostracizing fans with their game tampering.
Wish it weren't true, but it is just my opinion.
In a comment on my post regarding MLB's desire that the Chicago White Sox win the World Series I said that Crede struck out twice before he was actually called out because of a swing and a miss. The umpires have found a way to circumvent even that and now there can be no doubt that MLB is leaning toward the northern end of route 66 which connects the two dueling cities.
How did they do this? I'll explain for those who aren't sports enthusiasts. If the ball hits the ground before being caught on strike three, the runner has the right to attempt to steal first if 1)the base is open or 2)there are two outs (the base does not need to be open if there are two outs). Last night, bottom of the ninth, two out, tie score and Escobar shutting down the White Sox, AJ Pierzynski swung and missed for strike three. The Angels' catcher clearly caught the ball before it hit the ground. The umpire called the batter out! The Angels began to leave the field of play. AJ ran to first base. Instead of telling him to go to his dugout to put on his catching equipment to catch the top of the 10th inning, the umpire behind home plate reversed his call claimed that the ball hit the ground and called AJ safe at first. The Angels argued the call, but the home plate umpire refused to correct himself. Even after he saw the replay after the game where there is no evidence of the ball touching the ground, he refused to admit he was wrong!
A pinch runner was put in, he stole second on defensive indifference and Crede (the man who struck out three times in one at bat the night before) lined a double to win the game.
When the Queen of Hearts asked me who won last night, I said, "the umpires."
What would have happened? Well, over 80% of baseball fans believed that had the game gone to extra innings, the Angels would have won. I'm sure the umps believed this as well, which is why they decided to give the game to the ChiSox in the 9th.
What should have happened? The umpires should have conferred to correct the call. When they didn't, the manager of the Angels should have taken his players off the field in protest and sent up the next batter, Vlad Guerrero, to the plate for the top of the 10th. Picture it: AJ stands at first, Vlad at the plate, the field is empty. The manager is unable to continue play "under protest" as that is not allowed when the protested action is a judgment call by the umpire. Even though replay shows the ball was caught cleanly, it is still considered the umpire's judgment.
In protest, I suggest that the Angels catcher tag every batter on every third strike on Friday, whether the ball hits the ground or not.
The Angles will win the next game, the umpires will see to that. You can't gift wrap two games in a row for the same team. Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for instant replay for baseball during the playoffs.
Though this action has added credence to my theory, I'm still not happy that the integrity of the game is in jeopardy... let's see, when was the last time the integrity of the game was this tainted... oh yeah: 1919 when the Chicago "Black" Sox threw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.
I hope MLB is happy, they are ostracizing fans with their game tampering.
Wish it weren't true, but it is just my opinion.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Lazy gorilla finally evolves
Recently a gorilla took one giant leap for gorilla-kind. Gorillas were once thought to be the only primate that did not use tools. Orangutans, chimpanzees, monkeys, apes, and baboons all had been seen using tools, but the gorilla had decided that he's well off enough without the use of silly tools. At least, that's what science understood, until recently.
In the last few days, two wildlife photographers captured the image of two different gorillas using tools. One using a branch as a walking stick while it looked for food and the other using a stick as a depth tester as it waded into a pond.
Scientists are ecstatic! An article on the Wildlife Conservation Society's website said, "Up to this point, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas." Yet the scientists act as though they always knew that gorillas used tools. Wait a minute. I thought science was about observation! If it was never seen, how did they know that this primate used tools? Did they check their hands for blisters? Did they put a hammer in front of gorillas in zoos to see if they build a house? Why did they assume that this animal used tools in the wild if it had never been seen?!
Scientists are reacting to this as though they finally captured an image of something they've known occurred for decades. Yet, with the emphasis that is put on the theory of macro-evolution, shouldn't scientists be jumping up and down with joy that we finally have evidence of a creature evolving!? Look! This animal that has never used tools before is using tools! What a giant leap forward for the theory of macro-evolution!
But they aren't responding that way. They are responding as though this animal has always been a tool user. As though it was created that way. Isn't this double standard interesting? Doesn't it sound like they are saying, "We believe that all animals have evolved and continue to evolve even though we have never observed any evolution on a massive scale that meshes with the theory that we claim to believe. We also realize that were we to react as though the discovery of a tool using gorilla was a major evolutionary event we would look like crackpots and be laughed out of academia."
To be fair and unbiased (not that I claim to be): If they were using these findings to claim that the gorilla was evolving right before our eyes, I'd probably post about how macro-evolutionist always try to fit the findings to the theory, rather than the theory to the findings. But at least their reaction would be consistent with their beliefs!
Oh, one more question: What genetic mutation would cause a gorilla to suddenly use tools, anyway? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, there it is: Just my opinion.
In the last few days, two wildlife photographers captured the image of two different gorillas using tools. One using a branch as a walking stick while it looked for food and the other using a stick as a depth tester as it waded into a pond.
Scientists are ecstatic! An article on the Wildlife Conservation Society's website said, "Up to this point, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees and orangutans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas." Yet the scientists act as though they always knew that gorillas used tools. Wait a minute. I thought science was about observation! If it was never seen, how did they know that this primate used tools? Did they check their hands for blisters? Did they put a hammer in front of gorillas in zoos to see if they build a house? Why did they assume that this animal used tools in the wild if it had never been seen?!
Scientists are reacting to this as though they finally captured an image of something they've known occurred for decades. Yet, with the emphasis that is put on the theory of macro-evolution, shouldn't scientists be jumping up and down with joy that we finally have evidence of a creature evolving!? Look! This animal that has never used tools before is using tools! What a giant leap forward for the theory of macro-evolution!
But they aren't responding that way. They are responding as though this animal has always been a tool user. As though it was created that way. Isn't this double standard interesting? Doesn't it sound like they are saying, "We believe that all animals have evolved and continue to evolve even though we have never observed any evolution on a massive scale that meshes with the theory that we claim to believe. We also realize that were we to react as though the discovery of a tool using gorilla was a major evolutionary event we would look like crackpots and be laughed out of academia."
To be fair and unbiased (not that I claim to be): If they were using these findings to claim that the gorilla was evolving right before our eyes, I'd probably post about how macro-evolutionist always try to fit the findings to the theory, rather than the theory to the findings. But at least their reaction would be consistent with their beliefs!
Oh, one more question: What genetic mutation would cause a gorilla to suddenly use tools, anyway? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Well, there it is: Just my opinion.
October "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll of the week of October 24th-October 31st
Question:What are your views on Halloween in regards to children?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 17th-October 23rd
Question:Patriot Tedy Bruschi just announced that he will be returning to football following a minor stroke he experienced at the end of last season. Has Bruschi made the right decision?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 10th-October 16th
Question: With the Red Sox out and the Yankees out, who do you root for now?
Results:
Poll of the week of October 3rd-October 9th.
Question: How often would you like the "Just Your Opinion" polls to appear?
Results:
Question:What are your views on Halloween in regards to children?
Results:
My kids will not/do not observe Halloween in any way.
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 1 vote (11.1%)
- 4 votes (44.4%)
- 3 votes (33.3%)
Poll of the week of October 17th-October 23rd
Question:Patriot Tedy Bruschi just announced that he will be returning to football following a minor stroke he experienced at the end of last season. Has Bruschi made the right decision?
Results:
No, he should not risk his life to play football
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (12.5%)
- 3 votes (37.5%)
- 3 votes (37.5%)
- 1 vote (12.5%)
Poll of the week of October 10th-October 16th
Question: With the Red Sox out and the Yankees out, who do you root for now?
Results:
The Chicago White Sox
- 5 votes (41.7%)
- 3 votes (25%)
- 2 votes (16.7%)
- 2 votes (16.7%)
Poll of the week of October 3rd-October 9th.
Question: How often would you like the "Just Your Opinion" polls to appear?
Results:
Once a week
- 3 votes (60%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Owner of the game
There has been something gnawing at my psyche for the past week regarding the MLB Playoffs. It's been that tiny sliver in your hand that you can see but you feel it every time you brush against it. After watching game five of the Yankees/Angels game, I've finally realized what that sliver is:
Major League Baseball wants a new victor.
And not just a new winner from last year, no no. They want a new winner all together! And they are going to see to it that it happens. They've already engineered the removal of the Red Sox and the Yankees from the playoffs!
Some of you are saying, "Whoa, Marc, that's a pretty tough claim! How can MLB dictate who wins and who loses?" I'll tell you:
MLB has finally discovered that which the NBA exploits and the NFL attempts to curtail. The people who call the game, own the game. Where is my proof? How about this: Basketball. Every hoop in 10 feet high. Every court is identical. Every game is indoors. It's not like baseball where the outfields are different shapes, the infields are different materials, or some games are indoors, some are out. It is uniform. How is it possible, then, that the home team wins more than 65% of the time? The "home court advantage" is not the fans. These players are professionals! Crowd noise isn't going to throw them. It's the thing they can't ignore: the calls! The refs give the home team an advantage. The NBA encourages this. The NFL is trying to remove this by allowing instant replay. MLB has finally learned to use this to their advantage.
What do you think of these calls: Cano "interfering" with the play to first. Erstad safe at first on the ground ball to A-Rod. Johnny Damon's phantom swing with the bases loaded. and the most influential calls: the inconsistent strike zones for Johnson, Clement, Mussina, and Wakefield. (Some of the calls can be found on the Top Play archives of the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.)
So, for those of you who think I'm off my rocker here is why this is being done: Money! It's always about money. How could getting the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees out of the playoffs generate more money than if they were in? After all, Boston and New York are two of the biggest TV markets in the nation! Here is the difference: If the Red Sox and the Yankees are out, their fans will still watch! If the Angels or the White Sox were out, their fans would not.
But wouldn't more people tune it to a third consecutive Red Sox vs Yankees ALCS? No. It's analogous to when we were all sick of the Dallas Cowboys facing off against the San Francisco 49ers to see who would go to (and we all knew, win) the Super Bowl. There can be too much of a good thing. And as Michael Holley said on WEEI today, "I think the nation is worn out of the Red Sox vs Yankees. I mean, how many times can these teams play each other?!"
Well, MLB saw to it that they wouldn't do it again. If my theory is true. Neither series ends before game 6. The World Series is White Sox vs Astros and the White Sox win in 7.
But that's all just my opinion.
Major League Baseball wants a new victor.
And not just a new winner from last year, no no. They want a new winner all together! And they are going to see to it that it happens. They've already engineered the removal of the Red Sox and the Yankees from the playoffs!
Some of you are saying, "Whoa, Marc, that's a pretty tough claim! How can MLB dictate who wins and who loses?" I'll tell you:
MLB has finally discovered that which the NBA exploits and the NFL attempts to curtail. The people who call the game, own the game. Where is my proof? How about this: Basketball. Every hoop in 10 feet high. Every court is identical. Every game is indoors. It's not like baseball where the outfields are different shapes, the infields are different materials, or some games are indoors, some are out. It is uniform. How is it possible, then, that the home team wins more than 65% of the time? The "home court advantage" is not the fans. These players are professionals! Crowd noise isn't going to throw them. It's the thing they can't ignore: the calls! The refs give the home team an advantage. The NBA encourages this. The NFL is trying to remove this by allowing instant replay. MLB has finally learned to use this to their advantage.
What do you think of these calls: Cano "interfering" with the play to first. Erstad safe at first on the ground ball to A-Rod. Johnny Damon's phantom swing with the bases loaded. and the most influential calls: the inconsistent strike zones for Johnson, Clement, Mussina, and Wakefield. (Some of the calls can be found on the Top Play archives of the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees.)
So, for those of you who think I'm off my rocker here is why this is being done: Money! It's always about money. How could getting the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees out of the playoffs generate more money than if they were in? After all, Boston and New York are two of the biggest TV markets in the nation! Here is the difference: If the Red Sox and the Yankees are out, their fans will still watch! If the Angels or the White Sox were out, their fans would not.
But wouldn't more people tune it to a third consecutive Red Sox vs Yankees ALCS? No. It's analogous to when we were all sick of the Dallas Cowboys facing off against the San Francisco 49ers to see who would go to (and we all knew, win) the Super Bowl. There can be too much of a good thing. And as Michael Holley said on WEEI today, "I think the nation is worn out of the Red Sox vs Yankees. I mean, how many times can these teams play each other?!"
Well, MLB saw to it that they wouldn't do it again. If my theory is true. Neither series ends before game 6. The World Series is White Sox vs Astros and the White Sox win in 7.
But that's all just my opinion.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Let the Playoffs begin
Alright, here's your chance to predict the winners! You can either predict the winner of each series or just pick an overall victor! Here is the bracket:
ALDS
Red Sox
vs
White Sox
Yankees
vs
Angles
NLDS
Cardinals
vs
Padres
Braves
vs
Astros
NLCS
Winner of Cards v Padres
vs
Winner of Braves v Astros
ALCS
Winner of Red v White
vs
Winner of Yankees v Angels
World Series
Winner of ALCS
vs
Winner of NLCS
Here are my picks and the number of games it will take:
Round 1
Red Sox in 4
Angels in 5
Cardinals in 3
Braves in 5
Round 2
Red Sox in 6
Cardinals in 7
World Series
Red Sox in 6
What are your thoughts?!
ALDS
Red Sox
vs
White Sox
Yankees
vs
Angles
NLDS
Cardinals
vs
Padres
Braves
vs
Astros
NLCS
Winner of Cards v Padres
vs
Winner of Braves v Astros
ALCS
Winner of Red v White
vs
Winner of Yankees v Angels
World Series
Winner of ALCS
vs
Winner of NLCS
Here are my picks and the number of games it will take:
Round 1
Red Sox in 4
Angels in 5
Cardinals in 3
Braves in 5
Round 2
Red Sox in 6
Cardinals in 7
World Series
Red Sox in 6
What are your thoughts?!
Monday, October 03, 2005
My government failed me
I find this concept curious. It implies certain things. 1) I rely on my government. 2) I expected something from it.
The following stream of thought was initiated by certain complaints heard following Katrina about what the government should have done, and needed to do, and some of the things that were done by the government. Most of the statements that I intend to make are extreme and should not be applied directly to Katrina.
Let's look back to why this country started: We were betrayed by our country. Taxed without representation, made to trade only with Britain, occupied by the forces of our own king. Why would a people who broke free of a government that oppressed and betrayed us fall into a belief that we were owed something by a government? Or even worse, get to a place where we expect/require/need something from a government? Especially seeing as there was a large debate during the infancy of our nation as to how much power a federal government should have. Now it's the federal government's fault if there is a tragedy?! How did it come to this?
Here is my belief: The great depression. More specifically: The New Deal. The New Deal softly guided us into a place where we were reliant on the federal government. I won't go so far as to say that the federal government caused the depression, but their solution of how to get the nation out of it caused people to expect certain things from that ruling body.
This, of course, was brilliant. I'm sure we've heard that the end goal of those in power is to stay in power (Caesar Augustus and George Washington being the only two people that I can think of who don't fit that mold). So here was an opportunity for the government to create a mindset of need, of perceived indispensability of the federal government: We can't live without it!
This mindset has existed for so long that it is considered a right. My government failed me because I deserve a fresh start from my government. I am owed money from my government because this unstoppable tragedy has affected me.
I believe it is time to move away from that mindset. To stop relying on our government whose end goal is self preservation, and being relying on our brother. Let us forcibly take back the responsibility that our government has stolen from us by caring for one another.
This, of course, is just my opinion.
The following stream of thought was initiated by certain complaints heard following Katrina about what the government should have done, and needed to do, and some of the things that were done by the government. Most of the statements that I intend to make are extreme and should not be applied directly to Katrina.
Let's look back to why this country started: We were betrayed by our country. Taxed without representation, made to trade only with Britain, occupied by the forces of our own king. Why would a people who broke free of a government that oppressed and betrayed us fall into a belief that we were owed something by a government? Or even worse, get to a place where we expect/require/need something from a government? Especially seeing as there was a large debate during the infancy of our nation as to how much power a federal government should have. Now it's the federal government's fault if there is a tragedy?! How did it come to this?
Here is my belief: The great depression. More specifically: The New Deal. The New Deal softly guided us into a place where we were reliant on the federal government. I won't go so far as to say that the federal government caused the depression, but their solution of how to get the nation out of it caused people to expect certain things from that ruling body.
This, of course, was brilliant. I'm sure we've heard that the end goal of those in power is to stay in power (Caesar Augustus and George Washington being the only two people that I can think of who don't fit that mold). So here was an opportunity for the government to create a mindset of need, of perceived indispensability of the federal government: We can't live without it!
This mindset has existed for so long that it is considered a right. My government failed me because I deserve a fresh start from my government. I am owed money from my government because this unstoppable tragedy has affected me.
I believe it is time to move away from that mindset. To stop relying on our government whose end goal is self preservation, and being relying on our brother. Let us forcibly take back the responsibility that our government has stolen from us by caring for one another.
This, of course, is just my opinion.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Psst: William, stop talking!
I have tried and failed to preface the following quote with an introductory paragraph. I've failed and this was the best thing I could think of. So, we'll just start with the quote.
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, so these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
No no, you read it right. That's what he said. But here's a bigger kicker: He's sticking by it! Ok, so who is he? He is William Bennett, former education secretary under President Reagan and drug czar under President Bush Sr. He said it on his radio show "Morning in America" in response to a callers question that mentioned that crime is down because abortion is up. (Of course, this ignores the fact that crime is measured by capita, so if the capita is down crime should be up.)
So, what is wrong with these people? I throw Kanye West and William Bennett into the same group: people who promote racism! Again why would the color of their skin make a difference? What was he trying to say? Did Mr. Bennett mean to say abort all the babies of poor people? Inner city people? Mind you, these are not my stereo types, but it seems they might be Mr. Bennett's.
Here's my intellectual analysis: What a stupid stupid stupid thing to say!
Even if he was using hyperbole, even if it was to show the stupidity of the comment, when the news comes to you, say that! He has not claimed that was his purpose. He has not said it was satire.
Now, you know that I can't avoid bashing others in this! First, the media. I saw this reported two places: CNN.com and in the Boston Herald. The article on CNN.com quoted him differently than the Herald. CNN.com had him saying that the action would be "impossibly ridiculous" and they had a paragraph break between the end of the first sentence and the start of the second. Not only that, but they had the first part of the quote in the second paragraph of the article and the second in the third. They also left off the third sentence. The one sentence that makes it possible for him to have been satirizing the idea. Did he pause between sentences? Was there a minute of silence on his radio show? Why put the paragraph break? Wasn't there a study that said that most people read the first two paragraphs of an article, then skip to the end? Are you reading this paragraph? Just something I noticed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Second. Nancy Peloci "called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett." There was no mention which one, so we must assume she meant the current president, seeing as the only former president that democrats still refer to as president is Mr. Clinton. How is this the president's responsibility? Does he need to respond to every comment made on every morning show in America? You know, Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning said something about killing all pitbulls! I think the President needs to renounce that kind of blind hatred for a certain type of dog!
This is ridiculous! Will the left of the left stop at nothing to try and politize everything? Katrina, Rita, now this? At least Senator Kennedy kept his remarks aimed in the right direction! He demanded that Bennett apologize. Good for you Eddie! Way to keep your politics separate from your outrage!
Write down the date: I agree with Senator Kennedy. Bennett needs to apologize and not justify. It was a really stupid thing to say.
I'd say that's just my opinion, but it seems so darn obvious!
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, so these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
No no, you read it right. That's what he said. But here's a bigger kicker: He's sticking by it! Ok, so who is he? He is William Bennett, former education secretary under President Reagan and drug czar under President Bush Sr. He said it on his radio show "Morning in America" in response to a callers question that mentioned that crime is down because abortion is up. (Of course, this ignores the fact that crime is measured by capita, so if the capita is down crime should be up.)
So, what is wrong with these people? I throw Kanye West and William Bennett into the same group: people who promote racism! Again why would the color of their skin make a difference? What was he trying to say? Did Mr. Bennett mean to say abort all the babies of poor people? Inner city people? Mind you, these are not my stereo types, but it seems they might be Mr. Bennett's.
Here's my intellectual analysis: What a stupid stupid stupid thing to say!
Even if he was using hyperbole, even if it was to show the stupidity of the comment, when the news comes to you, say that! He has not claimed that was his purpose. He has not said it was satire.
Now, you know that I can't avoid bashing others in this! First, the media. I saw this reported two places: CNN.com and in the Boston Herald. The article on CNN.com quoted him differently than the Herald. CNN.com had him saying that the action would be "impossibly ridiculous" and they had a paragraph break between the end of the first sentence and the start of the second. Not only that, but they had the first part of the quote in the second paragraph of the article and the second in the third. They also left off the third sentence. The one sentence that makes it possible for him to have been satirizing the idea. Did he pause between sentences? Was there a minute of silence on his radio show? Why put the paragraph break? Wasn't there a study that said that most people read the first two paragraphs of an article, then skip to the end? Are you reading this paragraph? Just something I noticed. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Second. Nancy Peloci "called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett." There was no mention which one, so we must assume she meant the current president, seeing as the only former president that democrats still refer to as president is Mr. Clinton. How is this the president's responsibility? Does he need to respond to every comment made on every morning show in America? You know, Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning said something about killing all pitbulls! I think the President needs to renounce that kind of blind hatred for a certain type of dog!
This is ridiculous! Will the left of the left stop at nothing to try and politize everything? Katrina, Rita, now this? At least Senator Kennedy kept his remarks aimed in the right direction! He demanded that Bennett apologize. Good for you Eddie! Way to keep your politics separate from your outrage!
Write down the date: I agree with Senator Kennedy. Bennett needs to apologize and not justify. It was a really stupid thing to say.
I'd say that's just my opinion, but it seems so darn obvious!
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Super journalism from the Superdome
But first this: I thought this shirt was hysterical and just couldn't pass it up!In fine print it should say, "But I still don't have any electricity to use it!"
So, word on the street is that the word on the street was entirely wrong! Once again, the national sensationalism... whoops, I mean the national news (who called Florida for Gore and hour before the polls closed) continues to garner a feeling of trust from it's loyal viewers and readers.
Actually, the word here is from the Seattle Times, The New Orleans Time Picayune, MSN, and others.
So it turns out that there weren't murders in the Superdome. Children weren't climbing over more bodies than they could count! The report of 200 dead was just a little over blown. Let me see if I can get the actual figure here. *shuffle shuffle* I know it's here *flip flip* *rustle rustle* Ah, here we go: 6 dead. I guess the refrigerated 18 wheeler that was brought to carry away the dead that were "heaped" in piles in the dome was a bit much, huh?
Six deaths: 4 of natural causes, 1 apparent suicide, and an OD. 0 rapes reported, 0 murders, and 0 violent crimes. Ok, so even in my zeal to expose the news for the sensationalizers they are, I'm not willing to say these things definitely did not happen, but the evidence does not support it. The reports from the Superdome were grossly exaggerated! Will there be any repercussions? Like that annoying furniture guy Bob says: "I doubt it!"
Were these stories an attempt to scoop other news stations? Were there political or social agendas? Perhaps the republican reporters wanted to outrage people to the poor job done by the local authorities as both the Governor and the Mayor are democrats. Perhaps the democratic reporters wanted to shame the republican national administration with how poorly they planned to evacuate and care for the residents of New Orleans. Perhaps it was racist white reports saying that all of these African Americans in one place were uncivilized. Perhaps it was racist African American reports showing the terrible situation that the white authorities put these people in. Perhaps the reports were entirely wrong! Who cares why! Aren't reporters supposed to get the facts?! More than one source? Did anybody talk to anyone who was actually in the Superdome!? What happened?!
On a final note: Kudos to news for admitting they were wrong. If major news sources didn't admit that they blew these stories out of the stratosphere we may never have known. And the people trying to get the truth out would be considered conspiracy loonies!
But that's just my opinion
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Wednesday Sports Extra
"Extra" because there are several sports issues that deserve extra attention and all three of these have extra issues!
Sportsline: San Francisco:Barry Bonds, also known as "Limpy," has been trying to add some extra games to his career, extra homeruns to his stats, and extra sympathy from his fans. This man supposedly had a debilitating knee injury that kept him out of most of the first season where MLB was testing for steroids. Now, he has begun to limp after making plays. He doesn't limp while running for the fly ball in left, nor does he limp while trying to score from first, but as soon as the play is over that knee is suddenly unbearable! You know what's unbearable? That this man has the gaul to continue to play! Anyone wanna bet he's a DH in the AL next year? Barry, you cheated, you admitted it, we don't feel sorry for you. If you are hurt: Stop playing. If you aren't: Stop playing anyway!
Sportsline: MLB Players' Union: Finally, the MLB Players' Union has taken a step to reassure the true fans of the game that they are serious about ridding baseball of juicers. They have agreed to add an extra 10 games to the punishment for first time offenders, making the total penalty a suspension of 20 games instead of just 10 days as was originally agreed to. On behalf of baseball fans everywhere, I say thank you. Keep pressing on toward a clean sport!
Sportsline: Pittsburgh: There has been much talk regarding the Patriots recent 23-20 win in Pittsburgh. Apparently the 4th Quarter had an extra 52 seconds and lasted 15 minutes and 52 seconds rather than the typical 15 minutes. There is some concern because unlike the 33-10 thrashing the Chiefs took this week at Denver, the Patriots won the game on the final drive with only 1:21 left in the game. In fact, as Vinitiari's game winning field goal sailed through the uprights the clock clicked down to 0:01! So clearly if the error had been recognized the Patriots could not have won because they took 1:20 to score! Because they would have gotten the ball with only 29 seconds left, Right? Wrong. Here's the problem with that: 1)The error was made by the Pittsburgh official clock controller with 13:59 left in the fourth. It's not as though the error happened at the end of the quarter, there is no way of knowing what type of clock management would have occurred had the clock been correct. 2) It only took Tom Brady 31 seconds of actual play time to drive down the field. The Patriots allowed 34 seconds to click off the clock before they snapped the ball for the field goal. 3) It's not as though the Steelers were playing with one clock and the Patriots with another. Both teams got the extra 52 seconds and the Patriots took advantage of it, while the Steelers did not. If the Steelers and Patriots are separated by one game at the end of the season, this issue will be huge! Similar to the tuck rule against the Raiders in 2000. But you heard it hear first, this error made little to no difference in the outcome of this game!
5 games left for the Red Sox and Yankees! Go Sox!
Sportsline: San Francisco:Barry Bonds, also known as "Limpy," has been trying to add some extra games to his career, extra homeruns to his stats, and extra sympathy from his fans. This man supposedly had a debilitating knee injury that kept him out of most of the first season where MLB was testing for steroids. Now, he has begun to limp after making plays. He doesn't limp while running for the fly ball in left, nor does he limp while trying to score from first, but as soon as the play is over that knee is suddenly unbearable! You know what's unbearable? That this man has the gaul to continue to play! Anyone wanna bet he's a DH in the AL next year? Barry, you cheated, you admitted it, we don't feel sorry for you. If you are hurt: Stop playing. If you aren't: Stop playing anyway!
Sportsline: MLB Players' Union: Finally, the MLB Players' Union has taken a step to reassure the true fans of the game that they are serious about ridding baseball of juicers. They have agreed to add an extra 10 games to the punishment for first time offenders, making the total penalty a suspension of 20 games instead of just 10 days as was originally agreed to. On behalf of baseball fans everywhere, I say thank you. Keep pressing on toward a clean sport!
Sportsline: Pittsburgh: There has been much talk regarding the Patriots recent 23-20 win in Pittsburgh. Apparently the 4th Quarter had an extra 52 seconds and lasted 15 minutes and 52 seconds rather than the typical 15 minutes. There is some concern because unlike the 33-10 thrashing the Chiefs took this week at Denver, the Patriots won the game on the final drive with only 1:21 left in the game. In fact, as Vinitiari's game winning field goal sailed through the uprights the clock clicked down to 0:01! So clearly if the error had been recognized the Patriots could not have won because they took 1:20 to score! Because they would have gotten the ball with only 29 seconds left, Right? Wrong. Here's the problem with that: 1)The error was made by the Pittsburgh official clock controller with 13:59 left in the fourth. It's not as though the error happened at the end of the quarter, there is no way of knowing what type of clock management would have occurred had the clock been correct. 2) It only took Tom Brady 31 seconds of actual play time to drive down the field. The Patriots allowed 34 seconds to click off the clock before they snapped the ball for the field goal. 3) It's not as though the Steelers were playing with one clock and the Patriots with another. Both teams got the extra 52 seconds and the Patriots took advantage of it, while the Steelers did not. If the Steelers and Patriots are separated by one game at the end of the season, this issue will be huge! Similar to the tuck rule against the Raiders in 2000. But you heard it hear first, this error made little to no difference in the outcome of this game!
5 games left for the Red Sox and Yankees! Go Sox!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Movie Review: Lost in Translation
*Caution: Review contains spoilers*
I'm not surprised many people have expressed frustration at being lost during "Lost in Translation." I am surprised that it was nominated for so many awards including the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, while it only took home the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Here are a few keys to this mystery.
This is the first major film by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sophia Coppola. Sure she directed "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lick the Star" but, as I said, this was her first major film. So, just like when someone spends $200 million dollars on his film you give him the Oscar so that you can get the same type of a budget, when one of the most powerful men in Hollywood's daughter puts out something that appears to be an artistic film, you at least nominate her work. Too bad it was up against Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King." Also known as the "Here are the Oscars you deserved before that we didn't give you because we knew you were making a trilogy" movie. I'd also like to add that Bill Murray has never won an Oscar and he's getting old. He'll continue to be nominated regardless of the quality of work he puts on the screen.
But why else didn't it win more Oscars? Here's a thought, written and directed by Sophia. This movie could have been twice as good as it was. Again, a rookie mistake to not trust another director with your baby.
Here's another reason: It was a movie. "Lost in Translation" tried very hard to be a film. To be an artistic statement regarding deep intellectual things. It failed.
This film captured a few things quite nicely: The isolation felt (and occasionally desired) when in a foreign culture. There is a very distinct feeling when you are in an atmosphere where you cannot read every advertisement and cannot understand every conversation being held around you. This is most noticed when you return to a culture that you understand. Though it seemed this film wanted to convey these emotions it missed an opportunity by not returning home with either character.
This film also expressed the susceptibility that marriages have to affairs when they are not one's first priority. I think that Ms. Coppola's aim was to have it appear as though these two people happened upon their illicit relationship. However, as I watched the film, it became clear to me that they were both looking for what they found and had they not found it with each other, they would have found it with someone else.
And so we come to the failures of this film. There were a few things that had to be verbalized because they were not communicated through the action of the movie. An example is that both of the main characters were suffering from travel insomnia. I didn't catch on to this until it was said.
Ms. Coppola relied on the supposed intellectual drama to provide the plot motion for this picture. It was insufficient. The lack of subplots and the predictable storyline leads one to ask, "Why was this movie made?" What is the point of this film? International affairs are acceptable? Most people feel helpless in foreign cities?
And finally, the largest and most disappointing failure of this film is found in the final scene. Bill Murray is headed to the airport to leave. He sees Scarlet Johanson's character on the street, stops the cab and runs to her. They gaze at each other meaningfully and he whispers something unintelligible in her hear. Some people have called this moment genius. I call it a cop-out. Why would this moment be private when every other second of their interaction was shared with the audience? Because Ms. Coppola doesn't know what he said. My guess is that he originally said something that test audiences hated and so instead of correcting her error by either altering what is said or removing the scene entirely, she simply removes his lines. They still communicate but what is said is hidden forever. Cop-out!
So, for those of you who have made it this far, and have seen the film, I have a question: If you remove the final scene, did they have an affair?
"Lost in Translation" is one of those sad movies that thinks it's a film. Movies that know they are movies ("A Knight's Tale" "Blue Streak"), though terrible, are less pitiful than movies that put on the guise of being a film. It is a story not worth telling and a movie not worth watching.
And that's just my opinion.
I'm not surprised many people have expressed frustration at being lost during "Lost in Translation." I am surprised that it was nominated for so many awards including the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, while it only took home the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Here are a few keys to this mystery.
This is the first major film by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sophia Coppola. Sure she directed "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lick the Star" but, as I said, this was her first major film. So, just like when someone spends $200 million dollars on his film you give him the Oscar so that you can get the same type of a budget, when one of the most powerful men in Hollywood's daughter puts out something that appears to be an artistic film, you at least nominate her work. Too bad it was up against Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King." Also known as the "Here are the Oscars you deserved before that we didn't give you because we knew you were making a trilogy" movie. I'd also like to add that Bill Murray has never won an Oscar and he's getting old. He'll continue to be nominated regardless of the quality of work he puts on the screen.
But why else didn't it win more Oscars? Here's a thought, written and directed by Sophia. This movie could have been twice as good as it was. Again, a rookie mistake to not trust another director with your baby.
Here's another reason: It was a movie. "Lost in Translation" tried very hard to be a film. To be an artistic statement regarding deep intellectual things. It failed.
This film captured a few things quite nicely: The isolation felt (and occasionally desired) when in a foreign culture. There is a very distinct feeling when you are in an atmosphere where you cannot read every advertisement and cannot understand every conversation being held around you. This is most noticed when you return to a culture that you understand. Though it seemed this film wanted to convey these emotions it missed an opportunity by not returning home with either character.
This film also expressed the susceptibility that marriages have to affairs when they are not one's first priority. I think that Ms. Coppola's aim was to have it appear as though these two people happened upon their illicit relationship. However, as I watched the film, it became clear to me that they were both looking for what they found and had they not found it with each other, they would have found it with someone else.
And so we come to the failures of this film. There were a few things that had to be verbalized because they were not communicated through the action of the movie. An example is that both of the main characters were suffering from travel insomnia. I didn't catch on to this until it was said.
Ms. Coppola relied on the supposed intellectual drama to provide the plot motion for this picture. It was insufficient. The lack of subplots and the predictable storyline leads one to ask, "Why was this movie made?" What is the point of this film? International affairs are acceptable? Most people feel helpless in foreign cities?
And finally, the largest and most disappointing failure of this film is found in the final scene. Bill Murray is headed to the airport to leave. He sees Scarlet Johanson's character on the street, stops the cab and runs to her. They gaze at each other meaningfully and he whispers something unintelligible in her hear. Some people have called this moment genius. I call it a cop-out. Why would this moment be private when every other second of their interaction was shared with the audience? Because Ms. Coppola doesn't know what he said. My guess is that he originally said something that test audiences hated and so instead of correcting her error by either altering what is said or removing the scene entirely, she simply removes his lines. They still communicate but what is said is hidden forever. Cop-out!
So, for those of you who have made it this far, and have seen the film, I have a question: If you remove the final scene, did they have an affair?
"Lost in Translation" is one of those sad movies that thinks it's a film. Movies that know they are movies ("A Knight's Tale" "Blue Streak"), though terrible, are less pitiful than movies that put on the guise of being a film. It is a story not worth telling and a movie not worth watching.
And that's just my opinion.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Three sports, one news, and a weird rant
Sportsline: Las Vegas. Leavander Johnson, a lightweight boxing title holder, died five days after a fight against Jesus Chavez to defend his title. During the 11 round fight Chavez landed over 400 punches on Johnson, most of which were to his head. Johnson died from brain swelling and a brain hemorrhage. Will Chavez be charged with a crime? How is it a sport for one man to try to smash another man into submission in a casino if there are thousands of people who have paid to see it (and more paying on pay-per-view) and there's a man in black and white stripes who is supposed to defend these men. But if one man tries to smash another man into submission in a casino near the blackjack table it's assault and battery? Johnson's promoter said, "He died a champion." Yeah? Does that change the fact that he died?
Sportsline: Baltimore. The cheating coward Rafael Palmiero recently pointed a finger at a fellow teammate, Baltimore Oriole's shortstop Miguel Tejada, claiming that Tejada gave him a vitamin B12 pill that may have lead to his positive steroid test earlier this year. Tejada has been tested 3 times this year and has never had a result that was positive for steroids. Tejada has been cleared of any wrong-doing. Do we need any more reason to oust this man from baseball? Not only did he commit perjury before the Senate, now he is throwing his teammate under the bus in order to try and save himself. Take responsibility for your actions, pack your bags, and gracefully (or as gracefully as possible with how tarnished you are) leave baseball!
Sportsline: New York. Yesterday New York Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez left the game in the fifth inning. Not because he was getting lit up. Oh no, he was tired. Tired? He'd tossed 75 pitches! He gave up 2 runs! It was 2-1 and he opted out! "I'm a winner." was Pedro's comment during a post game interview. Question: Why didn't he opt out of game seven in 2003 against the New York Yankees?!?!?! Pedro said he was tired and that he wanted to save his arm for next year! He knows that the Mets have a chance next year and he wants to be ready. Apparently 146 days off isn't enough for Pedro to rest after a seven inning outing. He also said that when you are out of the playoffs, there is no excitement. There is no adrenaline. Hmmm... where could he have a run at the playoffs almost every year? Oh, Boston! But it wasn't about the money, was it Pedro?
Newsline: Galveston. A meteorologist on Fox 25 News at 10 said the following: "As you can see by this computer animation, a hurricane of a category 3 with a storm surge of 8 feet or more would level the city of Galveston." Really? Well, if you watch my computer animation you'll see that a giant Japanese lizard like monster from the sea that breathes fire and has laser-eyes would also level the city. Or this animation that shows Neptuninites with their disintegration rays leveling the city. Thanks for that news Mr. Weatherman!
Weirdline: Star Trek. This is not a joke. The Bible is being translated into Klingon. Clearly, this is not Tyndale. Maybe this is a way to reach the demographic of 30-47 year old males who live in their parents basement with the gospel.
Sportsline: Baltimore. The cheating coward Rafael Palmiero recently pointed a finger at a fellow teammate, Baltimore Oriole's shortstop Miguel Tejada, claiming that Tejada gave him a vitamin B12 pill that may have lead to his positive steroid test earlier this year. Tejada has been tested 3 times this year and has never had a result that was positive for steroids. Tejada has been cleared of any wrong-doing. Do we need any more reason to oust this man from baseball? Not only did he commit perjury before the Senate, now he is throwing his teammate under the bus in order to try and save himself. Take responsibility for your actions, pack your bags, and gracefully (or as gracefully as possible with how tarnished you are) leave baseball!
Sportsline: New York. Yesterday New York Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez left the game in the fifth inning. Not because he was getting lit up. Oh no, he was tired. Tired? He'd tossed 75 pitches! He gave up 2 runs! It was 2-1 and he opted out! "I'm a winner." was Pedro's comment during a post game interview. Question: Why didn't he opt out of game seven in 2003 against the New York Yankees?!?!?! Pedro said he was tired and that he wanted to save his arm for next year! He knows that the Mets have a chance next year and he wants to be ready. Apparently 146 days off isn't enough for Pedro to rest after a seven inning outing. He also said that when you are out of the playoffs, there is no excitement. There is no adrenaline. Hmmm... where could he have a run at the playoffs almost every year? Oh, Boston! But it wasn't about the money, was it Pedro?
Newsline: Galveston. A meteorologist on Fox 25 News at 10 said the following: "As you can see by this computer animation, a hurricane of a category 3 with a storm surge of 8 feet or more would level the city of Galveston." Really? Well, if you watch my computer animation you'll see that a giant Japanese lizard like monster from the sea that breathes fire and has laser-eyes would also level the city. Or this animation that shows Neptuninites with their disintegration rays leveling the city. Thanks for that news Mr. Weatherman!
Weirdline: Star Trek. This is not a joke. The Bible is being translated into Klingon. Clearly, this is not Tyndale. Maybe this is a way to reach the demographic of 30-47 year old males who live in their parents basement with the gospel.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Juicer
So the monster juicer Barry "I-admit-I-did-steroids-then-I-had-the-longest-knee-injury-recovery-in-MLB-history-to-avoid-being-tested" Bonds (pictured left) has returned to the San Francisco Giant's line up. He's been playing for 8 games and has 7 homeruns already. He is 8 homeruns short of passing Babe Ruth and taking second on the all time career homerun record. Hank Aaron holds the top in that category with 755.
But here's my issue: Bonds has admitted that he was given illegal performance enhancing drugs and a masking agent to keep him from getting caught. He admitted to using them! We don't even know if he's off them! He could be taking HGH (Human Growth Hormone) which MLB doesn't test for right now! Does anyone really want to see him succeed? What honor is there in breaking records while cheating?
Secondarily: why is anyone pitching to him? Intentionally walk the man in protest, especially if you aren't in playoff contention. If you are already eliminated put him on base every time! If you don't want to waste four pitches on the 'roider, just plunk him! Hit him every time he's up. I bet if every pitcher hit him every at bat, he'd stop asking to play. Wouldn't you?!
Just like Palmiero, his stats should be permanently removed from the record books. As far as I'm concerned, Barry Bonds never played and never hit a non-juiced homerun. Congratulations to Willie Mays for holding the 3rd place on the all time career homerun record books with 660.
Unnecessary Disclaimer: the above is just my opinion!
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
To censor or not to censor...
Here's something to talk about: Baylor University recently censored a quote by a homosexual author that was printed on the coffee cups being used by the Starbucks on their campus. Some of you may be aware (I was not) that Baylor University is affiliated with the Baptist General Confernce in Texas.
So, is anyone outraged that a Christian place of higher education has censored a quote simply because of the sexual orientation of the author? Does it matter what he said?
Well, here's the quote: "My only regrtet about being gay is that I repressed if for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short." Should that have been censored? This statement clearly encourages a lifestyle that is not supported by the university or the denomination with which the university is affiliated.
Or is the problem instead with Starbucks. Does Starbucks support a lifestyle that the university doesn't? Shouldn't Baylor remove Starbucks instead of just removing their cups?
I seems our convictions only go so far. "Well, we don't agree with the cups, so they have to go! But we really like our Starbucks, so even though they made the cups, they can stay!"
Hey, just my opinion.
So, is anyone outraged that a Christian place of higher education has censored a quote simply because of the sexual orientation of the author? Does it matter what he said?
Well, here's the quote: "My only regrtet about being gay is that I repressed if for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short." Should that have been censored? This statement clearly encourages a lifestyle that is not supported by the university or the denomination with which the university is affiliated.
Or is the problem instead with Starbucks. Does Starbucks support a lifestyle that the university doesn't? Shouldn't Baylor remove Starbucks instead of just removing their cups?
I seems our convictions only go so far. "Well, we don't agree with the cups, so they have to go! But we really like our Starbucks, so even though they made the cups, they can stay!"
Hey, just my opinion.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Movie Review: "Garden State"
(Warning, spoiler information included)
"Garden State" was an attempt at a coming of age story that takes place in New Jersey that ends up being a movie about home. Why anyone would want to call New Jersey home is beyond me, but that might have been part of the point.
"Garden State" was an ok movie. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't anything to brag about either. There were a few moments throughout the course of the movie when I was wondering why some of the actors (the lead in particular) weren't being directed. Then I saw the credits: Written, directed, and starring Zach Braff. This is a massive no-no! This means that for as ok "Garden State" was, it could have been three times better. It is bad enough when someone either directs what they've written or stars in what they've directed. But all three are unforgivable (can we say control freak?!) There is a reason that the only person ever to direct himself to a best acting Oscar was Sir Laurence Olivier! The adage is correct and especially in film: two heads, or in this case three, are better than one!
I believe that Zach wanted "Garden State" to be a movie about forgiveness, drugs, choices, and friendship, it really only succeeded in being a movie about "home." "Garden State" makes to statements about home: The home you have is good or bad based on your state of mind; and you can choose the home you will have in the future.
Largeman (Braff) is forced to return home after 9 years when he hears of his mother's death.
All throughout the movie, we are invited into other peoples' homes: The sterile white apartment. The druggy who gets high with his mom and eats breakfast with a knight. The "traditional" home which is outwardly perfect, but has major relational issues. The multi-racial home littered with hampster tubes. The home at the bottom of the quarry in an old boat. The massive home with all that anyone could want, except furniture. But the entire time, the one thing that made one place feel more like home than another was the frame of mind people were in. And when Largeman (Braff) forgives his father, his house becomes a home as well.
The two statements on home are linked when the man who lives in the boat expresses his feelings that as long as he wakes with his wife and his new daughter, it doesn't matter where he lives, it's home. Largeman realizes this when he admits to Sam (Natalie Portman) that when he's with her, he feels like he's home. And he chooses to make his potencial future home to include her.
The Queen of Hearts mentioned that this movie seemed to be about Largeman forgiving himself for what happened to his mother, but instead of telling the whole story, we pick it up after he's done so and he just wants to declare it to the world. I think she has a very valid point!
On a side note, I wonder if the actor playing Mark was trying to channel John Malchovich or if it was purely unintentional.
The color themes were good, but I noticed them, which lowers them a notch. The writing was believable at times, hopelessly unredeemable at others. The acting needed direction. Overall, I give "Garden State" 2.5 out of 5 stars.
By hey, that's just my opinion.
"Garden State" was an attempt at a coming of age story that takes place in New Jersey that ends up being a movie about home. Why anyone would want to call New Jersey home is beyond me, but that might have been part of the point.
"Garden State" was an ok movie. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't anything to brag about either. There were a few moments throughout the course of the movie when I was wondering why some of the actors (the lead in particular) weren't being directed. Then I saw the credits: Written, directed, and starring Zach Braff. This is a massive no-no! This means that for as ok "Garden State" was, it could have been three times better. It is bad enough when someone either directs what they've written or stars in what they've directed. But all three are unforgivable (can we say control freak?!) There is a reason that the only person ever to direct himself to a best acting Oscar was Sir Laurence Olivier! The adage is correct and especially in film: two heads, or in this case three, are better than one!
I believe that Zach wanted "Garden State" to be a movie about forgiveness, drugs, choices, and friendship, it really only succeeded in being a movie about "home." "Garden State" makes to statements about home: The home you have is good or bad based on your state of mind; and you can choose the home you will have in the future.
Largeman (Braff) is forced to return home after 9 years when he hears of his mother's death.
All throughout the movie, we are invited into other peoples' homes: The sterile white apartment. The druggy who gets high with his mom and eats breakfast with a knight. The "traditional" home which is outwardly perfect, but has major relational issues. The multi-racial home littered with hampster tubes. The home at the bottom of the quarry in an old boat. The massive home with all that anyone could want, except furniture. But the entire time, the one thing that made one place feel more like home than another was the frame of mind people were in. And when Largeman (Braff) forgives his father, his house becomes a home as well.
The two statements on home are linked when the man who lives in the boat expresses his feelings that as long as he wakes with his wife and his new daughter, it doesn't matter where he lives, it's home. Largeman realizes this when he admits to Sam (Natalie Portman) that when he's with her, he feels like he's home. And he chooses to make his potencial future home to include her.
The Queen of Hearts mentioned that this movie seemed to be about Largeman forgiving himself for what happened to his mother, but instead of telling the whole story, we pick it up after he's done so and he just wants to declare it to the world. I think she has a very valid point!
On a side note, I wonder if the actor playing Mark was trying to channel John Malchovich or if it was purely unintentional.
The color themes were good, but I noticed them, which lowers them a notch. The writing was believable at times, hopelessly unredeemable at others. The acting needed direction. Overall, I give "Garden State" 2.5 out of 5 stars.
By hey, that's just my opinion.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Why racism continues
By now we are all familiar with rapper Kanye West's idiotic statements on public TV during a telethon for Katrina victims: "Bush doesn't care about black people."
Now, most intelligent adults can look at that, call it what it is: ignorant racism, and move on. Perhaps encourage their children to boycott his music for a while. That's not what I'm worried about. Adults have made up their mind as to whether or not they are going to be racist. It's the youth I'm concerned about. Here's why:
Today, the Herald quoted 13 year old Tevin Jones of Charlestown regarding his thoughts on Kanye's comments: "I totally agree with Kanye on this subject. If it were a bunch of white people down there instead of all the black people then everybody would have been saved already. There have been so many deaths since the hurricane first hit and Gorge Bush has not yet still to this day done any kind of relief effort to help these people out..."
We forgive this 13 year old for his ignorance. As President Bush has done quite a bit already for the hurricane ravaged region, not the least of which is pushing a multi-billion dollar relief package through congress. And as we've already shown on this site, the deaths did not stem from the hurricane, rather from the breaking of the levees which could have been prevented but for people who love animals more than people, (black or white), or by the local government who should have had a mandatory evacuation days before Katrina hit. As opposed to a voluntary evacuation 24 hours prior to the storm, then a mandatory evacuation 5 days after!. I'd also like to ask Mr. Jones just what would have been done to miraculously save all of the white people that hasn't been done to save the black people.
But the issue here is not that this uneducated teen is wrong, or even racist. The issue is: Who is encouraging his beliefs? Who is telling him that judging based on race is ok? Someone he looks up to: Kanye West.
What if Mr. West had said something unifying, rather than divisive? What if he had said, "It's true that there are a lot of black people still in need of help in New Orleans, but we all need to come together to help these people. This isn't about them being black or white, it's about these people being people, and people in need of help." What might little Mr. Jones have responded then? Even if young Mr. Jones were already racist, what could he have disagreed with? Or is it more likely that he would have learned a valuable lesson in equality?
Why is it if a white person is racist they are hateful and bigoted, but if a black person is racist they are oppressed and, therefore, defended. Kanye is perpetuating the exact issue he claims to speak out against. Brilliant!
And this is just my opinion.
Now, most intelligent adults can look at that, call it what it is: ignorant racism, and move on. Perhaps encourage their children to boycott his music for a while. That's not what I'm worried about. Adults have made up their mind as to whether or not they are going to be racist. It's the youth I'm concerned about. Here's why:
Today, the Herald quoted 13 year old Tevin Jones of Charlestown regarding his thoughts on Kanye's comments: "I totally agree with Kanye on this subject. If it were a bunch of white people down there instead of all the black people then everybody would have been saved already. There have been so many deaths since the hurricane first hit and Gorge Bush has not yet still to this day done any kind of relief effort to help these people out..."
We forgive this 13 year old for his ignorance. As President Bush has done quite a bit already for the hurricane ravaged region, not the least of which is pushing a multi-billion dollar relief package through congress. And as we've already shown on this site, the deaths did not stem from the hurricane, rather from the breaking of the levees which could have been prevented but for people who love animals more than people, (black or white), or by the local government who should have had a mandatory evacuation days before Katrina hit. As opposed to a voluntary evacuation 24 hours prior to the storm, then a mandatory evacuation 5 days after!. I'd also like to ask Mr. Jones just what would have been done to miraculously save all of the white people that hasn't been done to save the black people.
But the issue here is not that this uneducated teen is wrong, or even racist. The issue is: Who is encouraging his beliefs? Who is telling him that judging based on race is ok? Someone he looks up to: Kanye West.
What if Mr. West had said something unifying, rather than divisive? What if he had said, "It's true that there are a lot of black people still in need of help in New Orleans, but we all need to come together to help these people. This isn't about them being black or white, it's about these people being people, and people in need of help." What might little Mr. Jones have responded then? Even if young Mr. Jones were already racist, what could he have disagreed with? Or is it more likely that he would have learned a valuable lesson in equality?
Why is it if a white person is racist they are hateful and bigoted, but if a black person is racist they are oppressed and, therefore, defended. Kanye is perpetuating the exact issue he claims to speak out against. Brilliant!
And this is just my opinion.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Sports Alert!
Ok, I've been holding of on my sports posts because there were more pertinent things going on. However, my sports editor, Apu, has demanded that I get some more sports up here. So, I will group them together and try to make them quick:
Sportsline: France. The French authorities in charge of the Tour de France have recently announced there is no truth to the rumor that they have evidence of blood doping by Lance Armstrong. Why have they done this? Because they want their sport back. Lance threatened to race again next year if these allegations continued. The French (like they usually do) surrendered so that they could have a chance at winning this race in the near future. Way to go France!
Sportsline: New York. The Red Sox lost a 1-0 game to New York when the admitted juicer Jason Giambi hit a weak homerun over the right field wall. Here's my issue. Jason admitted to taking Human Growth hormone (HGH) which is something that MLB cannot test for right now. One of the reasons some players don't take HGH is because it takes some time to take effect. Let's see... Giambi was hitting .148 and about to be sent to the minors in June... 6 home runs before the All Star game, 14 after... hmmm. Looks like a delayed effect to me! This man has admitted to using it, is probably still using it and is still allowed to play. He and Palmiero belong in the same place: anywhere but on the baseball field!
Sportsline: New England. It is clear to me that the Patriots will three-pete. Why is that? You ask? I'll tell you. The first super bowl it was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" The second super bowl was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" The third super bowl was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" This can only work for so long. Well, they have a new mantra, a new reason to crush the competition and it goes further than "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!"
"The League doesn't want us to three-pete!" That's right, gentlemen, the Patriots believe that there is a conspiracy against them three-peting. "Why else would we have such a difficult schedule? And have you seen the Colts schedule? It is clear that the league does not want us to win our third super bowl in a row."
This goes beyond people thinking they can't. That is a passive stance. "We don't think you can." This is people working against them to try and prevent them from winning! This is an active stance "We will do what it takes to keep you from winning!" This will fire the Patriots up even more than before. Patriots go 16-0 and win their record breaking 3rd Super Bowl in 3 years. Do I hear a fourth?
Sportsline: Boston. The MLB MVP should come out of Boston! David Ortiz has single handedly won at least 10 games for the Red Sox this year. 17 of his homeruns have come late in the game (7th inning or later) to either pull the Sox even or give them the lead! He leads the Majors with RBI and is 3rd in the Majors (tied for first in the AL) with Home Runs! However, there are sports writers who will not vote for him because he doesn't play the field. They'd rather give the MVP award to players like Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGuire. Players that lead the league in errors at their positions! So, because Ortiz does his job better than any other in the game, because he isn't in the field and isn't given the opportunity to lead the league in errors, he can't be the MVP. It will be a travesty if the Sox make the post season and Big Papi isn't awarded the MVP award!
And that's just my opinion!
Sportsline: France. The French authorities in charge of the Tour de France have recently announced there is no truth to the rumor that they have evidence of blood doping by Lance Armstrong. Why have they done this? Because they want their sport back. Lance threatened to race again next year if these allegations continued. The French (like they usually do) surrendered so that they could have a chance at winning this race in the near future. Way to go France!
Sportsline: New York. The Red Sox lost a 1-0 game to New York when the admitted juicer Jason Giambi hit a weak homerun over the right field wall. Here's my issue. Jason admitted to taking Human Growth hormone (HGH) which is something that MLB cannot test for right now. One of the reasons some players don't take HGH is because it takes some time to take effect. Let's see... Giambi was hitting .148 and about to be sent to the minors in June... 6 home runs before the All Star game, 14 after... hmmm. Looks like a delayed effect to me! This man has admitted to using it, is probably still using it and is still allowed to play. He and Palmiero belong in the same place: anywhere but on the baseball field!
Sportsline: New England. It is clear to me that the Patriots will three-pete. Why is that? You ask? I'll tell you. The first super bowl it was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" The second super bowl was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" The third super bowl was "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!" This can only work for so long. Well, they have a new mantra, a new reason to crush the competition and it goes further than "we got no respect, no one thought we could do it and we did!"
"The League doesn't want us to three-pete!" That's right, gentlemen, the Patriots believe that there is a conspiracy against them three-peting. "Why else would we have such a difficult schedule? And have you seen the Colts schedule? It is clear that the league does not want us to win our third super bowl in a row."
This goes beyond people thinking they can't. That is a passive stance. "We don't think you can." This is people working against them to try and prevent them from winning! This is an active stance "We will do what it takes to keep you from winning!" This will fire the Patriots up even more than before. Patriots go 16-0 and win their record breaking 3rd Super Bowl in 3 years. Do I hear a fourth?
Sportsline: Boston. The MLB MVP should come out of Boston! David Ortiz has single handedly won at least 10 games for the Red Sox this year. 17 of his homeruns have come late in the game (7th inning or later) to either pull the Sox even or give them the lead! He leads the Majors with RBI and is 3rd in the Majors (tied for first in the AL) with Home Runs! However, there are sports writers who will not vote for him because he doesn't play the field. They'd rather give the MVP award to players like Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, and Mark McGuire. Players that lead the league in errors at their positions! So, because Ortiz does his job better than any other in the game, because he isn't in the field and isn't given the opportunity to lead the league in errors, he can't be the MVP. It will be a travesty if the Sox make the post season and Big Papi isn't awarded the MVP award!
And that's just my opinion!
Thursday, September 15, 2005
What is wrong with the government?!
Ok, so the people elect representatives to the congress so that the congress can represent the people when making the laws and appoint judges to uphold the laws that the legislature created while representing the people. Is this so difficult? Apparently!
Let's start with the courts. There is a court in California that has just banned school children from saying the pledge of allegiance in the morning. The defendants have said they will appeal this decision to a higher court. I'll give you three guesses as to which court this is going to: That's right! The 9th circuit court of appeals! Yes, the court that ruled that gay marriage in California was legal, the court that ruled that farmers couldn't challenge the Endangered Species Act because they had an "economic interest," and the same court that ruled that the use of police dogs to track suspects was considered an "unreasonable search and seizure." In fact, the 9th circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation! This is probably because most members of this court believe that "the bench is a venue to be used to accelerate social change."
The ruling judge said that if the pledge said "one nation who denies that God exists" we'd be up in arms and doing something about it. That is what is happening to atheists. Here's the problem, the constitution says that Congress (Please note: Congress) "shall make no law supporting or restricting any religion." Religion: any belief held that effects ones morals, ethics, and everyday living. Hey! What do you know! Atheism is a religion!
The irony of this situation is that the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) has already ruled in this situation. They ruled that it is not unconstitutional to have the children say the pledge of allegiance. The judge who recently made the decision said that he was forced to rule in the manner he did because a precedent was set by (who else?) the 9th circuit that it was unconstitutional. But that is the exact ruling that the Supreme Court overturned! How does this stuff happen? Now, this ruling will go to the court that has already upheld it and to the Supreme Court that has already overturned it! How many times do we have to do this?! Hey, men and women of the court, you who sit on the bench with the little gavel thingy, in what part of "uphold" do you see "alter?" What part of "protect" means "change" to you? Do you want to make laws? Become a congressperson!
They've got it right, right? Whoops, I guess not! The Congress is elected to represent the people. So if the congress is fighting the people who elected them, doesn't it seem like there is something wrong there? The Massachusetts legislature just voted to deny the voice of the people to be heard regarding homosexual marriage in that state (which was "legalized" by an activist judge (see paragraph above)). The people are asking to vote on it and the politicians who were elected to represent the people are saying "no." The bill (which outlawed gay marriage, but allowed for civil unions) needed 104 votes to get on the ballot in 2006. It failed. If it was done to keep gay marriage legal, they've just done something silly. This bill was put forward by a congressman so it needed 104 votes. There is another proposition being sent to the congress which is a citizen supported bill that outlaws both. Because it must have a certain number of citizen signatures to even get to the congress, it only needs 50 votes to be on the ballot in 2008.
So here's my idea: Judges uphold the law that the legislature creates at the behest of the be people. I know it's radical, but I think it might be more than just my opinion.
Let's start with the courts. There is a court in California that has just banned school children from saying the pledge of allegiance in the morning. The defendants have said they will appeal this decision to a higher court. I'll give you three guesses as to which court this is going to: That's right! The 9th circuit court of appeals! Yes, the court that ruled that gay marriage in California was legal, the court that ruled that farmers couldn't challenge the Endangered Species Act because they had an "economic interest," and the same court that ruled that the use of police dogs to track suspects was considered an "unreasonable search and seizure." In fact, the 9th circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation! This is probably because most members of this court believe that "the bench is a venue to be used to accelerate social change."
The ruling judge said that if the pledge said "one nation who denies that God exists" we'd be up in arms and doing something about it. That is what is happening to atheists. Here's the problem, the constitution says that Congress (Please note: Congress) "shall make no law supporting or restricting any religion." Religion: any belief held that effects ones morals, ethics, and everyday living. Hey! What do you know! Atheism is a religion!
The irony of this situation is that the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) has already ruled in this situation. They ruled that it is not unconstitutional to have the children say the pledge of allegiance. The judge who recently made the decision said that he was forced to rule in the manner he did because a precedent was set by (who else?) the 9th circuit that it was unconstitutional. But that is the exact ruling that the Supreme Court overturned! How does this stuff happen? Now, this ruling will go to the court that has already upheld it and to the Supreme Court that has already overturned it! How many times do we have to do this?! Hey, men and women of the court, you who sit on the bench with the little gavel thingy, in what part of "uphold" do you see "alter?" What part of "protect" means "change" to you? Do you want to make laws? Become a congressperson!
They've got it right, right? Whoops, I guess not! The Congress is elected to represent the people. So if the congress is fighting the people who elected them, doesn't it seem like there is something wrong there? The Massachusetts legislature just voted to deny the voice of the people to be heard regarding homosexual marriage in that state (which was "legalized" by an activist judge (see paragraph above)). The people are asking to vote on it and the politicians who were elected to represent the people are saying "no." The bill (which outlawed gay marriage, but allowed for civil unions) needed 104 votes to get on the ballot in 2006. It failed. If it was done to keep gay marriage legal, they've just done something silly. This bill was put forward by a congressman so it needed 104 votes. There is another proposition being sent to the congress which is a citizen supported bill that outlaws both. Because it must have a certain number of citizen signatures to even get to the congress, it only needs 50 votes to be on the ballot in 2008.
So here's my idea: Judges uphold the law that the legislature creates at the behest of the be people. I know it's radical, but I think it might be more than just my opinion.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
People die so Black Bears can live.
Well, everywhere I look people are trying to place blame for the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina. "Bush didn't react fast enough." "The local government should have been more prepared." "Why wasn't the National Guard there faster?" "It's global warming's fault." Well, now it's my turn: It's the black bear's fault!
In 1997 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recognized that the levees were not strong enough to sustain anything higher than a category 3 hurricane. From MSN.com: "The network that was supposed to protect the below-sea-level city from flooding was built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane, the Army Corps of Engineers said. It was overwhelmed when Katrina’s winds and storm surge came ashore a week ago as a Category 4 storm."
Why was this? Many say that it was Bush's budget cuts that caused the levees to remain in their unacceptable state. However, Bush could have sent the entire U.S. budget to New Orleans to strengthen the levees, but all that money can't go against a court order not to improve them. That's right: A court order!
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was taken to court in 1997 by the Sierra Club to prevent the planned improvements to the levee as it would harm the natural habitat of the endangered black bear.
Even the Mississippi Levee Board (which has jurisdiction along the Mississippi River, not just in Mississippi) has been pushing for this! Interestingly, their motto is "Where people come first." I suppose, based on the Sierra Clubs actions theirs would be "Where people come in a close third, just after the animals and plants."
There was a similar situation in California in 1991 where a planned improvement to a levee was delayed because of an ordered study in the effects of the proposed improvements on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. They were forced to plant 80 acres of new Elderberry bushes (in which the beetle lives) before they could begin the work on the levee. In the mean time, the levee broke causing 3 deaths and forcing 32,000 people to flee from their homes. The 80 acres of new bushes were also destroyed.One can only hope that the black bears survived the flooding, other wise the deaths of the people in New Orleans would have been in vain!
You may remember that there were reporters standing on the street after the storm, there had been minimal deaths and there was some surface damage to many buildings. Then the levee broke! Then the flooding came in! Then the looting began! Then people started dying! If the levees had been fixed, if the U.S. Corps of Engineers had been allowed to fix them in 1997, this disaster would have been 200% less destructive, less people dead, less opportunities for politicians to use this tragedy for their hate filled, divisive rhetoric!
Please don't misunderstand me. I have lots of other gripes regarding this situation, I just hadn't heard about the poor black bear that so many have now died to save!
And this is just my opinion!
In 1997 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recognized that the levees were not strong enough to sustain anything higher than a category 3 hurricane. From MSN.com: "The network that was supposed to protect the below-sea-level city from flooding was built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane, the Army Corps of Engineers said. It was overwhelmed when Katrina’s winds and storm surge came ashore a week ago as a Category 4 storm."
Why was this? Many say that it was Bush's budget cuts that caused the levees to remain in their unacceptable state. However, Bush could have sent the entire U.S. budget to New Orleans to strengthen the levees, but all that money can't go against a court order not to improve them. That's right: A court order!
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was taken to court in 1997 by the Sierra Club to prevent the planned improvements to the levee as it would harm the natural habitat of the endangered black bear.
Even the Mississippi Levee Board (which has jurisdiction along the Mississippi River, not just in Mississippi) has been pushing for this! Interestingly, their motto is "Where people come first." I suppose, based on the Sierra Clubs actions theirs would be "Where people come in a close third, just after the animals and plants."
There was a similar situation in California in 1991 where a planned improvement to a levee was delayed because of an ordered study in the effects of the proposed improvements on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. They were forced to plant 80 acres of new Elderberry bushes (in which the beetle lives) before they could begin the work on the levee. In the mean time, the levee broke causing 3 deaths and forcing 32,000 people to flee from their homes. The 80 acres of new bushes were also destroyed.
You may remember that there were reporters standing on the street after the storm, there had been minimal deaths and there was some surface damage to many buildings. Then the levee broke! Then the flooding came in! Then the looting began! Then people started dying! If the levees had been fixed, if the U.S. Corps of Engineers had been allowed to fix them in 1997, this disaster would have been 200% less destructive, less people dead, less opportunities for politicians to use this tragedy for their hate filled, divisive rhetoric!
Please don't misunderstand me. I have lots of other gripes regarding this situation, I just hadn't heard about the poor black bear that so many have now died to save!
And this is just my opinion!
Monday, September 12, 2005
Did I forget to say "thank you?"
Once again, the Palestinians are the object of my loquacious wrath (I hope the Boston Herald will notice that I, as a human, have wrath, a storm does not.)
The Israelis have nearly completed the evacuation of the Gaza strip that they have held for over 38 years. It was very touching that the Palestinian leadership sent a nice thank you note with some flowers. They even went so far as to send a box of matzah to the Israeli Prime minister. Many Palestinians have offered to have the former Gaza residents over for dinner anytime they want to visit their old stomping grounds.
Oh, wait. No. No, I'm wrong, they didn't. In fact:
There was supposed to be a formal handover ceremony. But that was cancelled because the Palestinians said they weren't going. (Alright, if you won't be there to accept our gift, we'll keep it!)
The Palestinians (not just Hamas) said they weren't going to attend the festivities because they weren't happy about the border arrangements. Pardon?! "Wow! A car! For me? Thanks, but I asked for an SUV, this is a sedan!" "You bought me a house! Great! Oh, but there's no room for the indoor pool I wanted!" "Oh, hey, thanks for the country, but... It's not quite my size. I'd like it a little bigger" Can we say ungrateful?! So if any parents of belligerent teenagers know how to handle this type of attitude, please email the UN or Israel so that they can slap some manners into the Palestinians!
They are also upset that, while the Israelis destroyed all of the houses that they willingly fled from, they left the synagogues standing. They're upset about this? Isn't this like leaving a three year old in a room filled with houses of cards? Imagine his glee as he knocks over one after another. Stomping on one like Godzilla, and sneezing another over like Superman!
I say, until the Palestinians show a little respect and thankfulness, we send them to their room for a timeout. Maybe while they are there, they'll notice that their room has just grown by about 139 square miles!
Quite yer whining and quit yer terrorism! I wish this was more than just my opinion!
The Israelis have nearly completed the evacuation of the Gaza strip that they have held for over 38 years. It was very touching that the Palestinian leadership sent a nice thank you note with some flowers. They even went so far as to send a box of matzah to the Israeli Prime minister. Many Palestinians have offered to have the former Gaza residents over for dinner anytime they want to visit their old stomping grounds.
Oh, wait. No. No, I'm wrong, they didn't. In fact:
There was supposed to be a formal handover ceremony. But that was cancelled because the Palestinians said they weren't going. (Alright, if you won't be there to accept our gift, we'll keep it!)
The Palestinians (not just Hamas) said they weren't going to attend the festivities because they weren't happy about the border arrangements. Pardon?! "Wow! A car! For me? Thanks, but I asked for an SUV, this is a sedan!" "You bought me a house! Great! Oh, but there's no room for the indoor pool I wanted!" "Oh, hey, thanks for the country, but... It's not quite my size. I'd like it a little bigger" Can we say ungrateful?! So if any parents of belligerent teenagers know how to handle this type of attitude, please email the UN or Israel so that they can slap some manners into the Palestinians!
They are also upset that, while the Israelis destroyed all of the houses that they willingly fled from, they left the synagogues standing. They're upset about this? Isn't this like leaving a three year old in a room filled with houses of cards? Imagine his glee as he knocks over one after another. Stomping on one like Godzilla, and sneezing another over like Superman!
I say, until the Palestinians show a little respect and thankfulness, we send them to their room for a timeout. Maybe while they are there, they'll notice that their room has just grown by about 139 square miles!
Quite yer whining and quit yer terrorism! I wish this was more than just my opinion!
September "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll of the week of September 26th-October 3rd
Question: Who do you think holds the most responsibility for the disaster in New Orleans?
Results:
Poll of the week of September 19th-September 25th
Question:Which was the most groundbreaking film in history?
Results:
Poll of the week of September 12th-September 18th
Question: Would you rather:
Results:
Poll of the week of September 5th-September 11th
Question: Do you rebuild New Orleans?
Results:
Question: Who do you think holds the most responsibility for the disaster in New Orleans?
Results:
- President George W. Bush
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
Poll of the week of September 19th-September 25th
Question:Which was the most groundbreaking film in history?
Results:
- The Great Train Robbery
- 1 vote (8.3%)
- 3 votes (25%)
- 3 votes (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 5 votes (41.7%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll of the week of September 12th-September 18th
Question: Would you rather:
Results:
- The Yankees not make it to the Playoffs?
- 7 votes (58.3%)
- 5 votes (41.7%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll of the week of September 5th-September 11th
Question: Do you rebuild New Orleans?
Results:
- No, count it as a loss and move on, a modern day Atlantis!
- 4 votes (36.4%)
- 4 votes (36.4%)
- 3 votes (27.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Friday, September 09, 2005
Of the people, for the people, by the people!
I'm a few days late on this subject because I needed to cool off. I believe I have calmed down enough to offer my thoughts on the following issue. However, even as I type my blood begins to boil again. Here we go (get a drink, this may take a while (but it's worth it!)):
There is a petition circulating to get a question on the next ballot that would potentially ban gay marriage and outlaw civil unions in Massachusetts. This petition requires over 60,000 signatures to get onto the ballot. There are some opposed to this question who have taken the names of those that have signed the petition already and are posting their names and addresses on the internet at www.knowthyneighbor.org. This site claims that it is extremists who are advancing this petition and that the wording is "anti-family." They promise that all who sign will be posted on their site.
Why are they doing this? Clearly to intimidate people who might sign this petition! To frighten people into thinking that people might show up at their homes! Why else post their addresses!? The people who have created this site claim that it is so people who live around those who have signed can start discussions with them, to talk to them and possibly change their minds. Again, I ask, why the addresses? Wouldn't name and city do just fine? And what might be done at their homes? Your guess is as good as mine! Even if this site isn't intended for evil, whose to say some won't use it for such?
There is an excellent political cartoon in the Herald today regarding this. A man says the following: "Hi, I'm John and I'm gay. My whole life have been difficult because I was 'different.' Others tried to make me feel ashamed and embarrassed, pointing fingers and calling me names. I've learned not to be ashamed!" He points to a man signing the petition and says, "Homophobic Bigot! Everyone, look at the hater! You should be ashamed of yourself! I hope you are humiliated!" Which is an excellent illustration of the intentions of the creators of this site: humiliation, fear, and intimidation. But here's the problem... They've got it all wrong.
Here is the heart of the issue: This is not about gay marriage! This is about a judge legislating from the bench - altering the law rather than upholding it! This is about a special interest group who were illegally given a "right" (through legislation by the courts) attempting to interfere with rule of the people by the people.
Signing this petition is not a vote against gay marriage. It is a vote for the proper and legal rule of law. It is a vote to not allow the courts to dictate the laws of Massachusetts. I will be proud to put my name on this ballot and if Massachusetts votes in a manner contrary to my stance, so be it, the people will have spoken!
Why are the people who created this site attempting to block this question from going before the people? Do they fear that Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, will deny them the "right" of marriage?
I am happy that I waited to post this because I saw that both supporters and opponents of this petition are condemning the attempted intimidation of this website. I am very glad to see this!
So you all can stop wondering, and so perhaps some of you will comment, if the vote were today, I would vote "no." I would not vote to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. (if the vote were tomorrow, I couldn't tell you how I'd vote.) We do not live in a theocracy. I look at it like this: We are Jonahs living in Nineva. We are called to inform people of the consequences of their sin. We are not called to make sure they do not sin. We can hope and pray that they turn from their sins and turn to the LORD and repent, but it is not our responsibility to prevent our neighbors (outside of the church) from committing sin.
My name will proudly be on this petition and will be on "knowthyneighbor." I will gladly support the people being able to decide what their own government will do. And it will be a difficult decision that I will have to make when it comes to voting on this issue.
I hope this action intended to intimidate backfires and sparks people to action. Do not allow this underhanded attempt to interfere with the voice of the people to succeed. Get your name on this petition in support of democracy.
May the opinion of the people of Massachusetts be heard. You've just read mine!
There is a petition circulating to get a question on the next ballot that would potentially ban gay marriage and outlaw civil unions in Massachusetts. This petition requires over 60,000 signatures to get onto the ballot. There are some opposed to this question who have taken the names of those that have signed the petition already and are posting their names and addresses on the internet at www.knowthyneighbor.org. This site claims that it is extremists who are advancing this petition and that the wording is "anti-family." They promise that all who sign will be posted on their site.
Why are they doing this? Clearly to intimidate people who might sign this petition! To frighten people into thinking that people might show up at their homes! Why else post their addresses!? The people who have created this site claim that it is so people who live around those who have signed can start discussions with them, to talk to them and possibly change their minds. Again, I ask, why the addresses? Wouldn't name and city do just fine? And what might be done at their homes? Your guess is as good as mine! Even if this site isn't intended for evil, whose to say some won't use it for such?
There is an excellent political cartoon in the Herald today regarding this. A man says the following: "Hi, I'm John and I'm gay. My whole life have been difficult because I was 'different.' Others tried to make me feel ashamed and embarrassed, pointing fingers and calling me names. I've learned not to be ashamed!" He points to a man signing the petition and says, "Homophobic Bigot! Everyone, look at the hater! You should be ashamed of yourself! I hope you are humiliated!" Which is an excellent illustration of the intentions of the creators of this site: humiliation, fear, and intimidation. But here's the problem... They've got it all wrong.
Here is the heart of the issue: This is not about gay marriage! This is about a judge legislating from the bench - altering the law rather than upholding it! This is about a special interest group who were illegally given a "right" (through legislation by the courts) attempting to interfere with rule of the people by the people.
Signing this petition is not a vote against gay marriage. It is a vote for the proper and legal rule of law. It is a vote to not allow the courts to dictate the laws of Massachusetts. I will be proud to put my name on this ballot and if Massachusetts votes in a manner contrary to my stance, so be it, the people will have spoken!
Why are the people who created this site attempting to block this question from going before the people? Do they fear that Massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, will deny them the "right" of marriage?
I am happy that I waited to post this because I saw that both supporters and opponents of this petition are condemning the attempted intimidation of this website. I am very glad to see this!
So you all can stop wondering, and so perhaps some of you will comment, if the vote were today, I would vote "no." I would not vote to ban same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. (if the vote were tomorrow, I couldn't tell you how I'd vote.) We do not live in a theocracy. I look at it like this: We are Jonahs living in Nineva. We are called to inform people of the consequences of their sin. We are not called to make sure they do not sin. We can hope and pray that they turn from their sins and turn to the LORD and repent, but it is not our responsibility to prevent our neighbors (outside of the church) from committing sin.
My name will proudly be on this petition and will be on "knowthyneighbor." I will gladly support the people being able to decide what their own government will do. And it will be a difficult decision that I will have to make when it comes to voting on this issue.
I hope this action intended to intimidate backfires and sparks people to action. Do not allow this underhanded attempt to interfere with the voice of the people to succeed. Get your name on this petition in support of democracy.
May the opinion of the people of Massachusetts be heard. You've just read mine!
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Six Short Rants
6) Practically no one in the national media is picking the current two time defending champion New England Patriots to repeat! What is up with that?!
5) The World Series I want to see is Boston vs Houston! Houston has lights out pitching but cannot score a run to save their lives. 8 times they've failed to score when Clemens left the game having given up either zero or one run! Boston has unstoppable bats but their pitching is considered "passable." That's a match up I want to see!
4) The Boston Herald's continuing coverage of the Hurricane is "Katrina's Wrath." Hurricane's don't have wrath! Sure they have destruction and they leave suffering in their wake, but "wrath?" Let's stop sensationalizing the news!
3) On the FOX25 news at ten they reported about a man who barricaded himself in a house and had a standoff with police for a few hours. The police were forced to evacuate the neighborhood because they didn't' know if the man was armed. When the man (who was mentally unstable) was taken away in an ambulance the reporter said "You can see the ambulance removing the victim now and the neighbors can return to their homes having been held hostage by this police drama." Victim? The man who broke the law is a victim? Police drama? Did the police barricade this man in his home? Seems to me the victims were the neighbors, the drama was caused by the man in the house and the police saved them all. Anyone agree?
2) Now I risk contradicting my last to rants: Why was the successful rescue of an American hostage held by insurgents in Iraq since last November buried on page 25 of the Herald? Let's see what came before it: the Horoscopes, the Celebrity Pages, Stupid Human Trick try outs, 3 pages of Katrina's Wrath, a giant tomato, and a fugitive monkey. Yeah, US success in Iraq isn't news-worthy.
1) Can we please stop playing the blame game regarding Katrina. I'm not even going to go into who I think is at fault, who should be fired, or who should be held responsible. This is not the time to be pointing accusing fingers, this is the time to be offering helping hands!
These rants brought to you by my opinion.
5) The World Series I want to see is Boston vs Houston! Houston has lights out pitching but cannot score a run to save their lives. 8 times they've failed to score when Clemens left the game having given up either zero or one run! Boston has unstoppable bats but their pitching is considered "passable." That's a match up I want to see!
4) The Boston Herald's continuing coverage of the Hurricane is "Katrina's Wrath." Hurricane's don't have wrath! Sure they have destruction and they leave suffering in their wake, but "wrath?" Let's stop sensationalizing the news!
3) On the FOX25 news at ten they reported about a man who barricaded himself in a house and had a standoff with police for a few hours. The police were forced to evacuate the neighborhood because they didn't' know if the man was armed. When the man (who was mentally unstable) was taken away in an ambulance the reporter said "You can see the ambulance removing the victim now and the neighbors can return to their homes having been held hostage by this police drama." Victim? The man who broke the law is a victim? Police drama? Did the police barricade this man in his home? Seems to me the victims were the neighbors, the drama was caused by the man in the house and the police saved them all. Anyone agree?
2) Now I risk contradicting my last to rants: Why was the successful rescue of an American hostage held by insurgents in Iraq since last November buried on page 25 of the Herald? Let's see what came before it: the Horoscopes, the Celebrity Pages, Stupid Human Trick try outs, 3 pages of Katrina's Wrath, a giant tomato, and a fugitive monkey. Yeah, US success in Iraq isn't news-worthy.
1) Can we please stop playing the blame game regarding Katrina. I'm not even going to go into who I think is at fault, who should be fired, or who should be held responsible. This is not the time to be pointing accusing fingers, this is the time to be offering helping hands!
These rants brought to you by my opinion.
Are you ready for some football?
This is it! The 2005-2006 NFL regular season begins today in Foxboro as the Two-Time Super Bowl Defending New England Patriots take on the Oakland Raiders!
So, now is the time that the "professionals" select who they think is going to win this season's Super Bowl. So I'm asking us non-professionals to do the same thing. Please comment with who you think will win the Super Bowl. There is one rule: No Homering! You are not allowed to select you're favorite team! You can mention them, you can even mention that you think they are going to win it all, but you must also select another team! Apu: No picking the Pats, Mudflaps: The Giants are not an option, Prime Minister: Bye bye Bengals!
I'll go first: I truly think the Patriots will win their third in a row, but to obey my own rule: If the Pats don't win, it will be the Baltimore Ravens.
So, now is the time that the "professionals" select who they think is going to win this season's Super Bowl. So I'm asking us non-professionals to do the same thing. Please comment with who you think will win the Super Bowl. There is one rule: No Homering! You are not allowed to select you're favorite team! You can mention them, you can even mention that you think they are going to win it all, but you must also select another team! Apu: No picking the Pats, Mudflaps: The Giants are not an option, Prime Minister: Bye bye Bengals!
I'll go first: I truly think the Patriots will win their third in a row, but to obey my own rule: If the Pats don't win, it will be the Baltimore Ravens.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
A review of the movie "Dave"
Ever notice how Hollywood seems to put out similar movies at the same time? Antz and Bug's Life, Dante's Peak and Volcano, Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line, Dave and The American President.
Today I will focus on Dave (Starring Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver) while comparing it to a similar movie that was released around the same time: on The American President (Starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening).
Dave is about a story about a common man who has greatness thrust upon him! A look-alike (Dave (Kline)) is hired by an unethical Secretary of State to impersonate the president (Kline) who has suffered a stroke rendering him a vegetable. The President wasn't very loved by any (including the first lady) but Dave begins to do good for the country.
Most presidential movies like to make political statements regarding the writer's/director's/producer's favorite party. Dave wisely avoids that. They even managed to avoid it in regard to Dave's pet platform issue, jobs, which both parties clearly claim as their own. They do not mention the affiliation of the president and manage to tell a good story without stumping for the Dems or the GOP. Well done! The American President did not see the wisdom of this stance (or lack there of). The pet platform of the Democratic President (Douglas) was the environment. Thus weakening the rest of the story which was the potential love between the President and the environmental lobbyist (I won't go into the ethics of a widowed president sleeping with a lobbyist.)
So, while in the White House Dave starts to fall for the first lady (who is still married because her husband is on life support) and she for him. However, like responsible adults, they hold off on any semblance of a relationship while the president still lives! Bully for them! The American President sleeps with the lobbyist in the White House. To make matters worse, his 12 year old daughter is sleeping down the hall. Later in the movie (after he's been caught in this relationship) he basically tells the American people to shove it. They are both adults and it's their choice what they want to do. The movie makers showcased this moment as his character's triumphant action!
While neither has stellar acting, one movie shines above the other. The message of Dave was that if you believe in something strong enough you should be willing to sacrifice either yourself, your pride, or your treasure, for that cause. Like The Patriot, the cause is greater than the individual. The message of The American President was that if it's what you wanna do, do it, and don't listen to what anyone else says! Like Gladiator, the individual was greater than the cause.
Dave is a great movie. The American President isn't worth the plastic the DVD is made of! And that's my movie opinion!
Today I will focus on Dave (Starring Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver) while comparing it to a similar movie that was released around the same time: on The American President (Starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening).
Dave is about a story about a common man who has greatness thrust upon him! A look-alike (Dave (Kline)) is hired by an unethical Secretary of State to impersonate the president (Kline) who has suffered a stroke rendering him a vegetable. The President wasn't very loved by any (including the first lady) but Dave begins to do good for the country.
Most presidential movies like to make political statements regarding the writer's/director's/producer's favorite party. Dave wisely avoids that. They even managed to avoid it in regard to Dave's pet platform issue, jobs, which both parties clearly claim as their own. They do not mention the affiliation of the president and manage to tell a good story without stumping for the Dems or the GOP. Well done! The American President did not see the wisdom of this stance (or lack there of). The pet platform of the Democratic President (Douglas) was the environment. Thus weakening the rest of the story which was the potential love between the President and the environmental lobbyist (I won't go into the ethics of a widowed president sleeping with a lobbyist.)
So, while in the White House Dave starts to fall for the first lady (who is still married because her husband is on life support) and she for him. However, like responsible adults, they hold off on any semblance of a relationship while the president still lives! Bully for them! The American President sleeps with the lobbyist in the White House. To make matters worse, his 12 year old daughter is sleeping down the hall. Later in the movie (after he's been caught in this relationship) he basically tells the American people to shove it. They are both adults and it's their choice what they want to do. The movie makers showcased this moment as his character's triumphant action!
While neither has stellar acting, one movie shines above the other. The message of Dave was that if you believe in something strong enough you should be willing to sacrifice either yourself, your pride, or your treasure, for that cause. Like The Patriot, the cause is greater than the individual. The message of The American President was that if it's what you wanna do, do it, and don't listen to what anyone else says! Like Gladiator, the individual was greater than the cause.
Dave is a great movie. The American President isn't worth the plastic the DVD is made of! And that's my movie opinion!
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
"We're not gonna protest!" -CPU
After reading one of my many posts regarding Ms. Cindy Sheehan, a friend of mine (who doesn't like to post comments) whom I shall refer to as Apu, made a fantastic comment that I would like to share here.
Protesting is great. It is your constitutional right. It makes a statement. But with all the energy that some people are putting into extended protests, doesn't it seem that there are more constructive things that they could put that effort into? Honestly, does it look like Ms. Sheehan's protest is going to garner any further response from the White House? Or cause the troops to be brought home from Iraq before that country has a viable democratic government? Not likely. What Ms. Sheehan is doing doesn't help the troops. It doesn't even help herself or her family deal with what is surely a tremendous loss.
Apu suggested that instead of putting all that energy into interviews, speeches, sign-making, and chant inventing the participants in such activities would better serve those they claim to support by doing... really any number of things other than protest. Ms. Sheehan could positively bring the plight of those who have lost loved ones to the forefront, instead of telling us (what we have already heard) what is wrong with our country. There are plenty of people flapping their gums out there (not the least of which are found in Hollywood) but not nearly enough people actually taking action and consoling these parents of heroes in our midst, these families who have sacrificed their own flesh and blood for our liberty.
Apu's idea was that Cindy Sheehan could start a non-profit support group for people who have lost children in this conflict. Letting them know that they are not alone. Showing support for the people she claims to speak for. On top of that, the people at her little protest camp claim to support the troops! Great! Are they collecting items to send to the troops? Are they communicating with them to see what they want from the citizens they are protecting? That is something else their non-profit group could do. What better way to show support for the troops and those who have lost children?!
An added benefit to such actions? Unity! The people on the other side of the picket line protesting the protestors would gladly donate to the "support our troops" care packages!
Let's face it. Protesting for more than 3 days is not only ineffective, it's a waste of time. Let's be inventive. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you are willing to invest weeks of you time, invest it wisely! Invest it creatively! Invest it in a way that doesn't require action by the government for your efforts to be considered successful!
Unless, of course, the only reason you are protesting is for your 15 minutes of fame. Is that what most protests are for? Publicity? Or are they to actually incur change?
Wanna cause change? Don't shout and hope that someone else makes something happen: Do it yourself!
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Protesting is great. It is your constitutional right. It makes a statement. But with all the energy that some people are putting into extended protests, doesn't it seem that there are more constructive things that they could put that effort into? Honestly, does it look like Ms. Sheehan's protest is going to garner any further response from the White House? Or cause the troops to be brought home from Iraq before that country has a viable democratic government? Not likely. What Ms. Sheehan is doing doesn't help the troops. It doesn't even help herself or her family deal with what is surely a tremendous loss.
Apu suggested that instead of putting all that energy into interviews, speeches, sign-making, and chant inventing the participants in such activities would better serve those they claim to support by doing... really any number of things other than protest. Ms. Sheehan could positively bring the plight of those who have lost loved ones to the forefront, instead of telling us (what we have already heard) what is wrong with our country. There are plenty of people flapping their gums out there (not the least of which are found in Hollywood) but not nearly enough people actually taking action and consoling these parents of heroes in our midst, these families who have sacrificed their own flesh and blood for our liberty.
Apu's idea was that Cindy Sheehan could start a non-profit support group for people who have lost children in this conflict. Letting them know that they are not alone. Showing support for the people she claims to speak for. On top of that, the people at her little protest camp claim to support the troops! Great! Are they collecting items to send to the troops? Are they communicating with them to see what they want from the citizens they are protecting? That is something else their non-profit group could do. What better way to show support for the troops and those who have lost children?!
An added benefit to such actions? Unity! The people on the other side of the picket line protesting the protestors would gladly donate to the "support our troops" care packages!
Let's face it. Protesting for more than 3 days is not only ineffective, it's a waste of time. Let's be inventive. If you feel so strongly about an issue that you are willing to invest weeks of you time, invest it wisely! Invest it creatively! Invest it in a way that doesn't require action by the government for your efforts to be considered successful!
Unless, of course, the only reason you are protesting is for your 15 minutes of fame. Is that what most protests are for? Publicity? Or are they to actually incur change?
Wanna cause change? Don't shout and hope that someone else makes something happen: Do it yourself!
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Racism runs rampant
Ok, let's call it what it is: Racism.
The Boston Herald ran a brief story yesterday. It's headline read "White jury not peers of blacks, judge rules." Really?
So before I jumped to any conclusions I wanted to read a bit more of the article. Let's see what these defendants are charged with: "They were charged with murder in the aid of racketeering for allegedly slaying a rival in 2001." It's a gang crime. Ok, I wasn't too upset until I came across the following comment: "African-Americans have different life experiences..." Right, no argument there, right? But let's dissect this statement. Really, this statement is always true! Remove 'African-Americans' and insert any of the following: Asians, Hispanics, Caucasians, Men, Women, Buddhists, My Neighbors, puppeteers, Olympic Athletes, or People who watch Star Trek. Of course people have different life experiences! However, this judge has ruled that the important aspect of these people who have had "different life experiences" is simply the color of their skin! Ok, so on these defendants jury I'd like Oprah, Alan Keyes, Romeo Cornell, Will Smith, Whitney Houston, Montell, Emmitt Smith, Bill Cosby, Tom Gordon, Michael Holley, Eminem, and the white homeless guy I saw yesterday outside the T. Oh, wait, which people do you think the defense would want on the jury? The two white guys? No! Because African-Americans have different life experiences!
So, what's really being said here? It seems to me that if I were the lawyer defending these charges I'd want some people from the same social class. Some people who actually know what they experience. The color of those peoples' skin doesn't enter into it. Do all African-Americans have the same experiences? Of course not! So I ask you: What has this ruling actually said? What is the message that the judge and defense are broadcasting by way of saying that white people are not these men's peers?
And if this ruling is accurate, then who is a jury of my peers? White middle class athletic males who are the youngest of two sons of divorced parents who split when they were under 10. These 12 people who fit the aforementioned description also have to be very happily married for under 5 years, produce independent films, know how to drive standard, be rabid Red Sox fans, and have a heart for foreign missions in Eastern Europe. Clearly, all of these things have caused me to have a "different life experience" and if I can't be tried by people who are different from me then I guess that's the way it'll have to be.
Judging these jurors based solely on the color of their skin is nothing more that pure racism - and now it is court supported racism!
And this is just my opinion.
The Boston Herald ran a brief story yesterday. It's headline read "White jury not peers of blacks, judge rules." Really?
So before I jumped to any conclusions I wanted to read a bit more of the article. Let's see what these defendants are charged with: "They were charged with murder in the aid of racketeering for allegedly slaying a rival in 2001." It's a gang crime. Ok, I wasn't too upset until I came across the following comment: "African-Americans have different life experiences..." Right, no argument there, right? But let's dissect this statement. Really, this statement is always true! Remove 'African-Americans' and insert any of the following: Asians, Hispanics, Caucasians, Men, Women, Buddhists, My Neighbors, puppeteers, Olympic Athletes, or People who watch Star Trek. Of course people have different life experiences! However, this judge has ruled that the important aspect of these people who have had "different life experiences" is simply the color of their skin! Ok, so on these defendants jury I'd like Oprah, Alan Keyes, Romeo Cornell, Will Smith, Whitney Houston, Montell, Emmitt Smith, Bill Cosby, Tom Gordon, Michael Holley, Eminem, and the white homeless guy I saw yesterday outside the T. Oh, wait, which people do you think the defense would want on the jury? The two white guys? No! Because African-Americans have different life experiences!
So, what's really being said here? It seems to me that if I were the lawyer defending these charges I'd want some people from the same social class. Some people who actually know what they experience. The color of those peoples' skin doesn't enter into it. Do all African-Americans have the same experiences? Of course not! So I ask you: What has this ruling actually said? What is the message that the judge and defense are broadcasting by way of saying that white people are not these men's peers?
And if this ruling is accurate, then who is a jury of my peers? White middle class athletic males who are the youngest of two sons of divorced parents who split when they were under 10. These 12 people who fit the aforementioned description also have to be very happily married for under 5 years, produce independent films, know how to drive standard, be rabid Red Sox fans, and have a heart for foreign missions in Eastern Europe. Clearly, all of these things have caused me to have a "different life experience" and if I can't be tried by people who are different from me then I guess that's the way it'll have to be.
Judging these jurors based solely on the color of their skin is nothing more that pure racism - and now it is court supported racism!
And this is just my opinion.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Oil Oil Oil
There's lots going on, so there's lots to talk about!
First:"No more blood for oil!"
Second: Because of Hurricane Katrina, the President is releasing some of the US' oil reserves.
Third: Drilling for Oil in Alaska.
First:"No more blood for oil!"
- Ok, if anyone still believes that Iraq was about oil please offer some evidence of it! Our gas prices have done nothing but soar since this conflict began. It actually seems to me that with all of the cheap oil Saddam was giving France, Germany, and Russia (hence their reasons for not being willing to enforce the resolution they supported in the UN) that maybe we should've gotten in on that when we had the chance!
- This also wasn't about a stupid pipeline that was gonna go through Iraq as Mr. Stupid-White-Man Michael Moore asserted in his Mockumentary Fahrenheit 911 (he and Christopher Guest (This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind) should get together and make more mockumentaries together. Nah, on second thought Christopher Guest is respectable.)
Second: Because of Hurricane Katrina, the President is releasing some of the US' oil reserves.
- Well it's about time! If the US imported no more oil (we import about 60% of our annual usage) we could support our ravage thirst for the black gold for 5 years! Five years! We've got about 22 billion barrels of oil in our reserves. Even if we leaked .01% of this into our gasoline program it'd probably drop prices 50 cents a gallon! (Remember when $1.50 was expensive!) I'm beginning to think that our local gas stations are getting a few more cents profit per gallon because "Oh, well, with the hurricane, and the rising cost per barrel, and my daughters headed to colleg..whoop, uh, I mean... There's that hurricane."
Third: Drilling for Oil in Alaska.
- Ya know. Alaska is too pretty to drill for oil there. So, after talking to a friend of mine (who I shall refer to as Mudflaps), we've got a suggestion: Let's drill for oil where it's not so pretty. Like the Bronx. We are gonna go to the 5 most polluted US cities that aren't known for their beauty and drill there. Los Angeles is certainly on that list! It's already got a layer of smog. Moving a few people to drill for oil there would be good for them! Also on the potential "drill here" list are Newark, Jersey City (alright, nearly all of New Jersey), Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Boise (just because), Detroit, Las Vegas, and Miami. "But there's no oil under our cities!" Sure, just like there was no way the Red Sox were coming back from down 3 to the Yankees! Those not chosen to be on the "Asphalt for Oil" list will be considered on the "Asphalt for landfills" list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)