2003/PG-13/Drama
The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.
This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.
A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.
The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.
Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.
The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.
As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.
Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Review: Shopgirl
2005/R/Romance
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Review: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
2006/Not rated (though would be NC-17 if it were)/Documentary
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Oscar Reactions
Why do I still care? Supposedly, my life aspirations no longer include holding up the golden idol named after a former winner's uncle. I no longer want to answer the question "who are you wearing" (truth be told, when I admitted to wanting to be at least an Oscar nominee, I didn't want to answer that question then either...) So, why do I still care? I don't know, but I do...
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Let's Talk Film
This is quite the momentous announcement! Our good friends in Japan have given us a fantastic Annibirthmas gift: A year of Netflix!
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Voting Booth, Volume III
Ok, so my Oscar reactions are coming shortly but I have to take a few minutes to weigh in on the current election climate; particularly on the Democratic side of the ring.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
35 Seconds
The more I think about it, the more I realize just how close the Patriots came to "perfection." They were in the lead until the last 35 seconds of the 4th quarter. 35 seconds. They were one muffed interception short, one unmade holding call short, one ball on a helmet short of 19-0. 35 seconds! Read this paragraph 2 & 1/2 times. That's about 35 seconds.
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Bears XLI
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
Monday, February 04, 2008
18 - 1
Why, oh why, did they print this book? The cover says that it's for information only, but both Target and Walmart have been carrying it for 2 weeks, now.
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Forget Change!
ATHF: A year ago, we were admonished to
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
200 & Counting!
Though it took me nearly twice as long to reach 200 posts as it did to reach 100, I've finally reached this milestone. (There were six months where I had either 1 or absolutely zero posts!) But, I have attained 200 and, therefore, like any aspect of popular culture (Am I selling myself a bit high there?), here is my second "look back" at the last 100 posts.
When you've had more than one "recap" episode, usually you mention the first one and what a great success it was. You won't want to miss the first 100!
And now, we take a glance at the recurring characters:
Immigration: This has always been a contentious topic. No posts have more comments than the ones were I suggest that we tighten up our boarders and actually obey our own laws. (That comment was probably just edgy enough to warrant a few comments of its own.)
The NFL Power Rankings: I never really figured out if anyone read these with the exception of one reader who was nice enough to let me know that they were important to her. If not for her comment on week 8, I might have stopped them entirely. If you wanna revisit any of the weeks here they are: NFL Preview, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Post Season preview I, Post Season preview II, and Super Bowl previews.
Politics: Next to sports, politics was the second most common character during these past 100 posts. The mid-term and up-coming elections taking the spotlight in this category. With Global Warming, local politics and the Spin Cycle (which could become a regular section) rounding out the top 5.
The Red Sox: There has been a surprising lack of Red Sox talk over the last 100! Some discussion because Ortiz deserved the MVP and didn't get it in '06. Then some brief comments about the fantastic surreal World Series run in '07.
Finally, our most recurring character: Barry Bonds: This really bugs me. Every time I mentioned him I said it was probably, hopefully, most likely the final time. Yeah, Barry appeared eight times during the past 100 posts. Thankfully, as he's "broken" the record and is "headed" to jail. This looks like it may be the last time we hear about him on this blog for quite some time... I hope.
The next portion of a good flashback episode is recounting all of the funny and favorite moments. Here are a few of mine:
From The American Voter
From Here's my free speech:
From: Speaking at Harvard:
(And while we are on the subject of people speaking at universities...) Check out Yup Not In Your Name
From Living in the US is so taxing!:
From Not going anywhere for a while?:
Of course, there are always those posts that are simply impossible to excerpt. The good ones tend to fall in a few categories. Here they are:
In the interest of bettering society, I had two posts that were dedicated to recommendations that made things better:
Sports
The Oscars
Then there are the social posts:
Are we patients or customers?
Should we abstain from abstinence programs?
To Santa or not to Santa...
Finally, the political posts:
Kennedy
Generic
The War
Last but not least, it's time for "amazing moments." As we end our look back we actually have two moments to share from the same post:
I wrote these predictions on January 11th:
Unfortunately, The Patriots were unable to hold the Jaguars to 78 yards. Jacksonville rushed for 80. I was two yards off! And the Patriots won by 11, covering the spread.
This prediction was over shadowed, however, by the one that followed immediately after it:
People called me crazy. They said I didn't know anything about football. What happened? Peyton threw an incomplete pass on 4th and 6 to Dallas Clark on their final drive and lost to the Chargers by a score of 28-24. Whose crazy now?
Well, it took me from April of 2006 to January of 2008 to reach 200. Hopefully, 300 (which was a great movie, by the way) won't take me nearly that long!
Thanks for joining me on this trip back, I hope you'll join me on the journey forward!
When you've had more than one "recap" episode, usually you mention the first one and what a great success it was. You won't want to miss the first 100!
And now, we take a glance at the recurring characters:
Immigration: This has always been a contentious topic. No posts have more comments than the ones were I suggest that we tighten up our boarders and actually obey our own laws. (That comment was probably just edgy enough to warrant a few comments of its own.)
The NFL Power Rankings: I never really figured out if anyone read these with the exception of one reader who was nice enough to let me know that they were important to her. If not for her comment on week 8, I might have stopped them entirely. If you wanna revisit any of the weeks here they are: NFL Preview, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Post Season preview I, Post Season preview II, and Super Bowl previews.
Politics: Next to sports, politics was the second most common character during these past 100 posts. The mid-term and up-coming elections taking the spotlight in this category. With Global Warming, local politics and the Spin Cycle (which could become a regular section) rounding out the top 5.
The Red Sox: There has been a surprising lack of Red Sox talk over the last 100! Some discussion because Ortiz deserved the MVP and didn't get it in '06. Then some brief comments about the fantastic surreal World Series run in '07.
Finally, our most recurring character: Barry Bonds: This really bugs me. Every time I mentioned him I said it was probably, hopefully, most likely the final time. Yeah, Barry appeared eight times during the past 100 posts. Thankfully, as he's "broken" the record and is "headed" to jail. This looks like it may be the last time we hear about him on this blog for quite some time... I hope.
The next portion of a good flashback episode is recounting all of the funny and favorite moments. Here are a few of mine:
From The American Voter
...So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that [issue], have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
From Here's my free speech:
2) What if (God forbid) the student went Virginia Tech on the audience? Would we not be saying, "Why didn't they stop him? Why did they allow him to go over his time limit? Couldn't they see he was losing control?" Aren't way too many people trying to blame VT's decisions of that day for the tragedy? Seems to me the police would be the favorite target if they didn't do anything as well. Sorry people-who-daily-put-their-lives-in-jeopardy-so-that-I-can-feel-safe-while-I-sip-my-$8.57-(not-including-tip)-grande-mocha-latte-complaining-about-the-war-in-another-country-that-I'm-not-really-feeling-the-effects-of-while-I-offer-zero-solutions-to-solve-it, you're wrong no matter what you do.
From: Speaking at Harvard:
The following is a survey for potential speakers at Harvard University.
Please fill out the following questionnaire to determine your suitability for speaking at the prestigious Harvard University:
1) Are you:
A) The leader of the free world?
B) A very successful business man?
C) White
D) The leader of an international terrorist organization?
E) Anyone who strongly disagrees with the current administration?
If your answer is A, B, or C, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you answer was D, please answer the following:
2) Which best describes you:
A) I am a reformed terrorist. I have turned in many of my former comrades in destruction.
B) I support them only with money. I have not attended any training camps.
C) I desire to see the entirety of America in flames
If your answer is A or B, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If your answer to question 1 was E, please answer the following:
3) Which best describes you:
A) I voice my dissent at the voting booth only.
B) I actively campaigned for an opponent of this administration who was not a Libertarian
C) I have been arrested more times than I can count because of my demonstrating against this administration
If your answer is A or B, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you have made it this far, please answer yes or no to the following:
4) Do you know what an IED is?
5) Have you ever strapped one to your body?
6) Do you think Clinton should be able to serve a third term?
7) Do you think Christians should still be fed to lions?
8) Would you consider your political views "Left of the Left?"
If you answered "No" to any of these questions, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you have made it this far, please submit this form to Harvard for further consideration. We will interview you to make sure there is absolutely nothing that appears to be common sense or main stream thought emitting from your mouth. After all, we must be open minded at such a prestigious educational institution. If you are not suitable to speak at Harvard, please go take a flying leap. Maybe Yale will take you. You may enjoy the post below this one regarding the NFL.
Please be aware: If you are the most successful African American Female in US government, you are welcome to speak at Harvard but you will face massive protests and name calling.
Thank you,
The Harvard Board of Directors
(And while we are on the subject of people speaking at universities...) Check out Yup Not In Your Name
From Living in the US is so taxing!:
I wonder if I would care that I was so taxed if I felt like there was something to show for it besides roads that there isn't enough money to repave, schools that are turning out children who can pass a certain standardized test, a boarder patrol that has more holes than OJ's alibi, a judicial branch that likes making laws and a legislative that is afraid to, health care that costs more than me taxes, and money to fund free abortions for minors rather than properly fund our foster care system. But that's probably asking too much.
From Not going anywhere for a while?:
The top ten reasons that I would want to be President:
10) To win a "popular election" because just over 20% of the entire US population actually voted for me. (Another 17% voted for the other guy, and 63% stayed home)
...
6) To hit the entire talk show circuit while campaigning (making sure to get on Oprah twice)
5) To be considered wrong by at least 50% of the US population
...
3) To spend $5,000,000 to get a job that pays $250,000 per year with a $100,000 per year pension once I'm done. All the while I get to age thirty years in the course of eight. Sign me up!
2) To know that at all times there are at least four people plotting my assassination and one Vice President who wishes one of them would succeed.
And the number one reason that I would want to be president:
1) To be impersonated on SNL!
Of course, there are always those posts that are simply impossible to excerpt. The good ones tend to fall in a few categories. Here they are:
In the interest of bettering society, I had two posts that were dedicated to recommendations that made things better:
Sports
The Oscars
Then there are the social posts:
Are we patients or customers?
Should we abstain from abstinence programs?
To Santa or not to Santa...
Finally, the political posts:
Kennedy
Generic
The War
Last but not least, it's time for "amazing moments." As we end our look back we actually have two moments to share from the same post:
I wrote these predictions on January 11th:
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Unfortunately, The Patriots were unable to hold the Jaguars to 78 yards. Jacksonville rushed for 80. I was two yards off! And the Patriots won by 11, covering the spread.
This prediction was over shadowed, however, by the one that followed immediately after it:
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
People called me crazy. They said I didn't know anything about football. What happened? Peyton threw an incomplete pass on 4th and 6 to Dallas Clark on their final drive and lost to the Chargers by a score of 28-24. Whose crazy now?
Well, it took me from April of 2006 to January of 2008 to reach 200. Hopefully, 300 (which was a great movie, by the way) won't take me nearly that long!
Thanks for joining me on this trip back, I hope you'll join me on the journey forward!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Dinner with Democrats
I hope that someday I am fortunate enough to be invited to dinner with Congressional Democrats. And I hope that, after they've supped their full and we've each paid our portion of the bill, the waitress returns saying we've over paid and that the restaurant needs to return some money to us. You see, I will have only ordered water, yet when the refund arrives at our table, I will request that a portion of it go to me even though I did not pay a dime towards the bill. Sound ridiculous? I agree.
Yet Congressional Democrats are threatening not to pass Bush's bill designed to stimulate the economy by giving a little extra money back to each tax payer because there is no provision in it to give money to people who don't make enough to pay taxes. They want to block the refund because it's only being refunded to people who actually paid.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not against helping people who don't even make enough money to pay taxes. I'm all for getting them job training so they can advance in their careers. I agree with helping them put healthy food on their tables. Providing they are law abiding people, let's send their kids to school. But please don't take something that is labeled a "refund" and try to require that to goes to everyone! What if Best Buy had a rebate program and the Dems required that the rebate go to everyone, not just the people who bought the 47in HD Plasma TV? Or if Six Flags had to close due to the weather and offered to provide "rain date" tickets to the people who were there, but the Left demanded they provide the free passes to everyone. Doesn't make much sense, does it? If Six Flags wanted to provide promotional free tickets, I'd say, "go right ahead!" I'd be firmly behind Best Buy mailing out promotional gift cards to anyone and everyone. But don't call it a refund, rebate, or return. If you want to give a handout to people who didn't pay taxes, find another way to do it. Pass a different bill. But don't try to call it something it isn't.
Honestly, I think this is simply an excuse that the (D)s are using to block this attempt to revitalize the economy. The longer it's down, the more likely they'll take the Oval Office in November. It's hard when you are not the party in power. You have to hope that the country does poorly so that you can take over. So the stock market drop is fantastic for them, as is the housing slump, and the last thing they want to do right now is pass any bill that will end the dreaded "r-word" discussion. But they can't look like they are trying to keep the economy down (or that they are hoping our troops fail) ["I don't know, fly casual!"] so they have to find a reason that they hope will disguise their true intentions. I believe it was their hope that asking that money be "returned" to people who never had it in the first place would be sufficient. It is my hope that they are wrong.
And that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Yet Congressional Democrats are threatening not to pass Bush's bill designed to stimulate the economy by giving a little extra money back to each tax payer because there is no provision in it to give money to people who don't make enough to pay taxes. They want to block the refund because it's only being refunded to people who actually paid.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not against helping people who don't even make enough money to pay taxes. I'm all for getting them job training so they can advance in their careers. I agree with helping them put healthy food on their tables. Providing they are law abiding people, let's send their kids to school. But please don't take something that is labeled a "refund" and try to require that to goes to everyone! What if Best Buy had a rebate program and the Dems required that the rebate go to everyone, not just the people who bought the 47in HD Plasma TV? Or if Six Flags had to close due to the weather and offered to provide "rain date" tickets to the people who were there, but the Left demanded they provide the free passes to everyone. Doesn't make much sense, does it? If Six Flags wanted to provide promotional free tickets, I'd say, "go right ahead!" I'd be firmly behind Best Buy mailing out promotional gift cards to anyone and everyone. But don't call it a refund, rebate, or return. If you want to give a handout to people who didn't pay taxes, find another way to do it. Pass a different bill. But don't try to call it something it isn't.
Honestly, I think this is simply an excuse that the (D)s are using to block this attempt to revitalize the economy. The longer it's down, the more likely they'll take the Oval Office in November. It's hard when you are not the party in power. You have to hope that the country does poorly so that you can take over. So the stock market drop is fantastic for them, as is the housing slump, and the last thing they want to do right now is pass any bill that will end the dreaded "r-word" discussion. But they can't look like they are trying to keep the economy down (or that they are hoping our troops fail) ["I don't know, fly casual!"] so they have to find a reason that they hope will disguise their true intentions. I believe it was their hope that asking that money be "returned" to people who never had it in the first place would be sufficient. It is my hope that they are wrong.
And that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
All Four Super Bowl Previews II
What a weekend! Both America's team and America's QB fail to make it to the Conference Games! (Only one of which I was fortunate enough to predict.) While we're on the subject, I just want to point out that I went 3 out of 4 last week and had Dallas been able to eek out a three point win by actually scoring at the end of the game instead of being wrongfully penalized and then tossing a pick, I'd have gone 4 for 4. How's that for predictions, Dr?
So, with the NFL's final four set, I'm going to take a few minutes to preview all four possible Super Bowls. This is one of my favorite posts of the year. (Check out All Four Super Bowl Previews Vol I)
One thing I'd like to point out is that, unlike last year, there isn't really a game that I'm praying doesn't happen. And, wouldn't you know it, last years big game was the very game that we all least desired to watch. Thankfully, we don't have that dilemma this year. All four games should be very competitive.
Alright, so from least interesting Super Bowl to most:
Green Bay vs San Diego
The biggest reason why this is the most boring Super Bowl is there's no real story line here. Sure, one team started out 1-3 and the other 10-0 but there's no interteam plot line. This is a difficult game to call. The teams match up well and near seems as though they'd run away with the game. I suppose I'd have to take into account that if the Chargers are there, they beat the Patriots. But they've got some "minor" (according to the team) injuries to Brees and LT. As I think this game would be close, and I don't see Favre letting this opportunity pass him by, I think the Pack would find a way to win. Final Score: 23-21 Green Bay
New York vs New England
Oh, just what the country needs: Another Brady/Manning rivalry! While I believe this game would be the second worst option for Joe Average-NFL-Fan, with all of the Giants fans that I know, this is probably the game I'd most like to see. Then there's the rematch angle: They didn't win the first time they attempted to thwart the Patriots historic quest, perhaps they can succeed the second time. I have to apologize to my brother-in-law, I don't think the Giants are a very good team. If they manage to over come the Packers, I don't see how they can stop the juggernaut that is the Patriots. (Getting this far in the playoffs is probably one of the worst things that could have happened to the Giants. Now Coughlin won't leave for a few more years!) I've heard people say that the Giants won because you don't beat the same team three times in a year. Well, you can do it twice. Final Score: 38-20 New England
New York vs San Diego
This match up probably has the best story-line for the marketing of the game. Eli Manning was originally drafted by the Chargers but he refused to play for them because they were so bad at the time. The Giants traded draft picks for him. With those picks the Chargers got Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding, three massive keys to their success. So, who made the better deal? If this is the match up for the Super Bowl, here is where we find out. And the answer? Final Score: 28-17 San Diego
Green Bay vs New England
This is the game the networks and NFL exec's want. The up and comer in Brady vs the time tested soldier in Favre. The rematch of Super Bowl XXXI where the Packers defeated the Patriots 35-21 in 1997. This is a tough match up. While the Patriots have proven they can stop the run, Green Bay has some very good cornerbacks who could reek havoc on Brady's passing plans. And let's not forget that New England's pass rush often flushes QB's out of the pocket. While I'm already eating my words regarding Favre's returning this year, he's still no spring chicken. If he has to scramble too much, he may be forced to make a mistake or two, and that's all the Patriots need. It really is a toss-up which game (this one or the NY-NE) I'd prefer. Of the elite eight NFL teams (DAL, NYG, GB, SEA, IND, JAX, SD) the only two the Patriots haven't defeated this year are Green Bay and Seattle. If the Patriots can face off and defeat the Pack, they'd have beaten 9 out of the 11 playoff teams. Missing only Seattle and Tampa Bay (two teams whose playoff ability was questionable at best.) That is an amazing feat. Final Score: 38-24 Patriots
Which ever teams face off in the big dance this year. It's sure to be exciting. Especially if the Patriots are making a bid at history!
So, with the NFL's final four set, I'm going to take a few minutes to preview all four possible Super Bowls. This is one of my favorite posts of the year. (Check out All Four Super Bowl Previews Vol I)
One thing I'd like to point out is that, unlike last year, there isn't really a game that I'm praying doesn't happen. And, wouldn't you know it, last years big game was the very game that we all least desired to watch. Thankfully, we don't have that dilemma this year. All four games should be very competitive.
Alright, so from least interesting Super Bowl to most:
Green Bay vs San Diego
The biggest reason why this is the most boring Super Bowl is there's no real story line here. Sure, one team started out 1-3 and the other 10-0 but there's no interteam plot line. This is a difficult game to call. The teams match up well and near seems as though they'd run away with the game. I suppose I'd have to take into account that if the Chargers are there, they beat the Patriots. But they've got some "minor" (according to the team) injuries to Brees and LT. As I think this game would be close, and I don't see Favre letting this opportunity pass him by, I think the Pack would find a way to win. Final Score: 23-21 Green Bay
New York vs New England
Oh, just what the country needs: Another Brady/Manning rivalry! While I believe this game would be the second worst option for Joe Average-NFL-Fan, with all of the Giants fans that I know, this is probably the game I'd most like to see. Then there's the rematch angle: They didn't win the first time they attempted to thwart the Patriots historic quest, perhaps they can succeed the second time. I have to apologize to my brother-in-law, I don't think the Giants are a very good team. If they manage to over come the Packers, I don't see how they can stop the juggernaut that is the Patriots. (Getting this far in the playoffs is probably one of the worst things that could have happened to the Giants. Now Coughlin won't leave for a few more years!) I've heard people say that the Giants won because you don't beat the same team three times in a year. Well, you can do it twice. Final Score: 38-20 New England
New York vs San Diego
This match up probably has the best story-line for the marketing of the game. Eli Manning was originally drafted by the Chargers but he refused to play for them because they were so bad at the time. The Giants traded draft picks for him. With those picks the Chargers got Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding, three massive keys to their success. So, who made the better deal? If this is the match up for the Super Bowl, here is where we find out. And the answer? Final Score: 28-17 San Diego
Green Bay vs New England
This is the game the networks and NFL exec's want. The up and comer in Brady vs the time tested soldier in Favre. The rematch of Super Bowl XXXI where the Packers defeated the Patriots 35-21 in 1997. This is a tough match up. While the Patriots have proven they can stop the run, Green Bay has some very good cornerbacks who could reek havoc on Brady's passing plans. And let's not forget that New England's pass rush often flushes QB's out of the pocket. While I'm already eating my words regarding Favre's returning this year, he's still no spring chicken. If he has to scramble too much, he may be forced to make a mistake or two, and that's all the Patriots need. It really is a toss-up which game (this one or the NY-NE) I'd prefer. Of the elite eight NFL teams (DAL, NYG, GB, SEA, IND, JAX, SD) the only two the Patriots haven't defeated this year are Green Bay and Seattle. If the Patriots can face off and defeat the Pack, they'd have beaten 9 out of the 11 playoff teams. Missing only Seattle and Tampa Bay (two teams whose playoff ability was questionable at best.) That is an amazing feat. Final Score: 38-24 Patriots
Which ever teams face off in the big dance this year. It's sure to be exciting. Especially if the Patriots are making a bid at history!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Playoff predictions
I'm sure you are all eagerly awaiting my Divisional round playoff predictions so you can run to Vegas (or Atlantic City, depending on which is closer) and put your life savings on the exact opposite of what I predict. So let's get started:
Saturday 4pm
Seatle at Green Bay (-7)
Somehow I managed to pick both NFC games wrong last week and both AFC games correct. (I wouldn't be crushed if the same happened this week as well...) Seattle's running game is still not what it needs to be to get past Green Bay. Hasselbeck makes too many poor decisions in his throwing game to pass the Seahawks past the Packers, especially with Woodson and Harris covering Seattle's WRs. People talk about playoff experience (Seattle by far outweighs GB in that category) but I'll take GB's talent over Seattle's experience. Green Bay and the points.
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
Sunday 4:30pm
New York Giants at Dallas (-10)
I have bad news for the Giants. Peyton has to play his own game this week and he isn't going to be able to wear his brother's #10 and play in his stead. So Eli will have to play against the Cowboys. This means the Giants will lose. TO played on a broken leg in the Super Bowl, I think he can handle a sprained ankle. Jessica has promised that she won't be at the game so Romo will be his regular self. However, I don't think it will be a blowout. Dallas peaked a few weeks ago, but too many injuries for New York means that Dallas will host the NFC Championship game next week. Dallas wins, New York covers.
Saturday 4pm
Seatle at Green Bay (-7)
Somehow I managed to pick both NFC games wrong last week and both AFC games correct. (I wouldn't be crushed if the same happened this week as well...) Seattle's running game is still not what it needs to be to get past Green Bay. Hasselbeck makes too many poor decisions in his throwing game to pass the Seahawks past the Packers, especially with Woodson and Harris covering Seattle's WRs. People talk about playoff experience (Seattle by far outweighs GB in that category) but I'll take GB's talent over Seattle's experience. Green Bay and the points.
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
Sunday 4:30pm
New York Giants at Dallas (-10)
I have bad news for the Giants. Peyton has to play his own game this week and he isn't going to be able to wear his brother's #10 and play in his stead. So Eli will have to play against the Cowboys. This means the Giants will lose. TO played on a broken leg in the Super Bowl, I think he can handle a sprained ankle. Jessica has promised that she won't be at the game so Romo will be his regular self. However, I don't think it will be a blowout. Dallas peaked a few weeks ago, but too many injuries for New York means that Dallas will host the NFC Championship game next week. Dallas wins, New York covers.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Local Politics Gone Wrong
This one is really long, but it just goes to show what can happen in politics, even at the local level, if we don't keep a keen eye on things!
Few things annoy me more than politics. Even fewer things annoy me more than dirty politics. And I find local politics to be the dirtiest! These are men and women with political aspirations who know that they will never be going to Washington. They also know that if they milk the system, the worst they'd get is a couple of years. Perhaps they start out meaning well, but many of them see the dollar sign at the end of the political rainbow.
I've railed about an excellent example of this that occurred in Connecticut a few years ago. (The state eventually won, forcing out the homeowners and allowing the land to be developed by a private developer. I'm sure no one's pockets were lined in that fiasco!) Funny thing, I stumble upon yet another perfect example of local politics flexing imaginary muscles. Wouldn't you know it, it's happening in Connecticut! In the small town of Farmington.
Farmington has a "Planning & Zoning" department that makes laws about what you can and cannot do on your own property. Basically, the entire town is a condo association where the citizens don't really have a say regarding the regulations. One of the "laws" they have on the books is one that states that if you have a trailer/recreational vehicle of any kind (travel trailer, motorhome, boat, etc) it must be stored behind the longest rear wall of your home. Mind you, there are people in this town who don't have enough room to store their 30ft trailer so that it is entirely behind the longest rear wall of their home. The town is effectively saying that these people are not allowed to have such a vehicle.
But wait, it gets worse. Not only does the town invade it's citizen's privacy by dictating what they can and can't do on the property they own and pay taxes on, but they have the gaul to engage in selective enforcement regarding who they will and won't force to comply with the zoning regulation! One person faces fines because their boat is parked in their drive way while another doesn't even know the regulation exists because they've never been bothered about the 38ft fifth wheel they've got in their front yard.
This is the foundation of the two stories that I've come across that make me livid. There are at least two Farmington residents who are being forced to comply with these regulations even though they are exempt due to the grandfather clause. People already engaged in an activity that is now forbidden are grandfathered in and are not required to comply. For example, if the driving age were increased to 19 years of age, anyone between the ages of 16 and 19 who already had their licenses would be "grandfathered" in. They would not be forced to return their driver's licenses. Now, this regulation has been around for about 20 years. Which means anyone who's grandfathered has been a Farmington resident for a long, looong time. Which also means these people aren't the youngest residents.
It doesn't end there. The power hungry local government representative has been informing these residents that they need to file an appeal. The problem is, if they file the appeal they waive their grandfather right and place themselves within the bounds of the regulation!
I found two stories regarding a 30 year resident who is an older single mom of two and a 40 year resident who is an 80 year old grandfather. Both of these people have been slammed with fines and citations because of the locations of their trailers that are not subject to the regulation. Both of these people have been purposefully misinformed by the Planning and Zoning department in the hopes that they will comply and unknowingly waive their grandfather rights.
All this from a town that charges so much in property taxes that the elderly are being forced to sell their homes and leave. This from a town who's budget is 83 million dollars this year (71 million from property taxes). There are just over 25,000 people living in this town! That's over $2,840 per person! Not even per household! (Wikipedia estimates there were about 9,000 households in 2005. That'd be nearly $8,000 per household!) Farmington really needs to further harass their elderly? They need to extort more money from them from fines that never should have been issued? They need to deceive them into giving up a grandfather right they have a legal claim to?
Farmington should be ashamed of themselves. And these pitiful power hungry local politicians need to find something better to do with their time and energy.
The CBS affiliate in Connecticut covered one of the stories. Read about it here.
Too bad Farmington just had their elections. The entire town council should be voted out. Not only are they allowing the Planning and Zoning representative to take these underhanded actions, but they couldn't even approve a mill rate freeze for senior citizens. What a joke. What does a town of 25,000 need with $83,000,000 per year?
Oh, one final thing. They only increased the mill rate by 2.4% this year. Somehow this was something that the council deserved a pat on the back for because they didn't raise it any further.
Few things annoy me more than politics. Even fewer things annoy me more than dirty politics. And I find local politics to be the dirtiest! These are men and women with political aspirations who know that they will never be going to Washington. They also know that if they milk the system, the worst they'd get is a couple of years. Perhaps they start out meaning well, but many of them see the dollar sign at the end of the political rainbow.
I've railed about an excellent example of this that occurred in Connecticut a few years ago. (The state eventually won, forcing out the homeowners and allowing the land to be developed by a private developer. I'm sure no one's pockets were lined in that fiasco!) Funny thing, I stumble upon yet another perfect example of local politics flexing imaginary muscles. Wouldn't you know it, it's happening in Connecticut! In the small town of Farmington.
Farmington has a "Planning & Zoning" department that makes laws about what you can and cannot do on your own property. Basically, the entire town is a condo association where the citizens don't really have a say regarding the regulations. One of the "laws" they have on the books is one that states that if you have a trailer/recreational vehicle of any kind (travel trailer, motorhome, boat, etc) it must be stored behind the longest rear wall of your home. Mind you, there are people in this town who don't have enough room to store their 30ft trailer so that it is entirely behind the longest rear wall of their home. The town is effectively saying that these people are not allowed to have such a vehicle.
But wait, it gets worse. Not only does the town invade it's citizen's privacy by dictating what they can and can't do on the property they own and pay taxes on, but they have the gaul to engage in selective enforcement regarding who they will and won't force to comply with the zoning regulation! One person faces fines because their boat is parked in their drive way while another doesn't even know the regulation exists because they've never been bothered about the 38ft fifth wheel they've got in their front yard.
This is the foundation of the two stories that I've come across that make me livid. There are at least two Farmington residents who are being forced to comply with these regulations even though they are exempt due to the grandfather clause. People already engaged in an activity that is now forbidden are grandfathered in and are not required to comply. For example, if the driving age were increased to 19 years of age, anyone between the ages of 16 and 19 who already had their licenses would be "grandfathered" in. They would not be forced to return their driver's licenses. Now, this regulation has been around for about 20 years. Which means anyone who's grandfathered has been a Farmington resident for a long, looong time. Which also means these people aren't the youngest residents.
It doesn't end there. The power hungry local government representative has been informing these residents that they need to file an appeal. The problem is, if they file the appeal they waive their grandfather right and place themselves within the bounds of the regulation!
I found two stories regarding a 30 year resident who is an older single mom of two and a 40 year resident who is an 80 year old grandfather. Both of these people have been slammed with fines and citations because of the locations of their trailers that are not subject to the regulation. Both of these people have been purposefully misinformed by the Planning and Zoning department in the hopes that they will comply and unknowingly waive their grandfather rights.
All this from a town that charges so much in property taxes that the elderly are being forced to sell their homes and leave. This from a town who's budget is 83 million dollars this year (71 million from property taxes). There are just over 25,000 people living in this town! That's over $2,840 per person! Not even per household! (Wikipedia estimates there were about 9,000 households in 2005. That'd be nearly $8,000 per household!) Farmington really needs to further harass their elderly? They need to extort more money from them from fines that never should have been issued? They need to deceive them into giving up a grandfather right they have a legal claim to?
Farmington should be ashamed of themselves. And these pitiful power hungry local politicians need to find something better to do with their time and energy.
The CBS affiliate in Connecticut covered one of the stories. Read about it here.
Too bad Farmington just had their elections. The entire town council should be voted out. Not only are they allowing the Planning and Zoning representative to take these underhanded actions, but they couldn't even approve a mill rate freeze for senior citizens. What a joke. What does a town of 25,000 need with $83,000,000 per year?
Oh, one final thing. They only increased the mill rate by 2.4% this year. Somehow this was something that the council deserved a pat on the back for because they didn't raise it any further.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The American Voter
Today, I had a conversation with the quintesencial American voter.
One of the first things she said after mentioning the Iowa caucuses was that she was voting for Clinton. "We don't want another Republican in office, that's for sure!" She said.
Ok, I'm listening.
You see, she's from Nevada and she proceeded to go on a 7 minute tyraid about how the illegals are destroying her state. They are taking jobs, not paying taxes, taking housing, and using undeserved state programs. "They drive up in their 2007 Cadilacs and get their food stamp cards." She went on to say that there were a whole bunch of them living in the low income housing developement near her neighborhood and that she, and all of her neighbors, had been robbed by the illegals.
Now, was she being racist? Yes. Is it a guarentee that they were robbed by illegals? No. Was she sure that the problem of the illegals was the most important issue for this election? Yes.
As I was at work, I was unable to betray my own leanings. So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that, have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
The American voter casts their ballot based on criteria at which I can't even venture a guess. The issues? There's a novel idea!
I can't help but think of the time of Judges and Kings, when the Lord gave them over to the desires of their hearts! Dear God, no!
One of the first things she said after mentioning the Iowa caucuses was that she was voting for Clinton. "We don't want another Republican in office, that's for sure!" She said.
Ok, I'm listening.
You see, she's from Nevada and she proceeded to go on a 7 minute tyraid about how the illegals are destroying her state. They are taking jobs, not paying taxes, taking housing, and using undeserved state programs. "They drive up in their 2007 Cadilacs and get their food stamp cards." She went on to say that there were a whole bunch of them living in the low income housing developement near her neighborhood and that she, and all of her neighbors, had been robbed by the illegals.
Now, was she being racist? Yes. Is it a guarentee that they were robbed by illegals? No. Was she sure that the problem of the illegals was the most important issue for this election? Yes.
As I was at work, I was unable to betray my own leanings. So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that, have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
The American voter casts their ballot based on criteria at which I can't even venture a guess. The issues? There's a novel idea!
I can't help but think of the time of Judges and Kings, when the Lord gave them over to the desires of their hearts! Dear God, no!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Kids these days
Today's youth have it so hard! I was listening to one complain about her older brother the other day. She said, "It stinks! He listens to his Ipod so loud in the car that, even though he sits behind me in the mini van, I can hardly watch the movie!"
I don't think there's anything else I have to say about that.
I don't think there's anything else I have to say about that.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Let the NFL Playoffs begin!
As you may have noticed, I did not do a week 16 power ranking. This is because when so much of the playoffs are set teams rest their players and often lose games they wouldn't normally lose. As I grade my power rankings based on the results of the games the next week it would have been impossible to grade a week 16 power ranking. I hope you understand.
However, now that the NFL regular season is over, I've taken a look at my NFL preview post and here are the results of how I did:
Here are the standings for each division. Those teams in bold are the ones that I had selected before the season began:
NFC
Division Winners
Dallas Cowboys (Bye)
Green Bay Packers (Bye)
Seattle Seahawks
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Wild Card Teams
New York Giants
Washington Redskins
AFC
Division Winners
New England Patriots (Bye)
Indianapolis Colts (Bye)
San Diego Chargers
Pittsburgh Steelers
Wild Card Teams
Jacksonville Jaguars
Tennessee Titans
If I award one point for each division winner, one point for correctly awarding the bye week, one point for each wild card team, and one point for correct division to provide a wild card team then there would be 20 possible points. I would have earned 8 points. That's 40%. Not too terrible.
here's how I stand in regards to my original playoff predictions: Both of my Super Bowl teams are still alive. Three of my four Conference teams still have a chance. Five of my eight Division teams are in the playoffs. But I only have two of the Wild Card Weekend teams in the playoffs. If I award 5 points for a Super Bowl team, 3 points for a conference championship team, 2 points for a division team and 1 point for a wild card weekend team, there would be 46 possible points. I'd have 31. That's 67%. Much better!
So, with the Wild Card weekend teams set, here's how I see the playoffs playing out:
NFC
Wild Card Weekend
NYG @ TB winner TB
WASH @ SEA winner WASH
Division
WASH @ DAL winner DAL
TB @ GB winner GB
Conference
GB @ DAL winner DAL
AFC
Wild Card Weekend
JAX @ PITT winner JAX
TN @ SD winner SD
Division
JAX @ NE winner NE
SD @ INDY winner SD
Conference
SD @ NE winner NE
Super Bowl
DAL vs NE
winner
NE
And here is a brief power ranking for the 12 teams in the playoffs:
New England
The rankings will continue until the Super Bowl!
However, now that the NFL regular season is over, I've taken a look at my NFL preview post and here are the results of how I did:
Here are the standings for each division. Those teams in bold are the ones that I had selected before the season began:
NFC
Division Winners
Dallas Cowboys (Bye)
Green Bay Packers (Bye)
Seattle Seahawks
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Wild Card Teams
New York Giants
Washington Redskins
AFC
Division Winners
New England Patriots (Bye)
Indianapolis Colts (Bye)
San Diego Chargers
Pittsburgh Steelers
Wild Card Teams
Jacksonville Jaguars
Tennessee Titans
If I award one point for each division winner, one point for correctly awarding the bye week, one point for each wild card team, and one point for correct division to provide a wild card team then there would be 20 possible points. I would have earned 8 points. That's 40%. Not too terrible.
here's how I stand in regards to my original playoff predictions: Both of my Super Bowl teams are still alive. Three of my four Conference teams still have a chance. Five of my eight Division teams are in the playoffs. But I only have two of the Wild Card Weekend teams in the playoffs. If I award 5 points for a Super Bowl team, 3 points for a conference championship team, 2 points for a division team and 1 point for a wild card weekend team, there would be 46 possible points. I'd have 31. That's 67%. Much better!
So, with the Wild Card weekend teams set, here's how I see the playoffs playing out:
NFC
Wild Card Weekend
NYG @ TB winner TB
WASH @ SEA winner WASH
Division
WASH @ DAL winner DAL
TB @ GB winner GB
Conference
GB @ DAL winner DAL
AFC
Wild Card Weekend
JAX @ PITT winner JAX
TN @ SD winner SD
Division
JAX @ NE winner NE
SD @ INDY winner SD
Conference
SD @ NE winner NE
Super Bowl
DAL vs NE
winner
NE
And here is a brief power ranking for the 12 teams in the playoffs:
New England
- Until they are defeated, they stay #1.
- Their loss to Washington won't happen again. This year, the 'Boys have proven they know how to win!
- What a winning streak! You look like the SD of old. Where were you for the first 10 games of the season?
- Their second string almost defeated the Titans. This team just won't go away.
- When asked what team they fear the most, Jacksonville received the second most votes. They'd be good enough to be a division winner if they played in the North or West!
- That loss to Chicago looked BAD! It was a cold weather game ~ Your speciality. How do you expect to win in Dallas?
- You've limped into the playoffs going 2-3 for your last 5. Unlucky draw getting Jacksonville first.
- I'd rather see Minnesota in the playoffs than you. You're lucky that you drew the Playoff inept Giants in the first round.
- Your performance against the Pats was impressive! Can you carry that momentum into the post season? I just don't see Eli playing to flawless games in a row, sorry.
- Another team that doesn't belong here. Yeah you won four in a row to make it, but it's also because the Vikings couldn't close it out. Very lucky that you drew Seattle, they're the only NFC team you can beat.
- It's one thing when Brady and Co. decide not to run the ball, it's another thing entirely when it's Hasselbeck Inc. Try playing in another division and you aren't even a wild card team.
- Yet another team that shouldn't be here. It's unfortunate that Cleveland choked against Cinci. You could barely beat the Colt's B-team. It doesn't matter who you play, you are one and done.
The rankings will continue until the Super Bowl!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Who has the Right to faith...the Left?
Once again, the left exposes their double standards and their true feelings towards honest faith. Presidential candidate I <3 Huckabee recently put out a Christmas "political" ad in which he basically apologizes for the number of political ads that have run this season and wishes viewers a merry Christmas season. In this ad there is a bookcase in the background that could possibly resemble a cross. Horror of horrors! Not only that, but he wishes people a "Merry Christmas" and references Jesus Christ as the reason for the holiday. Shame on him!
At the outrage announced by those who oppose such public displays of faith, I'd like to pose two questions. First, Huckabee (who is a minister! Should we really be surprised?) comes right out and says that the reason for Christmas is the birth of Christ. It's not implied, it's not suggested, it is explicit! However, the ire from those who like to find reasons to be offended have not mentioned this comment. Rather, their biggest beef is with the fact that the bookcase in the back is lit in such a way that it looks like a cross. (Better not have Hillary in front of any windows. You never know with those pesky panes...) So, my question is this: Why is the birth of Jesus so much less offensive than His death on the cross? The complaint is about the image of the cross, not the mention of Christ's birth. Perhaps people don't realize that He had to be born before He could die...
My second question is, perhaps, more to the point of this post. During this election season, the left has attempted to convince the common voter that they are just as religious as the next (conservative) candidate. Time magazine dedicated seven pages to the faith of the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates (and only the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates). They listed, among other things, their favorite hymns (75% of which were Amazing Grace (could that be because it's the only one they know?)) and favorite Bible verses (75% percent of which were John 3:16 (see previous parenthetical comment)). Yet here is a conservative candidate expressing the very same belief system that the liberals are claiming to possess ~ and he's getting slammed for it. I must have missed the memo that stated that once the left used a political strategy, the right was henceforth forbidden from employing it (even though said strategy was originated by the right.) How seriously are we expected to take the Democrats if while, on one hand, their candidates are expressing their deeply held religious convictions, and on the other they are decrying a Republican candidate because he does the same? (Isn't this the same party that likes to remove the nativity scenes from local greens?) What if the right attempted to gain votes by using the left's strategy of instilling false fear due to Global Warming and then denounced the left for actually using that same time-tested scheme? Wouldn't we be hearing about the two-faced-ness of the right? I've been listening to people complain about this "advertisement" (which is not an ad at all, simply a "season's greetings" after which he had to say that he "approved the message") for about a week now, yet I have not heard anyone mention the fact that the left is also proclaiming their faith in 2008.
It drives me a little crazy that the liberals of this country get to talk about of both sides of their mouths and no one blinks, yet anytime there even appears to be hypocrisy from the right it's the leading story on every news program.
So, the three questions (two that I've discussed above and another thrown in for good measure) that I seem unable to resolve in my head are:
Exactly what is so offensive about a child born in a stable to a young poor couple displaced by a government-required journey 2000 years ago?
Why is His cruel death as an innocent person hung on a tree between two thieves so much more offensive than his humble beginnings?
Finally, why is the left so upset about a conservative candidate not hiding his faith when they are claiming to believe the same message as him?
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
At the outrage announced by those who oppose such public displays of faith, I'd like to pose two questions. First, Huckabee (who is a minister! Should we really be surprised?) comes right out and says that the reason for Christmas is the birth of Christ. It's not implied, it's not suggested, it is explicit! However, the ire from those who like to find reasons to be offended have not mentioned this comment. Rather, their biggest beef is with the fact that the bookcase in the back is lit in such a way that it looks like a cross. (Better not have Hillary in front of any windows. You never know with those pesky panes...) So, my question is this: Why is the birth of Jesus so much less offensive than His death on the cross? The complaint is about the image of the cross, not the mention of Christ's birth. Perhaps people don't realize that He had to be born before He could die...
My second question is, perhaps, more to the point of this post. During this election season, the left has attempted to convince the common voter that they are just as religious as the next (conservative) candidate. Time magazine dedicated seven pages to the faith of the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates (and only the Liberal '08 Presidential candidates). They listed, among other things, their favorite hymns (75% of which were Amazing Grace (could that be because it's the only one they know?)) and favorite Bible verses (75% percent of which were John 3:16 (see previous parenthetical comment)). Yet here is a conservative candidate expressing the very same belief system that the liberals are claiming to possess ~ and he's getting slammed for it. I must have missed the memo that stated that once the left used a political strategy, the right was henceforth forbidden from employing it (even though said strategy was originated by the right.) How seriously are we expected to take the Democrats if while, on one hand, their candidates are expressing their deeply held religious convictions, and on the other they are decrying a Republican candidate because he does the same? (Isn't this the same party that likes to remove the nativity scenes from local greens?) What if the right attempted to gain votes by using the left's strategy of instilling false fear due to Global Warming and then denounced the left for actually using that same time-tested scheme? Wouldn't we be hearing about the two-faced-ness of the right? I've been listening to people complain about this "advertisement" (which is not an ad at all, simply a "season's greetings" after which he had to say that he "approved the message") for about a week now, yet I have not heard anyone mention the fact that the left is also proclaiming their faith in 2008.
It drives me a little crazy that the liberals of this country get to talk about of both sides of their mouths and no one blinks, yet anytime there even appears to be hypocrisy from the right it's the leading story on every news program.
So, the three questions (two that I've discussed above and another thrown in for good measure) that I seem unable to resolve in my head are:
Exactly what is so offensive about a child born in a stable to a young poor couple displaced by a government-required journey 2000 years ago?
Why is His cruel death as an innocent person hung on a tree between two thieves so much more offensive than his humble beginnings?
Finally, why is the left so upset about a conservative candidate not hiding his faith when they are claiming to believe the same message as him?
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?
Thursday, December 20, 2007
NFL Power Rankings Week 15
The post season is really taking shape now. There are six teams that advance to the dance in the NFL. Please feel free to not the two playoff bound teams that do not have the honor of being on Just My Opinion:Just the Facts. Also note that they are both division leaders. (You may further wish to note that one of them is leading a division from which zero players were selected for the Pro Bowl. Not one man from a team in the NFC South will be in Hawaii!) With out further ado (or further noting) here are this weeks Power Rankings:
1)New England (13-0) Last week: 1
I saw the most pitiful spectacle this week. Miami beat Baltimore in overtime to win their first game of the season. They certainly should have lost this game. Had Baltimore gone for the win in the closing seconds rather than the tie, that would most likely have ended it. Baltimore got the ball first in OT and missed a game winning field goal. Then, inexplicably, the Raven safeties decided to take a lunch break as the Dolphins ran a short slant across the middle designed to gain 5-7 yards that went for 64 yards, a TD, and the end of their pursuit of pestilence. The sad part (besides their actually winning) was the celebration they held in the end zone following the touchdown. You'd think they just won the Super Bowl, the Rose Bowl, or perhaps even some minor really long sponsored illogically named bowl (the Sunshine State Firestone Snow Tires Rogain Mary Kay Bowl). Or perhaps some major milestone was achieve as a team (the 1000 win for example). Nope, they are now 1-13 and they are celebrating because they are still mathematically capable of 3-13. It almost brings a tear to one's eye...
1)New England (13-0) Last week: 1
- It seems that the weather may be conspiring to prevent Brady from overtaking some of the records he's chasing this year. With the inclimate climate in Foxboro the Pats had to go to the ground to beat the Jets 20-10. That leaves Brady with needing over 330 passing yards per game to hold the single season passing record for yardage, and at least 2 TD Passes per game (both to Randy so he can break Rice's record) to have his name next to the single season TD Passing record over Peyton. This and the pursuit of perfection should be enough to keep the Pats playing hard (as though Belichick would allow anything else) as they cruise into the post season. Final Foes: 1-13 Miami and 9-5 Giants. You should go 2-0. That's what most of us are hoping for. Whether we like the Pats or not, we want to see history being made. (if the Jets really wanted to hurt NE, they should have waited until this week to claim spying. That way we'd look back and question the whole season rather than the first game. Because they were caught week one, we can assume they've accomplished this feat without the use of any extra cameras on the sidelines. Don Shula thinks there should be an asterisk by this season because of "spy-gate." Of course he does! He was the coach of the '72 Dolphins!)
- Football fans say the NFL is more exciting because every game counts. Few things could prove that more true than last weeks match-ups. With a huge loss by Dallas there is a slight glimpse of hope that the 'Boys may have to head to GB for the playoffs! If Dallas loses either of the two games remaining and you don't, it's yours! And a 33-14 win over STL is some pretty good momentum. Final foes: 5-9 Chicago & 6-8 Detroit
- A crushing defeat! Not only was it a loss, but it was to your division rival Eagles! TO must have been livid to lose to his former team! It was ugly, too. You didn't have the weather to contend with like Pitt/Jax, NE/NYJ, or Buff/Cleve. Just Tony's new girlfriend. Some say it was because your new flame Jessica Simpson was in the stadium that you played so terribly. They cite the fact that you played awful the last time a gal pal came to watch when Carrie Underwood was in the luxury boxes... Word of wisdom, tell them to watch it on your wide-screen plasma HD TV, they can see you better there anyway! You've got a playoff berth, but you're fighting for that number 1 spot in the NFC. Final Foes: 6-8 Carolina & 7-7 Washington
- Well, you locked up the #2 seed in the AFC with a 21-14 win over Oakland. I'm not sure what's happening with your team. The score was 10-3 for most of the game and Oakland isn't very good. In fact, at one point they were leading 14-13 late in the game! Having to come from behind against the Raiders is no way to start the playoffs. Looks like you may be missing Harrison more than we first thought. Final Foes: 7-7 Houston & 8-6 Tennessee
- JMO:JTF is proud of the call they made regarding your game. Pittsburgh had been undefeated at home this year at 7-0. You were reeling from the INDY loss and Pitt had something to prove after losing to NE. Yet, JMO:JTF was among the few that said that you, the underdog, was going to upset the big bad Steelers on their home turf, and you did! It was a close game, but you came out on top and those are the ones that are key to win! Finish strong and carry some of that fire into the hunt for the Bowl! Final Foes: 4-10 Oakland & 7-7 Houston
- While I expected you to send the Bears into early hibernation, they nearly chased you back to Greenland! You managed to pull out a win but made far too many mistakes that really would have burned you against a playoff caliber team. While the win keeps you in the hunt for the last playoff spot in the NFC, you've got some other teams itching to see you falter. You face one next week as you line up against your Final Foes: 7-7 Washington & 6-8 Denver
- 51 points! It's an accomplishment to score over 40. 51! This is the SD we wanted to see all year! A potent LT, a high scoring offense, and a string of wins in a row! You're headed to the post season and let's hope you get farther this year than last. I dunno though, your previous coach did amazing in the regular season, then lost in the playoffs. Does that mean you new coach will do just the opposite? Final Foes: 6-8 Denver & 4-10 Oakland
- What came as a surprise to many was not one to JMO:JTF. With the Pro Bowl selections out and some of your key players being snubbed, maybe this will be bulletin board material to get them to play harder. Cleveland is breathing down your neck trying to take the division from you. You can hold them off if you win out, but they are playing like the Browns of old. Don't look back, they're right behind you! Final Foes: 3-11 St. Louis & 4-10 Baltimore
- As professionals, you hate having to play in that kind of weather. As a non-professional, I wish I could've bundled up and played an all out smash-yer-face-into-the-snow game of tackle football with my friends in a blizzard like that! An impressive win 8-0 over Buffalo. A kicker who aims 25 feet to the left of the uprights only to have the wind curve it back in and hit the support bar again! The way you've been playing, I would not want to face you in these last two weeks. The post season may be different due to the lack of playoff experience on your team. But right now you are entertaining, playing great, and almost in the playoffs for the first time in years! Final Foes: 5-9 Cincinnati & 4-10 San Fransisco
- Here comes the end of the year slide. It was quite surprising to see you lose 22-10 to Washington. You'll need some better luck in the future... I'd tell you to break a leg, but you've already got that covered! Shockey, Petitgout, Kiwanuka, and Ward all out with fractures or breaks to their fibula (one of the two bones that connects the knee to the ankle). These are four major keys to victory for you. One would almost think you could weather losing Manning better than those four! You haven't yet secured a post season slot. You have to win one more. Better do it this week because the week after isn't looking too good! Final Foes: 7-7 Buffalo & 14-0 New England
I saw the most pitiful spectacle this week. Miami beat Baltimore in overtime to win their first game of the season. They certainly should have lost this game. Had Baltimore gone for the win in the closing seconds rather than the tie, that would most likely have ended it. Baltimore got the ball first in OT and missed a game winning field goal. Then, inexplicably, the Raven safeties decided to take a lunch break as the Dolphins ran a short slant across the middle designed to gain 5-7 yards that went for 64 yards, a TD, and the end of their pursuit of pestilence. The sad part (besides their actually winning) was the celebration they held in the end zone following the touchdown. You'd think they just won the Super Bowl, the Rose Bowl, or perhaps even some minor really long sponsored illogically named bowl (the Sunshine State Firestone Snow Tires Rogain Mary Kay Bowl). Or perhaps some major milestone was achieve as a team (the 1000 win for example). Nope, they are now 1-13 and they are celebrating because they are still mathematically capable of 3-13. It almost brings a tear to one's eye...
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Non-Sports!
Ok, I've taken some time to post about non-sports things. Even though the Mitchel report is out (listing 83 MLB Players who have taken performance enhancing drugs) I'm going to stick to purely non-sports material. Here's the table of contents: The Writer's Strike, I Am Legend, Politics, ending with I'm not making this up
Writer's Strike: I think this is ridiculous! I really don't think the leaders of the Writer's Union thought this one out. I've been attempting to hold my tongue on this situation, but it's gone on too long for me to keep quiet any longer. First question: Why would the studios give in? What do they have to lose? Reality TV is just as big as it ever was with new shows debuting daily! (Clash of the Choirs, Crowned: the mother of all pageants, and The Next Great American Band to name a few) Let's not forget the barrage of game shows that are invading our homes! (Duel, Don't forget the lyrics, Singing Bee, and that true-or-no-money show) All this strike is doing is forcing the studios and producers to invent newer and dumber ways to make shows that don't require writers. The TV stations are running repeats and garnering about 80% of their regular audience so it's not hurting them too badly. Second question: What are they striking for? Internet and on demand airings of their show! They want to be paid for each one! How does this make any sense? I can log onto NBC.com and view an episode of the Office for free, so where do the writers think the studios are going to get the money to pay them for the viewing? Are they going to start charging for each access? Guess what, they're gonna have a lot fewer people accessing their shows! As I expected certain writers are "making deals" with their individual shows so they can start making some money again. This strike will have no effect on how this new medium is handled. And if the writers truly wanted to make a point, their signs should have been blank.
Movie review I Am Legend: I'd like to begin by saying that I'm glad I learned a few more details about this movie before I actually saw it. Had I not been alerted to this massive portion of the story I'd have felt completely misled, duped, and hoodwinked. The previews in absolutely no way inform the potential audience member what this movie is about. All we know is that it's Cast Away in New York City where the part of Tom Hanks is played by Will Smith and the part of Wilson is played by a dog. I Am Legend is actually supposed to be a suspenseful scary movie. But, like most modern scary films, every scare was cheap, with a sudden visual and loud noise. There were no clever reveals, no dramatic irony, no intelligent scary moments. I shouldn't expect anything more from a director whose only made music videos and the Keanu Reeves film Constantine. Before I begin with the spoilers, if you don't mind not actually knowing what a movie is about and enjoy stories that are too slow at times and don't take full advantage of each opportunity, then go see I Am Legend. Otherwise, wait for the DVD. OK CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILERS. Here's what I'm SO glad I found out: This is a Vampire movie! You read that correctly! The cure for cancer causes a sickness that becomes airborne and kills 95% of humanity. Of those that survive, 1% were immune, the other 4% illicit symptoms that resemble vampires: high susceptibility to UV light, aggression, hunger for blood. Will Smith was immune and is attempting to discover a cure. While the previews are misleading, the direction lacking, and the story contrived, the message is somewhat redeeming. If I so desired, I could uncover several Christian themes. There is a disease that seems to effect all of mankind. It takes one who is immune to it to spill his own blood to rescue everyone. Also, there was some discussion regarding God's hand in the catastrophe. The most memorable line referencing that is Will's when he says, "God didn't do this, we did this." True regarding sin as well. Lots of CGI, some philosophical moments, decent acting in the confines of a disappointing story. 2 stars out of 5. I say catch a matinee or wait for the DVD, don't drop a Hamilton on this one.
Politics: Joe Lieberman (D) just endorsed John McCain (R) for president. He didn't endorse a fellow Democrat, he didn't even endorse his Connecticut comrade Christopher Dodd (D)! Is the Democratic party leaving their moderate members in the dust? If McCain doesn't win the nomination, will Lieberman return to his side of the aisle and endorse the Blue State candidate? I hope not. Perhaps this is just payback for the Democratic party supporting his opponent as he ran for re-election. Lieberman lost in the primaries and was forced to run as an independent. When he won, he promptly changed back to the Democratic party so they'd retain their narrow margin in the Senate. Looks like someone hasn't forgotten... I love politics, it's so much like junior high it makes my face break out.
I'm not making this up: A doctor in NY who donated sperm to a lesbian colleague, so that she and her partner could have children, has been ordered to pay child support. Did I mention the boy is now 18 and headed off to college? The doctor admits that for the first few years of the boy's life he sent gifts and cards signing them "Dad." However, before he was a teenager, the boy's moms took him out of state. Since the move, the doctor has spoken to him about once every other year on the phone and has not sent any gifts or cards. This is nothing more than a despicable attempt to legally extort money from a man who did something he thought was a good deed. If you truly needed the money, why didn't you take this action 15 years ago? Why did you wait until at least 7 years after he stopped sending the cards? Is he taking the position away from someone else? There are two women raising this boy, is one of them his dad? What judge thought this was a good idea?! There are two lessons in this: 1) Always get it in writing! It was agreed verbally that the doctor would have no responcibility in raising the child, but he has no proof of that. 2) I have to agree with the doctor's lawyer when she said, "I guess it's true, no good deed goes unpunished!" (The articles that I've read list only one woman, I wonder where the other one is...) Just in case you are wondering, this isn't the only account of such preseedings. A court in Washington ruled that a donor is not liable for child support unless they signed something accepting some sort of responcibility. However, a court in Pennsylvania ruled that a man was responsible finacially because he purchase a gift for the child born due to his donation. And the situation that is most infuriating is that of a lesbian couple in the UK. They had a child with a donor, then they separated. Now the woman who has custody of the child is seeking child payments from the donor. Not the woman who had agreed to be a parent to this child, no no, that would make too much sense! Do we see the messes we create when we try to play god?
Any thoughts from my readers? Feel free to disagree, after all, these are just my opinion.
Writer's Strike: I think this is ridiculous! I really don't think the leaders of the Writer's Union thought this one out. I've been attempting to hold my tongue on this situation, but it's gone on too long for me to keep quiet any longer. First question: Why would the studios give in? What do they have to lose? Reality TV is just as big as it ever was with new shows debuting daily! (Clash of the Choirs, Crowned: the mother of all pageants, and The Next Great American Band to name a few) Let's not forget the barrage of game shows that are invading our homes! (Duel, Don't forget the lyrics, Singing Bee, and that true-or-no-money show) All this strike is doing is forcing the studios and producers to invent newer and dumber ways to make shows that don't require writers. The TV stations are running repeats and garnering about 80% of their regular audience so it's not hurting them too badly. Second question: What are they striking for? Internet and on demand airings of their show! They want to be paid for each one! How does this make any sense? I can log onto NBC.com and view an episode of the Office for free, so where do the writers think the studios are going to get the money to pay them for the viewing? Are they going to start charging for each access? Guess what, they're gonna have a lot fewer people accessing their shows! As I expected certain writers are "making deals" with their individual shows so they can start making some money again. This strike will have no effect on how this new medium is handled. And if the writers truly wanted to make a point, their signs should have been blank.
Movie review I Am Legend: I'd like to begin by saying that I'm glad I learned a few more details about this movie before I actually saw it. Had I not been alerted to this massive portion of the story I'd have felt completely misled, duped, and hoodwinked. The previews in absolutely no way inform the potential audience member what this movie is about. All we know is that it's Cast Away in New York City where the part of Tom Hanks is played by Will Smith and the part of Wilson is played by a dog. I Am Legend is actually supposed to be a suspenseful scary movie. But, like most modern scary films, every scare was cheap, with a sudden visual and loud noise. There were no clever reveals, no dramatic irony, no intelligent scary moments. I shouldn't expect anything more from a director whose only made music videos and the Keanu Reeves film Constantine. Before I begin with the spoilers, if you don't mind not actually knowing what a movie is about and enjoy stories that are too slow at times and don't take full advantage of each opportunity, then go see I Am Legend. Otherwise, wait for the DVD. OK CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILERS. Here's what I'm SO glad I found out: This is a Vampire movie! You read that correctly! The cure for cancer causes a sickness that becomes airborne and kills 95% of humanity. Of those that survive, 1% were immune, the other 4% illicit symptoms that resemble vampires: high susceptibility to UV light, aggression, hunger for blood. Will Smith was immune and is attempting to discover a cure. While the previews are misleading, the direction lacking, and the story contrived, the message is somewhat redeeming. If I so desired, I could uncover several Christian themes. There is a disease that seems to effect all of mankind. It takes one who is immune to it to spill his own blood to rescue everyone. Also, there was some discussion regarding God's hand in the catastrophe. The most memorable line referencing that is Will's when he says, "God didn't do this, we did this." True regarding sin as well. Lots of CGI, some philosophical moments, decent acting in the confines of a disappointing story. 2 stars out of 5. I say catch a matinee or wait for the DVD, don't drop a Hamilton on this one.
Politics: Joe Lieberman (D) just endorsed John McCain (R) for president. He didn't endorse a fellow Democrat, he didn't even endorse his Connecticut comrade Christopher Dodd (D)! Is the Democratic party leaving their moderate members in the dust? If McCain doesn't win the nomination, will Lieberman return to his side of the aisle and endorse the Blue State candidate? I hope not. Perhaps this is just payback for the Democratic party supporting his opponent as he ran for re-election. Lieberman lost in the primaries and was forced to run as an independent. When he won, he promptly changed back to the Democratic party so they'd retain their narrow margin in the Senate. Looks like someone hasn't forgotten... I love politics, it's so much like junior high it makes my face break out.
I'm not making this up: A doctor in NY who donated sperm to a lesbian colleague, so that she and her partner could have children, has been ordered to pay child support. Did I mention the boy is now 18 and headed off to college? The doctor admits that for the first few years of the boy's life he sent gifts and cards signing them "Dad." However, before he was a teenager, the boy's moms took him out of state. Since the move, the doctor has spoken to him about once every other year on the phone and has not sent any gifts or cards. This is nothing more than a despicable attempt to legally extort money from a man who did something he thought was a good deed. If you truly needed the money, why didn't you take this action 15 years ago? Why did you wait until at least 7 years after he stopped sending the cards? Is he taking the position away from someone else? There are two women raising this boy, is one of them his dad? What judge thought this was a good idea?! There are two lessons in this: 1) Always get it in writing! It was agreed verbally that the doctor would have no responcibility in raising the child, but he has no proof of that. 2) I have to agree with the doctor's lawyer when she said, "I guess it's true, no good deed goes unpunished!" (The articles that I've read list only one woman, I wonder where the other one is...) Just in case you are wondering, this isn't the only account of such preseedings. A court in Washington ruled that a donor is not liable for child support unless they signed something accepting some sort of responcibility. However, a court in Pennsylvania ruled that a man was responsible finacially because he purchase a gift for the child born due to his donation. And the situation that is most infuriating is that of a lesbian couple in the UK. They had a child with a donor, then they separated. Now the woman who has custody of the child is seeking child payments from the donor. Not the woman who had agreed to be a parent to this child, no no, that would make too much sense! Do we see the messes we create when we try to play god?
Any thoughts from my readers? Feel free to disagree, after all, these are just my opinion.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
NFL Power Rankings Week 14
The playoff picture is shaping up as several teams have already clinched their divisions. A few remain undecided and the wild card teams are hoping that they get to go to the big dance! Here's how the teams currently sit on the Just My Opinion:Just the Facts Power Rankings:
1)New England (13-0) Last week: 1
And Miami remains winless! Only Baltimore, New England and Cinci remain. Looks like they've one real chance left, the same week the Pats play for perfection!
1)New England (13-0) Last week: 1
- 14-13 at the half. A Brady to Moss to Brady to Gaffney bomb to start the second half and you never looked back! Your fans must have enjoyed watching you return to the form they've grown accustomed to this season. Two slam dunks with division "rivals" Miami and New York up next. Then a trip to the Meadow Lands as the New York Giants remain the final hurdle on your journey to the perfect season. I think 13-0 is an ok time to start seriously considering that it may actually happen! Brady needs 5 more TD passes to surpass Mannings single season record and Moss needs to catch 4 of them to surpass Rices record. Watch for both to happen against the Jets as they experience the payback for "Spy-gate!"
- WOW! 18 seconds left when you took the lead! This win was solely due to the ineptitude of the Detroit Coaching staff! They gave you too much time at the end of the first half, as you scored during the final minute, and then they let you do it again in the final seconds of the second half, on a play that any Dallas fan with eyes knew was coming: Romo to Witten up the left seam! The only reason you don't drop is because of the thumping you gave GB last week! The good teams win late, but that was pushing it!
- Another powerful win as you clinch your division! 38-7 vs the Oakland Recliners is a bit more than expected. Perhaps you shouldn't have been running up the score like that. Good momentum, though... You've gotta keep your team focused as you head into 3 weeks of relatively meaningless games.
- Wow, talk about piling it on! 30-0 before the end of the first half! Baltimore must have used all they had in their attempt to defeat the best team in the NFL last week and had nothing to offer the Colts. They looked pretty bad out there. With the first round bye basically in the bag, you too have to find a way to motivate your players, especially as you face your upcoming daunting opponents. With contests against such foes as Oakland and Houston, I really don't expect you to lose again. (Which means you'll probably drop the final game of the season to TN at home. You usually surprise everyone by doing things like that!
- You made quite a rebound! Although, taking your aggression out on CAR for the whuppin' you got from Indy doesn't make up for the loss. Right now you are the front runner for a WC spot, but you have to keep winning to stay there! Even though you do face Oakland (It seems like everyone on the list has the benefit of playing them as the season winds down) you also have to over come Pittsburgh and Houston at home. They just beat TB so don't count that one before the final horn!
- You proved that you belong this high in the rankings by squaring the 49ers 27-7! You have a four game winning streak, you've taken over the second WC spot in the NFC, and in the last 3 games, you've out-scored your opponent 110-34! You may only be 7-6 but you are a force to be reckoned with and I would not want to face you at this point in the season!
- Don't feel bad. No one really expected you to win. And if your safety Anthony Smith hadn't guaranteed it, no one really would have noticed that you didn't. I saw him get beat deep twice! Which means he probably gave up another play or two that I missed. You better focus more on playing and less on talking as you have Jacksonville and Baltimore yet to overcome if you want to keep your lead in the division over the Cleveland Browns!
- Welcome back! You haven't visited us since you were removed having lost to Jacksonville the week after you defeated Indy! However, after looking at your schedule and the games you've won, and after noticing that you are on a 3 game winning streak, and after realizing that though Seattle has a better record, they have a much weaker schedule, JMO:JTF has decided to have you back on! You really ought to finish out 2-1 with Detroit Denver and Oakland up next. Looks like though you started 1-3 that you just might be headed to the post season!
- Squeaked by the Eagles. You haven't yet locked down that place in the playoffs and there are a lot of hungry NFC teams waiting to take your reservations! Division foe Washington would love to be a spoiler and Buffalo has been a hit or miss team this year. You don't know which Bills team you are going to face! You can just count the final game against the Pats as a loss right now! is 11-5 enough?
- The Jets could have won this week. Lucky for you they stuck to their plan of consistently finding a way to lose! With Buffalo, Cinci, and SF as your final showdowns, it's difficult to say for certain that you are in. You nearly have to win out. Can you do it?
And Miami remains winless! Only Baltimore, New England and Cinci remain. Looks like they've one real chance left, the same week the Pats play for perfection!
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
NFL Power Rankings Week 13
Oh my! I thought that I had posted this but there it sat in "draft" status (just like Marcus Vick) on my blog. Terribly sorry! Well, to end the suspence, here is what Just My Opinion: Just The Facts said before all of this week's games were played:
1)New England (12-0) Last week: 1
And Miami remains winless! With Buffalo, Baltimore, New England and Cinci left. They better win this week or their last chance is against the Bungles!
ok, so, again, sorry it's so late. Next weeks rankings will be up in a day or so
1)New England (12-0) Last week: 1
- Two weeks of mortality! Is this just a "Market correction?" No better time to do it than against teams that shouldn't beat you to begin with! Of course, you can't afford to play that way against Pittsburgh. Well, maybe you can, they fell a notch or two this week anyway. Win this week and only the Giants stand the way of perfection!
- No problem against Green Bay! I never doubted it. I didn't see it, but I never doubted it. Even though 3 of your last 4 are on the road, facing a spiralling Detroit and an up-again-down-again Philly, and a bottom of the pack 'Skins team, you should have a good chance of going 15-1. Carolina looks to be the only real opponent you have left. 15-1... What a year to do that! only to be over shadowed by a 16-0 Pats and an 0-16 Dolphins!
- Tough to win when you lose an MVP candidate. Though surprising sucess from his back-up! You also have a rose-garden stroll into the post season: Oakland, at St. Louis, at Chicago, and Detriot at home. Your only two losses could be to the only two teams that have been above you on this ranking the entire season! That says quite a bit about you as a team (and just a little about me as a judge of NFL power...)
- I'm just going to start every description of you with "False start, Offense, #18, 5 yard penalty, repeat the down." until someone actually calls the rule! Ok, so I was wrong. You handled the Jags relatively easily. It'll be interesting to see how you manage in the post season this year. My calculations give you a first round bye, but you know how much you hate coming into Foxboro in the winter. Hey Peyton, I have your Super Bowl tickets here. Do you want the 50 yd line or luxury box?
- Come on! You are built specifically to defeat your divisional rival! When was the last time you did it?! Was it while Dungy was coaching in Tampa Bay? Or while Peyton was playing PeeWee football?! You've got a good chance at a wild card spot and if you make it past the Chargers (the team you'd likely play) you'll have another shot at Indy (Providing Cleveland defeats Pittsburgh. Which is possible, we'll get a preview after Pitt losses to Brady, Moss, and Co.
- To debut at number 6 on the chart means I've missed something! Your late season surge is paramount to that of the Rockies or Phillies of the MLB (More the Rockies though, as the Phillies "surge" required a Mets "self destruct" whereas yours requires no other team to lose.) You shrunk the Giants and dismantled Detroit! Winners of three in a row and on your way to the playoffs! Where did you come from (and don't say Scandinavia!)?
- If you had been playing any other team besides the Bungles (save Miami) you would not have won that game! Wille Parker put the ball on the ground 7 seven times! Twice recovered by the Steelers, once incorrectly overturned by official review, and four times turned over. What did the men in the orange jumpsuits do with it? NOTHING! Lost to the Jets? Won 3-0 over Miami? I don't expect this team to give NE a hard time, though there are many who think the streak ends next week. I'm pretty sure New England will be 13-0 when they face the Dolphins and Jets in weeks 14 and 15.
- Proving once again why there are only three NFC teams above you on the list, you easily handled Chicago. I don't expect too much trouble from division rival Philly this week as they've been stumbling recently. Looks like a wild card spot for you, can you over-come last year's unfortunate finish against Seattle? Or will it be one and done?
- Talk about sneaking under the radar. You haven't even done anything amazing except win and take the division. Let's see what you can do now that you are under the microscope of some JMO: JTF scrutiny
- You lost to Arizona! Normally, that's grounds for banishment from the list, but no one else did anything worthy of addition. That and I've been impressed with your recent victories. Keep it up and you may see post season play!
And Miami remains winless! With Buffalo, Baltimore, New England and Cinci left. They better win this week or their last chance is against the Bungles!
ok, so, again, sorry it's so late. Next weeks rankings will be up in a day or so
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)