Anyone else feel like there are times that your cat is looking at you wondering how they are going to destroy you? "Do I make it quick and painless? Or do I make him suffer? Well... while I'm deciding I'll just knock over this plant. It has begun..."
A conservative paper at Harvard was the first paper to reprint the caricatures of Muhammad. Liberals decried this saying that it was "disrespectful" to Muslims. Disrespectful. Let's see what other groups the new is "disrespectful" to: DSS, The Catholic church, the government, Conservatives, Democrats who aren't liberal enough, Democrats who are too liberal, other news outlets, celebrities, to name just a few. So, on behalf of liberals everywhere, I hereby announce a new standard for newspapers everywhere: You are not allowed to report anything that could be construed as disrespectful to anyone.
The Olympic opening ceremony had Yoko Ono (the woman who broke up the Beetles) read a poem about peace written by her late husband John Lennon. Then they had Peter Gabriel sing "Imagine" also by Lennon. Does anyone realize that this song is not about peace. This song is about Communism (Socialism at best). What are we imagining? No countries, no religion, no heaven, no hell, no possessions, and yet no need for greed or hunger. Please note: this song does not say "Imagine there's no government. No leaders in this land. Imagine there's no tyrants, no rulers with iron hands..." So what I'm hearing is a religionless government that owns everything and controls the world, giving to each according to their need. Shame on the Olympics. Without capitalism these games would not exist. Sing about peace all you want, but leave Communism and Socialism outside of the Stadio Olympico.
Food for thought: In one weekend both of the following occur: Vice President accidentally shots a fellow republican in a hunting accident. Former Vice President and Former Presidential candidate Al Gore is in Saudi Arabia for an economic forum making statements selling out his government in an attempt to get Saudi support for his party. The current Veep contacts the media and informs them of the occurrence. The former veep says that Saudi's are being "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable." In the post 9/11 America, does anyone think that breaking federal laws by overstaying your visa is a minor offense? Also, I'd like to see the "foreign" section of our detention centers. Silly me, I thought we kept all law breakers in the same place. Day after day I hear about the unfortunate hunting incident. I stumbled on the Gore story deep in the paper and have yet to hear of it on TV or radio.
Just a few quick thoughts, courtesy of Just My Opinion.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Hate Crimes?
Hate Crime: "Crime of aggravated assault, arson, burglary, criminal homicide, motor vehicle theft, robbery, sex offenses, and/or crime involving bodily injury in which the victim was intentionally selected because of the victims' actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability."
Recently nine churches have been burned to the ground. No one has mentioned the term "hate crime." Well, that's not entirely true. I heard someone say that if those churches were burned because they are primarily black churches then they would be considered "hate crimes."
A few buildings in Denmark have been attacked by Muslim rioters because the papers printed a picture of Mohammad. Is this a "hate crime?" These people have been targeted because of their perceived (and actual) non-Islamic religion.
Why are these two occurrences not being labeled as hate crimes? Is it because hate crimes can only be perpetrated against people that it's unfashionable to repress? Who do we often hear of hate crimes being committed against? Homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and Muslims (since 9/11). If these churches were synagogues or Mosques, would they be hate crimes? If the rioters were burning down a gay bar, would it be a hate crime? What if gays were torching the homes of black people?
I recognize that the arson by the Muslims is occurring in another country that may or may not have such laws. If it were here, in America, does the sheer number of people involved prevent it from being a hate crime? What if a group of incensed African-American citizens attacked a despicable white supremacist group?
Either hate crimes need to be labeled as such every time they occur, or the definition needs to be reworked.
The above is, as always, just my opinion.
Recently nine churches have been burned to the ground. No one has mentioned the term "hate crime." Well, that's not entirely true. I heard someone say that if those churches were burned because they are primarily black churches then they would be considered "hate crimes."
A few buildings in Denmark have been attacked by Muslim rioters because the papers printed a picture of Mohammad. Is this a "hate crime?" These people have been targeted because of their perceived (and actual) non-Islamic religion.
Why are these two occurrences not being labeled as hate crimes? Is it because hate crimes can only be perpetrated against people that it's unfashionable to repress? Who do we often hear of hate crimes being committed against? Homosexuals, blacks, Jews, and Muslims (since 9/11). If these churches were synagogues or Mosques, would they be hate crimes? If the rioters were burning down a gay bar, would it be a hate crime? What if gays were torching the homes of black people?
I recognize that the arson by the Muslims is occurring in another country that may or may not have such laws. If it were here, in America, does the sheer number of people involved prevent it from being a hate crime? What if a group of incensed African-American citizens attacked a despicable white supremacist group?
Either hate crimes need to be labeled as such every time they occur, or the definition needs to be reworked.
The above is, as always, just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Disgracing the King and Kudos for... Clinton?
Yesterday, once again, liberals proved that they have no tact, respect, or manners.
The memorial service for Coretta Scott King was held yesterday and everyone who thinks they are someone was there: Ted Kennedy, President Bush I, President Bush II, Carter, Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, among many many others.
It turns out that President Bush rearranged his schedule to attend this funeral, only to hear liberal Democrats take political potshots at him.
While President Bush II actually remembered Mrs. King in his remarks, several other speakers felt that this was an appropriate time to spew their political rhetoric.
These people were mostly people who recognize that this may be the only national stage they have in many years and simply couldn't pass up on this opportunity.
Reverend Joseph Lowery felt this was an acceptable time to mention that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "But there are weapons of mass distraction here." he continued. Yes, there are. You! Your ignorance and lack of respect for the deceased is the distraction. Your need to be in the spotlight is the distraction. Take a seat!
Following the "good" Reverend was former President Jimmy Carter Jr. He chose to attempt to jab at President Bush II by commenting on the "covert wire tapping" that the Kings had to deal with during the civil rights movement. The former President said, "It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." Um, Mr. President, there are two problems with that. 1) Domestic wire tapping is illegal. President Bush II has not engaged in this. All of the wire tapping that has occurred has been conversations with suspected terrorists in other countries. 2) It was your own party that tapped the King's phone! It was your party's heroes! Their brother is two chairs away from you! It was Jack and Robert Kennedy! Maybe while you are saving tortoises in the Everglades and hammering nails in the Sudan you could take a history lesson or two! Take a seat!
Many people cheered at these comments. Proving that the lack of social graces in the liberal left does not sit solely with the elite. It trickles down to the underlings. Those who would accept and encourage inappropriate behavior at a memorial service for a great woman!
President Bush and his father sitting just behind the podium, shook their heads slightly at some of the criticism. I believe that their actions were less concerned with what was being said, but more bothered by the abuse and desecration of the venue. That people would use this time of honor and recollection for their own personal gain.
Then, an amazing thing happened! Former President Clinton showed some class! He rose with his wife and walked to the podium. He said that he was honored to be with his current President and former Presidents. At this point, some nut job liberal who doesn't understand the meaning of tact shouted "and future President!" of course suggesting that Hillary had some sort of a chance at the White House.
Former President Clinton (I highlight "former" because many liberals seem to forget this and enjoy referring to him as "President Clinton" and referring to the current President as "Mr. Bush." Hommie don't play that.) took this opportunity to chastise his own party.
"I want to remind everyone why we are here. We aren't here to chastise. We aren't here to argue politics. Let's remember that there is a real woman here. A woman we are here to remember and to honor."
Good for you Mr. Clinton! Thank you for pointing your misdirected party back in the proper direction for the occasion. And thank you to the rest of the liberals for proving that the only thing you truly care about is power and pontification. If you truly cared about the civil rights movement that you so loudly support, you would have respected the gravity of the ceremony that you were attending, not used it as a soap box to spout from. Thank you for once again separating yourself from the average American. Please feel free to continue with this behavior.
But, what can I say? That's just my opinion.
The memorial service for Coretta Scott King was held yesterday and everyone who thinks they are someone was there: Ted Kennedy, President Bush I, President Bush II, Carter, Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, among many many others.
It turns out that President Bush rearranged his schedule to attend this funeral, only to hear liberal Democrats take political potshots at him.
While President Bush II actually remembered Mrs. King in his remarks, several other speakers felt that this was an appropriate time to spew their political rhetoric.
These people were mostly people who recognize that this may be the only national stage they have in many years and simply couldn't pass up on this opportunity.
Reverend Joseph Lowery felt this was an acceptable time to mention that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "But there are weapons of mass distraction here." he continued. Yes, there are. You! Your ignorance and lack of respect for the deceased is the distraction. Your need to be in the spotlight is the distraction. Take a seat!
Following the "good" Reverend was former President Jimmy Carter Jr. He chose to attempt to jab at President Bush II by commenting on the "covert wire tapping" that the Kings had to deal with during the civil rights movement. The former President said, "It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance." Um, Mr. President, there are two problems with that. 1) Domestic wire tapping is illegal. President Bush II has not engaged in this. All of the wire tapping that has occurred has been conversations with suspected terrorists in other countries. 2) It was your own party that tapped the King's phone! It was your party's heroes! Their brother is two chairs away from you! It was Jack and Robert Kennedy! Maybe while you are saving tortoises in the Everglades and hammering nails in the Sudan you could take a history lesson or two! Take a seat!
Many people cheered at these comments. Proving that the lack of social graces in the liberal left does not sit solely with the elite. It trickles down to the underlings. Those who would accept and encourage inappropriate behavior at a memorial service for a great woman!
President Bush and his father sitting just behind the podium, shook their heads slightly at some of the criticism. I believe that their actions were less concerned with what was being said, but more bothered by the abuse and desecration of the venue. That people would use this time of honor and recollection for their own personal gain.
Then, an amazing thing happened! Former President Clinton showed some class! He rose with his wife and walked to the podium. He said that he was honored to be with his current President and former Presidents. At this point, some nut job liberal who doesn't understand the meaning of tact shouted "and future President!" of course suggesting that Hillary had some sort of a chance at the White House.
Former President Clinton (I highlight "former" because many liberals seem to forget this and enjoy referring to him as "President Clinton" and referring to the current President as "Mr. Bush." Hommie don't play that.) took this opportunity to chastise his own party.
"I want to remind everyone why we are here. We aren't here to chastise. We aren't here to argue politics. Let's remember that there is a real woman here. A woman we are here to remember and to honor."
Good for you Mr. Clinton! Thank you for pointing your misdirected party back in the proper direction for the occasion. And thank you to the rest of the liberals for proving that the only thing you truly care about is power and pontification. If you truly cared about the civil rights movement that you so loudly support, you would have respected the gravity of the ceremony that you were attending, not used it as a soap box to spout from. Thank you for once again separating yourself from the average American. Please feel free to continue with this behavior.
But, what can I say? That's just my opinion.
Monday, February 06, 2006
February "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll for the week of February 20th-March 5th (whoops)
Question: How much of the Olympics have you been watching?
Results:
Poll for the week of February 13th-February 19th
Question: Combination of the last two weeks: Which is the best among the top 7?
Results:
Poll for the week of February 6th-February 12th
Question: Which Disney Animated Movie do you think belonged on last weeks poll?
Results:
Poll for the week of January 30th-February 5th
Question: What is your favorite Disney animated movie?
Results:
Question: How much of the Olympics have you been watching?
Results:
I haven't missed a second!
- 1 vote (5.9%)
- 4 votes (23.5%)
- 5 votes (29.4%)
- 5 votes (29.4%)
- 2 votes (11.8%)
Poll for the week of February 13th-February 19th
Question: Combination of the last two weeks: Which is the best among the top 7?
Results:
Aladdin
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll for the week of February 6th-February 12th
Question: Which Disney Animated Movie do you think belonged on last weeks poll?
Results:
Aladdin
- 5 votes (45.5%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 1 vote (9.1%)
- 2 votes (18.2%)
Poll for the week of January 30th-February 5th
Question: What is your favorite Disney animated movie?
Results:
Bambi
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
- 2 votes (33.3%)
- 1 vote (16.7%)
Friday, February 03, 2006
Solidarity in Europe...
... while Muslims claim that there is "something rotten in Denmark."
I was saddened to learn that the publication of a cartoon depiction of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked protests and threats of violence from the Muslim world. Saddened, mind you, not surprised.
I was surprised, however, to learn that several other European nations are showing their support for the freedom of the press by reprinting these cartoons in their newspapers. This is a remarkable display of unity in Europe.
Of course, those in the Islamic world are even more outraged. Many countries have removed their diplomats from Copenhagen and the Danish government has evacuated their embassies in parts of the Middle East. (Of course, removing diplomats from countries where they are not threatened does nothing save put your citizens in that country at risk. If a Iranian citizen needs help in Denmark they have no embassy to go to...)
(Don't get me wrong, Christians love to play the "most persecuted group" card all the time. "How dare you depict Kanye West as though he were Christ." "The book of Daniel is blasphemous and must be taken off TV." But I think it goes further than that with this situation. I don't think most people assume that if Christians are protesting there will be violence. It's nearly expected for Islamic protests at this point.)
A German paper commented that "perhaps their protests would be taken more seriously if they were not so hypocritical. A Muslim publication depicted Rabbis as cannibals and the Imams were silent."
Does anyone see any parallels between this and the Nazis pre WWII? Does anyone see the elitist nature of their viewpoint? Somehow they are far more worthy of consideration than other races/nations/ethnicities? Don't print a cartoon of our prophet but we'll call for the destruction of the Jews. Don't blaspheme our religion but we'll decapitate people and video it for all to see. Don't try to force your culture on us but you better become a Muslim or we'll kill you.
There was another point that was made in a European paper that I found interesting, especially as one who desires to live outside of the US. How much does an immigrant need to assimilate into the culture? How much does a culture need to cater to the immigrant? I hope to learn the language and the culture of whatever country in which my family and I will reside. Are the Muslims living in Denmark requiring too much of their host country? Is Denmark being too inhospitable to the people who have chosen to live in their nation? Does what Denmark prints in their paper have anything to do with Saudi Arabia? These are perhaps the most intriguing questions raised by this situation.
No one likes to be offended, especially when it comes to religion whose roots spread deep in the life of the believer. But I personally believe that if you are going to reside in a country or area that is known to be anti-whatever-you-are, you shouldn't be surprised or upset when you get offended. If a Jew lives in Palestine they shouldn't be expected to be a special interest group that gets any special interest!
But that's just my opinion!
I was saddened to learn that the publication of a cartoon depiction of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked protests and threats of violence from the Muslim world. Saddened, mind you, not surprised.
I was surprised, however, to learn that several other European nations are showing their support for the freedom of the press by reprinting these cartoons in their newspapers. This is a remarkable display of unity in Europe.
Of course, those in the Islamic world are even more outraged. Many countries have removed their diplomats from Copenhagen and the Danish government has evacuated their embassies in parts of the Middle East. (Of course, removing diplomats from countries where they are not threatened does nothing save put your citizens in that country at risk. If a Iranian citizen needs help in Denmark they have no embassy to go to...)
(Don't get me wrong, Christians love to play the "most persecuted group" card all the time. "How dare you depict Kanye West as though he were Christ." "The book of Daniel is blasphemous and must be taken off TV." But I think it goes further than that with this situation. I don't think most people assume that if Christians are protesting there will be violence. It's nearly expected for Islamic protests at this point.)
A German paper commented that "perhaps their protests would be taken more seriously if they were not so hypocritical. A Muslim publication depicted Rabbis as cannibals and the Imams were silent."
Does anyone see any parallels between this and the Nazis pre WWII? Does anyone see the elitist nature of their viewpoint? Somehow they are far more worthy of consideration than other races/nations/ethnicities? Don't print a cartoon of our prophet but we'll call for the destruction of the Jews. Don't blaspheme our religion but we'll decapitate people and video it for all to see. Don't try to force your culture on us but you better become a Muslim or we'll kill you.
There was another point that was made in a European paper that I found interesting, especially as one who desires to live outside of the US. How much does an immigrant need to assimilate into the culture? How much does a culture need to cater to the immigrant? I hope to learn the language and the culture of whatever country in which my family and I will reside. Are the Muslims living in Denmark requiring too much of their host country? Is Denmark being too inhospitable to the people who have chosen to live in their nation? Does what Denmark prints in their paper have anything to do with Saudi Arabia? These are perhaps the most intriguing questions raised by this situation.
No one likes to be offended, especially when it comes to religion whose roots spread deep in the life of the believer. But I personally believe that if you are going to reside in a country or area that is known to be anti-whatever-you-are, you shouldn't be surprised or upset when you get offended. If a Jew lives in Palestine they shouldn't be expected to be a special interest group that gets any special interest!
But that's just my opinion!
Regarding George
Hey George W.: You can't run again!
Wow, I was somewhat disappointed with the Presidents State of the Union address. I thought that the reason Presidents tried to win second terms was so that they could actually do something. Not so that they could continue to bow to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, George! You don't need to pander to the radical left anymore! This is when you start "sticking it to them!" This is when you begin announcing all of the plans that you have that make them squirm because they know they can't stop you.
George Steinbrenner: Relaxing!?
Damon is apparently on the wrong team.
Johnny recently said that he thought that the Yankees would be a great place for Manny and David Ortiz to play. Saying that "if they wanted a place to relax and play then New York was the place for them." (Clearly Johnny hasn't actually met George or the New York fans. Boston made a ton of money when Yankees fans were buying our "Yankees suck" shirts early last season when they actually did!)
Hey Johnny, if you wanted to be on a team with Manny and David there is a place you could have done it: Boston! If you are regretting your move, don't try and drag our loyal players into your field of torment with you. I thought it wasn't about the money...
Wow, I was somewhat disappointed with the Presidents State of the Union address. I thought that the reason Presidents tried to win second terms was so that they could actually do something. Not so that they could continue to bow to the other side of the aisle.
Hey, George! You don't need to pander to the radical left anymore! This is when you start "sticking it to them!" This is when you begin announcing all of the plans that you have that make them squirm because they know they can't stop you.
George Steinbrenner: Relaxing!?
Damon is apparently on the wrong team.
Johnny recently said that he thought that the Yankees would be a great place for Manny and David Ortiz to play. Saying that "if they wanted a place to relax and play then New York was the place for them." (Clearly Johnny hasn't actually met George or the New York fans. Boston made a ton of money when Yankees fans were buying our "Yankees suck" shirts early last season when they actually did!)
Hey Johnny, if you wanted to be on a team with Manny and David there is a place you could have done it: Boston! If you are regretting your move, don't try and drag our loyal players into your field of torment with you. I thought it wasn't about the money...
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The power of Justice
The gaseous windbag that oh so many Massachusetts residents have repeatedly elected to the Senate amazed this US history buff by announcing just how much power a Justice on the Supreme Court has!
According to Senator Kennedy, if confirmed, Judge Alito will single handedly re-instate slavery, force women to reside in the kitchen, slowly murder the elderly, segregate the school system, and steal from the poor! Wow! Can I be Chief Justice?! I'd declare the Democratic Party illegal! I'd demand that all sports teams reserve two tickets for me at every game! I'd announce that I am supreme dictator of America! What is there to stop me? (Insert maniacal laughter here....)
Oh, yeah, the Constitution! I guess I forgot, oh, and so did "Senator" Kennedy. He claims that Judge Alito is "the wrong judge at the wrong time for the wrong court." Doesn't a triple negative equal and absolute positive? Something like that.
Here's the deal, Mr. Kennedy. A President has the right to nominate a qualified jurist. That is why the Communist Ruth Bader Ginsberg received 96 approval votes from the Senate! The Republicans weren't excited about voting for a former ACLU lawyer, but they understood that the people elected the President and he has the right to nominate whomever he sees fit. And if that person is qualified (For example: not Cindy Sheehan) then the Congress has an obligation to confirm that person. It has nothing to do with approving of their stance, or agreeing with their political views. That's why it's called a confirmation vote, not an approval vote! Judge Alito is clearly qualified to hold this position. I think he proved it when he embarrassed you at the Supreme Court hearings! The people of America elected this President knowing that these seats were going to open. Stop trying to rule America! Let the people speak!
How many times does Mr. Kennedy have to prove that he is not qualified to serve before we as a people oust him from power!? Here's my slogan: "Anyone but Kennedy whenever he's up for re-election!"
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
According to Senator Kennedy, if confirmed, Judge Alito will single handedly re-instate slavery, force women to reside in the kitchen, slowly murder the elderly, segregate the school system, and steal from the poor! Wow! Can I be Chief Justice?! I'd declare the Democratic Party illegal! I'd demand that all sports teams reserve two tickets for me at every game! I'd announce that I am supreme dictator of America! What is there to stop me? (Insert maniacal laughter here....)
Oh, yeah, the Constitution! I guess I forgot, oh, and so did "Senator" Kennedy. He claims that Judge Alito is "the wrong judge at the wrong time for the wrong court." Doesn't a triple negative equal and absolute positive? Something like that.
Here's the deal, Mr. Kennedy. A President has the right to nominate a qualified jurist. That is why the Communist Ruth Bader Ginsberg received 96 approval votes from the Senate! The Republicans weren't excited about voting for a former ACLU lawyer, but they understood that the people elected the President and he has the right to nominate whomever he sees fit. And if that person is qualified (For example: not Cindy Sheehan) then the Congress has an obligation to confirm that person. It has nothing to do with approving of their stance, or agreeing with their political views. That's why it's called a confirmation vote, not an approval vote! Judge Alito is clearly qualified to hold this position. I think he proved it when he embarrassed you at the Supreme Court hearings! The people of America elected this President knowing that these seats were going to open. Stop trying to rule America! Let the people speak!
How many times does Mr. Kennedy have to prove that he is not qualified to serve before we as a people oust him from power!? Here's my slogan: "Anyone but Kennedy whenever he's up for re-election!"
But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Wicked Short Rants
Super Bowl XL: Does anyone care?
I am so sick of Cindy Sheehan!! I hope she runs for office so that 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) She losses miserably and shrinks away from public life. 2) She wins and proves that losing a son in a war and stomping around the country like an idiot protesting everything you can find doesn't make you qualified to hold a public office!
Well, what do you know? Theo returns and the Red Sox do something that I agree with! Welcome to the Sox Coco!
The Democrats are discussing filibustering Alito's confirmation in the Senate. They claim that they are afraid that Alito will tip the scales to the right. Yeah, right, maybe if he gets 4 votes all his own! That's fine, Dems, filibuster and continue to prove that you are completely out of touch with the common person!
My Oscar prediction: Brokeback gets way more nominations than it deserves including a representative in five of the seven major categories: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Picture. Even though no other romance has ever gotten such distinction. (That's because they were all romances about a man and a woman...)
Hillary Clinton thinks she can win a presidential election. Apparently that's only if people in "blue states" are allowed to vote. Perhaps you remember her calling republicans "plantation owners." Yeah: Back to the drawing board Hillary.
The Red Sox have moved their Friday Night game to NESN. Now there are no free Red Sox games on TV, you must have cable/satellite to watch. Restaurants are pleased with this: For the price of a drink, I get a game. Pay for baseball on TV? You can't be serious! The new slogan: "The Red Sox: The team of the elite!" Not that it matters. I don't really care about this season anyway (though the Crisp deal is tugging me back...)
Quick enough for ya? Well, they're all just my opinion!
I am so sick of Cindy Sheehan!! I hope she runs for office so that 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) She losses miserably and shrinks away from public life. 2) She wins and proves that losing a son in a war and stomping around the country like an idiot protesting everything you can find doesn't make you qualified to hold a public office!
Well, what do you know? Theo returns and the Red Sox do something that I agree with! Welcome to the Sox Coco!
The Democrats are discussing filibustering Alito's confirmation in the Senate. They claim that they are afraid that Alito will tip the scales to the right. Yeah, right, maybe if he gets 4 votes all his own! That's fine, Dems, filibuster and continue to prove that you are completely out of touch with the common person!
My Oscar prediction: Brokeback gets way more nominations than it deserves including a representative in five of the seven major categories: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Picture. Even though no other romance has ever gotten such distinction. (That's because they were all romances about a man and a woman...)
Hillary Clinton thinks she can win a presidential election. Apparently that's only if people in "blue states" are allowed to vote. Perhaps you remember her calling republicans "plantation owners." Yeah: Back to the drawing board Hillary.
The Red Sox have moved their Friday Night game to NESN. Now there are no free Red Sox games on TV, you must have cable/satellite to watch. Restaurants are pleased with this: For the price of a drink, I get a game. Pay for baseball on TV? You can't be serious! The new slogan: "The Red Sox: The team of the elite!" Not that it matters. I don't really care about this season anyway (though the Crisp deal is tugging me back...)
Quick enough for ya? Well, they're all just my opinion!
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Who are they protecting? Me?!
"It was our finest hour" was the sentiment by a librarian in Newton, MA after they blocked the FBI from commandeering a computer from which a threatening email was sent. The email threatened a terrorist action against Brandeis University. The FBI had traced the email to the public computer in the Newton library and they were on their way to catching this felon.
That was when the librarian stepped in. She would not allow the FBI to search or take the computer without a warrant. It's not like the FBI couldn't get a warrant. They received one. Several hours later! Who knows where this rodent who sent the email could have gotten to in those hours.
The email was received at Brandeis at 11 am. The FBI was delayed for so long that they did not receive the computer until 11:30 pm! This was an unnecessary delay that did nothing to protect me or any other American. The only thing the delay by the library did was give the perp a longer head start than he already had! Perhaps this person had discussions with some of the librarians about the Patriot Act. Perhaps this person knew how the locals felt and also knew that if the FBI came in "un-warranted" that they would be delayed. Was this all part of his plan? Possibly.
What if there was a terrorist act completed at Brandeis? I suppose there really was a terrorist act. Some people were probably quite scared, 12 buildings had to be evacuated, and the law enforcers are now investigating this occurrence. Terrorism doesn't require death on a great magnitude, just the threat of it. So one cannot claim that there was not terrorist attack. The mere threat of it is an attack itself.
Now, what if there had been an explosion, or some other type of destruction? What if the choice by the librarian caused enough of a delay that the FBI could have stopped it, but was too late? Would we be so proud of the librarian? Or would she be under arrest as an accessory after the fact?
The only person the stalling tactic protected was the criminal. There are some that complain that those on the right say "you can't put a price on civil liberties" whenever there are laws that the left agrees with that infringe on such freedoms. However, there are those on the left who say that the Patriot Act goes too far. You can't have it both ways. Either liberties have to be protected, the Patriot Act needs to be killed, and I can drive with or without my seatbelt; or they aren't as important as we make them out to be and they can be restricted however the government sees fit.
I'll buckle my seatbelt, take off my shoes at the air port, and allow the government to see what books I've been taking out of the library if that means the FBI can catch criminals as fast as possible.
But that's all just my opinion.
That was when the librarian stepped in. She would not allow the FBI to search or take the computer without a warrant. It's not like the FBI couldn't get a warrant. They received one. Several hours later! Who knows where this rodent who sent the email could have gotten to in those hours.
The email was received at Brandeis at 11 am. The FBI was delayed for so long that they did not receive the computer until 11:30 pm! This was an unnecessary delay that did nothing to protect me or any other American. The only thing the delay by the library did was give the perp a longer head start than he already had! Perhaps this person had discussions with some of the librarians about the Patriot Act. Perhaps this person knew how the locals felt and also knew that if the FBI came in "un-warranted" that they would be delayed. Was this all part of his plan? Possibly.
What if there was a terrorist act completed at Brandeis? I suppose there really was a terrorist act. Some people were probably quite scared, 12 buildings had to be evacuated, and the law enforcers are now investigating this occurrence. Terrorism doesn't require death on a great magnitude, just the threat of it. So one cannot claim that there was not terrorist attack. The mere threat of it is an attack itself.
Now, what if there had been an explosion, or some other type of destruction? What if the choice by the librarian caused enough of a delay that the FBI could have stopped it, but was too late? Would we be so proud of the librarian? Or would she be under arrest as an accessory after the fact?
The only person the stalling tactic protected was the criminal. There are some that complain that those on the right say "you can't put a price on civil liberties" whenever there are laws that the left agrees with that infringe on such freedoms. However, there are those on the left who say that the Patriot Act goes too far. You can't have it both ways. Either liberties have to be protected, the Patriot Act needs to be killed, and I can drive with or without my seatbelt; or they aren't as important as we make them out to be and they can be restricted however the government sees fit.
I'll buckle my seatbelt, take off my shoes at the air port, and allow the government to see what books I've been taking out of the library if that means the FBI can catch criminals as fast as possible.
But that's all just my opinion.
Friday, January 20, 2006
One, Two, no THREE rants oo ah ah ah ha ha
Ok, this was meant to be a single topic post, but as I was writing, new topics kept jumping up at me. Sorry for the length. I hope you enjoy!
Theo Returns!
Upon seeing that title, one might think that they were about to read a glowing essay on the brilliance of the Red Sox to bring Theo back and a thankful treatise that Theo has decided to return. One would be wrong.
Here's how I see it: The Red Sox have been desperate for Theo to return since the day he left. Like a bad motel 6 commercial, anytime Theo was mentioned, John Henry and Larry Lucchino continually let it be know that "we're leaving a light on" for Theo. He can come back whenever he wants.
Compound that with the fact that the Sox have been falling faster than the Hindenburg with no shortstop, no 1st baseman, and no Center fielder. But don't worry, they have eight 3rd basemen. Anyone think they didn't look like a blind mule when Damon was stolen away from them by the Evil Empire? And how about the thanks they gave to Wakefield for signing the most "Team friendly" contract in history by trading his personal catcher within the month! They are a mess without Theo!
Now, in the distance, a cloud of dust arises on the horizon. Gallantly galloping towards Fenway... it's a man in a gorilla suit in a suit of shimmering armor. The valiant knight on a white horse comes riding into the oldest ballpark in America to rescue the damsel from the dragon of her own making. She gazes up at him and says:
"Why in the world did you leave!?! If you had been here I probably wouldn't have created this massive beast that we are now expecting you to defeat!"
When the trade rumors were Manny Ramirez, Matt Clement, and cash considerations for Miguel Tejada I said that Theo could not come back at that point. The devastation had reached the point of no return. I had said that if Theo returned he would look like a spoiled child who was taking his ball and going home in October. Now he gets to burst through the doors, his cape flapping in the wind behind him, fists squarely on his hips, the TE emblazoned on his chest. Theo has arrived!
I'm sorry, why did you leave? And what has changed that caused you to return now that it appears to be too late?
Seat Belts
A law has been passed in the Massachusetts House that will allow police officers to pull someone over simply because they are not wearing seat belts. The lobbiests claim that this will save lives and save money. Because it will lower the amount of Medi-Care that the government has to pay to uninsured people injured in car accidents when they weren't wearing their seatbelts.
What do I see it as? A reason to raise peoples insurance. Another step of larger government. Another reason to stop someone for no apparent reason in order to search their car.
One politician (who somehow still has his job) said, "You can choose to have an abortion, but you cannot choose whether or not you will wear a seatbelt. Does anyone else see the irony here?"
I be the insurance companies are thrilled about this! If I get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt my premium goes up. They get more money! This is a great idea according to them!
A private citizen asked, "How long until we have seat belt road blocks? Where does it end?"
Am I suggesting that we shouldn't wear our seat belts? No. I am saying that the government shouldn't be sitting next to me like a "big brother" telling me that I must wear it or dole out some cash!
Truce?
So a recent recording of Osama Bin Ladin has been released with him warning of future attacks and asking if we'd like a truce. Yes, a truce. Who are the ones who ask for a truce? Oh yeah, the ones who are losing!? Last time I asked for a truce I think I was pinned to the ground with my older brother tossing snow in my face... Yeah, that sounds about right.
Bin Ladin goes on to say that we could trust his truce because his religion doesn't allow him to backstab his allies or go against his promises. He followed that up with "but it does allow me to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Isn't it great!?"
So we've clearly got him scared. Or he's deathly ill and wants to be able to relax. Either way, it's a good thing.
Most of what you've just read is just my opinion.
Theo Returns!
Upon seeing that title, one might think that they were about to read a glowing essay on the brilliance of the Red Sox to bring Theo back and a thankful treatise that Theo has decided to return. One would be wrong.
Here's how I see it: The Red Sox have been desperate for Theo to return since the day he left. Like a bad motel 6 commercial, anytime Theo was mentioned, John Henry and Larry Lucchino continually let it be know that "we're leaving a light on" for Theo. He can come back whenever he wants.
Compound that with the fact that the Sox have been falling faster than the Hindenburg with no shortstop, no 1st baseman, and no Center fielder. But don't worry, they have eight 3rd basemen. Anyone think they didn't look like a blind mule when Damon was stolen away from them by the Evil Empire? And how about the thanks they gave to Wakefield for signing the most "Team friendly" contract in history by trading his personal catcher within the month! They are a mess without Theo!
Now, in the distance, a cloud of dust arises on the horizon. Gallantly galloping towards Fenway... it's a man in a gorilla suit in a suit of shimmering armor. The valiant knight on a white horse comes riding into the oldest ballpark in America to rescue the damsel from the dragon of her own making. She gazes up at him and says:
"Why in the world did you leave!?! If you had been here I probably wouldn't have created this massive beast that we are now expecting you to defeat!"
When the trade rumors were Manny Ramirez, Matt Clement, and cash considerations for Miguel Tejada I said that Theo could not come back at that point. The devastation had reached the point of no return. I had said that if Theo returned he would look like a spoiled child who was taking his ball and going home in October. Now he gets to burst through the doors, his cape flapping in the wind behind him, fists squarely on his hips, the TE emblazoned on his chest. Theo has arrived!
I'm sorry, why did you leave? And what has changed that caused you to return now that it appears to be too late?
Seat Belts
A law has been passed in the Massachusetts House that will allow police officers to pull someone over simply because they are not wearing seat belts. The lobbiests claim that this will save lives and save money. Because it will lower the amount of Medi-Care that the government has to pay to uninsured people injured in car accidents when they weren't wearing their seatbelts.
What do I see it as? A reason to raise peoples insurance. Another step of larger government. Another reason to stop someone for no apparent reason in order to search their car.
One politician (who somehow still has his job) said, "You can choose to have an abortion, but you cannot choose whether or not you will wear a seatbelt. Does anyone else see the irony here?"
I be the insurance companies are thrilled about this! If I get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt my premium goes up. They get more money! This is a great idea according to them!
A private citizen asked, "How long until we have seat belt road blocks? Where does it end?"
Am I suggesting that we shouldn't wear our seat belts? No. I am saying that the government shouldn't be sitting next to me like a "big brother" telling me that I must wear it or dole out some cash!
Truce?
So a recent recording of Osama Bin Ladin has been released with him warning of future attacks and asking if we'd like a truce. Yes, a truce. Who are the ones who ask for a truce? Oh yeah, the ones who are losing!? Last time I asked for a truce I think I was pinned to the ground with my older brother tossing snow in my face... Yeah, that sounds about right.
Bin Ladin goes on to say that we could trust his truce because his religion doesn't allow him to backstab his allies or go against his promises. He followed that up with "but it does allow me to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Isn't it great!?"
So we've clearly got him scared. Or he's deathly ill and wants to be able to relax. Either way, it's a good thing.
Most of what you've just read is just my opinion.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
A double helping of sports rants
Sportsline: Philadelphia. What moron company executive or advertising liaison thought that it would be a good idea to have Terrell Owens peddling your product? Sure, he's desperate for money, but there is a reason for that! He was suspended without pay because he's not someone to look up to, he's not a model player, he probably shouldn't be your spokes person! But apparently, Boost Mobile's demographic are the thugs who only care about themselves, who think that physically fighting with your teammates and tossing your Quarterback under the figurative bus is acceptable. Well, I think, and I hope that this move will cause the cell phone company to come up with a new ad campaign in order to Boost themselves from the basement of sales! Get rid of him! (And Terrell, get rid of Rosenhause! Maybe that will Boost your career!)
Sportsline: Officiating in General. Look, I expect players to make mistakes and change the course of a game. I expect players to take penalties, make big plays, do stupid things, these are all parts of the game. I have fellow fans who say to me that the officials making mistakes is also part of the game, and that has to be overcome. That just doesn't fly with me and here's why: The officials at least pretend that they are trying to get it right. Instant reply, their little zebra caucuses, apologies after the game (as long as the team that was wronged actually won the game.) But they still manage to screw things up, royally! Look, if you want to get things right then there are some things that need to be done. 1) put a camera at the goal line. One from the side that can see the whole line and one from above. This would have allowed the refs of the New England/Denver game to see that the ball did indeed enter the end zone before going out of bounds. 2) If you are going to have instant replay, have instant replay! What's with all of this "non-reviewable plays." If you are trying to get it right, get it right! The coaches have two replays per game. If they use both, then they use both! This would have been incredibly helpful this weekend with two terrible pass interference calls (1 called and 1 not called) and a situation where 9 of the 22 men on the field moved before the ball was snapped but some how there was no penalty! The officials should not be variables in the equation of the game. They should be the paper on which the equation is solved!
Less about sports really, and more about just my opinion.
Sportsline: Officiating in General. Look, I expect players to make mistakes and change the course of a game. I expect players to take penalties, make big plays, do stupid things, these are all parts of the game. I have fellow fans who say to me that the officials making mistakes is also part of the game, and that has to be overcome. That just doesn't fly with me and here's why: The officials at least pretend that they are trying to get it right. Instant reply, their little zebra caucuses, apologies after the game (as long as the team that was wronged actually won the game.) But they still manage to screw things up, royally! Look, if you want to get things right then there are some things that need to be done. 1) put a camera at the goal line. One from the side that can see the whole line and one from above. This would have allowed the refs of the New England/Denver game to see that the ball did indeed enter the end zone before going out of bounds. 2) If you are going to have instant replay, have instant replay! What's with all of this "non-reviewable plays." If you are trying to get it right, get it right! The coaches have two replays per game. If they use both, then they use both! This would have been incredibly helpful this weekend with two terrible pass interference calls (1 called and 1 not called) and a situation where 9 of the 22 men on the field moved before the ball was snapped but some how there was no penalty! The officials should not be variables in the equation of the game. They should be the paper on which the equation is solved!
Less about sports really, and more about just my opinion.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Racism: not just a white problem.
A mayor of a major US city recently said a potentially career ending statement: "This city will be vanilla at the end of the day," he said, "By the end of the year, this city will be a majority white city. It's the way God wants it to be. And it wouldn't be [city name removed] any other way!" Anyone outraged?
Well, it's a bit unfair that I altered the above quote. Here's what was really said: "This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. By the end of the year, this city will be a majority black city. It's the way God wants it to be. And it wouldn't be New Orleans any other way!" Anyone outraged? Anyone not outraged but felt their blood boiling while they read the fabricated quote? Why is that?
Here is yet another African American perpetuating racism. Ray Nagin is not encouraging cooperation or desegregation. In fact, he's suggesting stronger segregation! He's basically saying, "let's keep non-blacks out of New Orleans. Or at the very least, let's make sure that we are the majority, because that's the divine destiny of our city!" Pardon?
But racism isn't just a white/black situation either. Recently, the President of Iran announced once again that the Holocaust was a myth. He added that Iran will hold "a conference that will research the topic of the Holocaust and all its dimensions in the future." The scary part is that he then declared the need to eradicate the world of Jews. Sounds to me like this whole myth thing is just and excuse to examine the holocaust. "No no, it's a myth and we need to look into it! To show you that it didn't really happen! (And to research it because 6 million is a good start!)" So basically he's saying that it's a myth but it was a good idea. CREEPY!
And while sexism isn't racism it's in the same vein and this is worth mentioning. One of the major gripes that the "distinguished" Senator from Massachusetts had regarding Judge Alito was that he was a member of a club at Princeton that discriminated against women and did not allow them to join. (See post Kennedy shows his colors) Well, what do you know? Mr. Kennedy is also a member of a similar club out of Harvard. In fact, this is a club that was kicked of campus because of their non-inclusional stance so Mr. Kennedy certainly can't claim ignorance of their viewpoints! And he can't claim that he's an inactive member because not only does he pay his $100 per year dues every year but he also updated his home address on September 7th, 2005! According to the Washington Times, "The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy." Once again, Mr. Kennedy is playing the "laws don't apply to me because I right them" game. I wonder if this is the same thought behind parenting. I make the rules so I don't have to obey them? When confronted with the fact that people now knew he was a member of this club, he quickly said that he was going to leave it. Gee, Mr. Kennedy, you've had 23 years to get out. That's $2,300 you could have saved in dues! I'm so proud that he is continually elected in my state!
Hmm, not a whole lot of opinion in this post, but you'll only see it here, on Just my Opinion.
Well, it's a bit unfair that I altered the above quote. Here's what was really said: "This city will be chocolate at the end of the day. By the end of the year, this city will be a majority black city. It's the way God wants it to be. And it wouldn't be New Orleans any other way!" Anyone outraged? Anyone not outraged but felt their blood boiling while they read the fabricated quote? Why is that?
Here is yet another African American perpetuating racism. Ray Nagin is not encouraging cooperation or desegregation. In fact, he's suggesting stronger segregation! He's basically saying, "let's keep non-blacks out of New Orleans. Or at the very least, let's make sure that we are the majority, because that's the divine destiny of our city!" Pardon?
But racism isn't just a white/black situation either. Recently, the President of Iran announced once again that the Holocaust was a myth. He added that Iran will hold "a conference that will research the topic of the Holocaust and all its dimensions in the future." The scary part is that he then declared the need to eradicate the world of Jews. Sounds to me like this whole myth thing is just and excuse to examine the holocaust. "No no, it's a myth and we need to look into it! To show you that it didn't really happen! (And to research it because 6 million is a good start!)" So basically he's saying that it's a myth but it was a good idea. CREEPY!
And while sexism isn't racism it's in the same vein and this is worth mentioning. One of the major gripes that the "distinguished" Senator from Massachusetts had regarding Judge Alito was that he was a member of a club at Princeton that discriminated against women and did not allow them to join. (See post Kennedy shows his colors) Well, what do you know? Mr. Kennedy is also a member of a similar club out of Harvard. In fact, this is a club that was kicked of campus because of their non-inclusional stance so Mr. Kennedy certainly can't claim ignorance of their viewpoints! And he can't claim that he's an inactive member because not only does he pay his $100 per year dues every year but he also updated his home address on September 7th, 2005! According to the Washington Times, "The club has long been reviled on campus as "sexist" and "elitist" and, in 1984, was booted from the university for violating federal anti-discrimination laws, authored by Mr. Kennedy." Once again, Mr. Kennedy is playing the "laws don't apply to me because I right them" game. I wonder if this is the same thought behind parenting. I make the rules so I don't have to obey them? When confronted with the fact that people now knew he was a member of this club, he quickly said that he was going to leave it. Gee, Mr. Kennedy, you've had 23 years to get out. That's $2,300 you could have saved in dues! I'm so proud that he is continually elected in my state!
Hmm, not a whole lot of opinion in this post, but you'll only see it here, on Just my Opinion.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Obvious Officiating
Many sportcasters will tell you that the worst thing a sports official can do is something that draws attention to himself. Well, as Boomer and Dan inferred this week during the half-time update of the Pittsburgh vs Indianapolis game, there have been several officials who have made some clearly either biased or just plain wrong calls! And it didn't get any better after they made their comments.
I didn't see the Seattle vs Washington game so I have no comments regarding that match up. However, in the games that followed there were some clear examples of oafish officiating that'd I'd like to point out and offer the actual final score for those contests.
New England vs Denver: Point one: Assante Samuel is stride for stride with the Denver wide receiver. He has position and is looking back for the ball. The WR nudges Samuel on his outside shoulder causing him to stumble. The WR then places his inside hand on Samuel's shoulderpads slowing Samuel down. After the clearly uncatchable ball sails over the WR head the back judge from the other side of the field throws a late flag. The terrible call? Defensive pass interference! A 70 yard penatly. 1st and goal from the 1 for Denver. Gift #1 from the officials. The correct call? Either no call, let the back judge who was 3 feet from the play make the call, or call offensive pass interference.
Point two: Champ "the Loser" Bailey has intercepted Tom Brady in his own end zone. He then proceeds to run 100 yards to the 1 yard line where his is slammed by the Patriots TE Ben Watson. Bailey loses the ball. He clearly fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds. The ruling? Denver ball on the one. My question: If the runner was on the 1 yard line and the ball was obviously fumbled forward how did it go out of bounds on the 1 yard line? Does the head linesman who made that distinction live in some parallel universe where 1 + a positive number = 1? The correct ruling? Fumbled out of bounds in the end zone. A touchback. Patriots' ball on their own 20 yard line. They even reviewed this one. It sucks when your head official has cash on the home team!
Actual final score: Patriots 13 Denver 13 Officials 14. So the Officials will host the Pittsburgh Steelers next week to see who will go to the big dance. Too bad the Officials couldn't quite squeeze out a win in Indy, even though they tried:
Pittsburgh vs Indianapolis: Point one: Another pass interference call. Except this time it was a no-call. And Phil Simms, who was doing color to Joe Buck's play by play, even said, "Perhaps with yesterday's terrible pass interference call agents the Pats, the refs may be reluctant to call it today." So dirty teams playing on Sunday reap the benefits of dirty refs calling on Saturday! Let that be a lesson to you!
Point two: And perhaps this is the most obviously incorrect, criminally wrong call of the weekend. Polamalu made an amazing diving play to intercept Peyton "the Whiner" Manning. Marsh-Mallow caught the ball cleanly, rolled over twice because of his dive. Then, as he started to get up to run the ball back he knocked the ball out of his own hand. He then fell on his fumble to retain possession. Because it was late in the game and Indy was down by 11, in an act of desperation (or maybe to call in a favor) Coach Dungy challenges the ruling of a catch. Here's the shocker: The ruling was over turned! The official claimed that because he lost possession before his knee came off the ground that he didn't catch the ball. What? Where is that ruling? If a Colt had touched him before he got up he would have been down by contact and would have caught the ball! What kind of imbecile do you take the fans for, ref?! Peyton takes his second chance, drives, scores a TD and gets the 2 pt conversion. Now they trail only by 3! Shaken but not stirred, somehow the Steelers manage to hold the Colts on 4th and 7 from their own 4, sacking Manning on the 2! On the next play Bettis fumbles. After a quick drive, Mike "I'm no Vinatieri" Vanderjact (in a fit of conscience?) then misses a 47 yd field goal to tie (that never should have meant a thing!) so Pitt hangs on to win! Actual Final score: Pittsburgh 21 Indianapolis 10 Officials 8.
So here's the final deal: Carolina couldn't stop the impotent Chicago offense from scoring 21 points they won't be able to stop Seattle. Denver did not win that game as much as New England and the Officials handed it to them on a platter. Super Bowl Matchup: Seattle vs Pittsburgh. Pittsburg wins it all.
The only part of this post that's just my opinion is the paragraph above this one! And that's a fact!
I didn't see the Seattle vs Washington game so I have no comments regarding that match up. However, in the games that followed there were some clear examples of oafish officiating that'd I'd like to point out and offer the actual final score for those contests.
New England vs Denver: Point one: Assante Samuel is stride for stride with the Denver wide receiver. He has position and is looking back for the ball. The WR nudges Samuel on his outside shoulder causing him to stumble. The WR then places his inside hand on Samuel's shoulderpads slowing Samuel down. After the clearly uncatchable ball sails over the WR head the back judge from the other side of the field throws a late flag. The terrible call? Defensive pass interference! A 70 yard penatly. 1st and goal from the 1 for Denver. Gift #1 from the officials. The correct call? Either no call, let the back judge who was 3 feet from the play make the call, or call offensive pass interference.
Point two: Champ "the Loser" Bailey has intercepted Tom Brady in his own end zone. He then proceeds to run 100 yards to the 1 yard line where his is slammed by the Patriots TE Ben Watson. Bailey loses the ball. He clearly fumbles the ball forward and out of bounds. The ruling? Denver ball on the one. My question: If the runner was on the 1 yard line and the ball was obviously fumbled forward how did it go out of bounds on the 1 yard line? Does the head linesman who made that distinction live in some parallel universe where 1 + a positive number = 1? The correct ruling? Fumbled out of bounds in the end zone. A touchback. Patriots' ball on their own 20 yard line. They even reviewed this one. It sucks when your head official has cash on the home team!
Actual final score: Patriots 13 Denver 13 Officials 14. So the Officials will host the Pittsburgh Steelers next week to see who will go to the big dance. Too bad the Officials couldn't quite squeeze out a win in Indy, even though they tried:
Pittsburgh vs Indianapolis: Point one: Another pass interference call. Except this time it was a no-call. And Phil Simms, who was doing color to Joe Buck's play by play, even said, "Perhaps with yesterday's terrible pass interference call agents the Pats, the refs may be reluctant to call it today." So dirty teams playing on Sunday reap the benefits of dirty refs calling on Saturday! Let that be a lesson to you!
Point two: And perhaps this is the most obviously incorrect, criminally wrong call of the weekend. Polamalu made an amazing diving play to intercept Peyton "the Whiner" Manning. Marsh-Mallow caught the ball cleanly, rolled over twice because of his dive. Then, as he started to get up to run the ball back he knocked the ball out of his own hand. He then fell on his fumble to retain possession. Because it was late in the game and Indy was down by 11, in an act of desperation (or maybe to call in a favor) Coach Dungy challenges the ruling of a catch. Here's the shocker: The ruling was over turned! The official claimed that because he lost possession before his knee came off the ground that he didn't catch the ball. What? Where is that ruling? If a Colt had touched him before he got up he would have been down by contact and would have caught the ball! What kind of imbecile do you take the fans for, ref?! Peyton takes his second chance, drives, scores a TD and gets the 2 pt conversion. Now they trail only by 3! Shaken but not stirred, somehow the Steelers manage to hold the Colts on 4th and 7 from their own 4, sacking Manning on the 2! On the next play Bettis fumbles. After a quick drive, Mike "I'm no Vinatieri" Vanderjact (in a fit of conscience?) then misses a 47 yd field goal to tie (that never should have meant a thing!) so Pitt hangs on to win! Actual Final score: Pittsburgh 21 Indianapolis 10 Officials 8.
So here's the final deal: Carolina couldn't stop the impotent Chicago offense from scoring 21 points they won't be able to stop Seattle. Denver did not win that game as much as New England and the Officials handed it to them on a platter. Super Bowl Matchup: Seattle vs Pittsburgh. Pittsburg wins it all.
The only part of this post that's just my opinion is the paragraph above this one! And that's a fact!
Friday, January 13, 2006
Think I'll have my horse meat in a PETA!
Once again PETA proves that in their view, the welfare of animals come before that of people. I proved this before regarding the Sierra Club and the levees in New Orleans, and now it's a pandemic effecting every major city in the nation.
What is it? PETA is requesting (which is how it always starts, then it moves to strongly requesting, then demanding, then protesting, then paint and other semi-violent acts...(in fact they are already protesting in some areas, holding signs with pictures of an incident from 1997)) that all major cities in America ban the horse-drawn carriages that give tourists and lovers a like gentle, soothing, aroma filled rides through the city. This is in response to an incident in NYC where a horse bolted, was hit by a car, and had to be put down. No people were injured in this incident. PETA also cites two other occurrences, one from last October and one from 1997. Clearly, this is a major issue! There have been 3 newsworthy events in nine years! Imagine if we had the same concern for people in this manner! There have been at least three deaths in youth sports in the past nine years (one football player, one basketball player, and one cheerleader) so let's ban youth sports. I've heard of three dogs attacking people in the recent past (well within nine years!). So for the peoples' safety, dog owning is now outlawed.
Ok, so we all see how ridiculous this is, but let me get to why I'm really steamed: This is a livelihood for some people. Here are some people trying to make ends meet by sitting behind a stink machine all day! Let's say these people own the horses. If the carriages are banned, now they have a massive expense and no way to generate income with it! So PETA would rather see thousands of people struggling to shelter, clothe, and feed their families than a few horses get injured on the job!
One of the major theses of the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is that the reason Europe advanced technologically much quicker than other regions is because of their use of large mammals. Large mammals in the Americas were killed off and eaten as opposed to being utilized as a work force and were primarily ignored in Africa. Boy, it's a good thing PETA didn't exist then or I'd have no internet to write this on!
Look, PETA, once we've got a society where we have nothing more to worry about regarding people, then we can start concerning ourselves with the animals. Until then, why don't you all just sing "Born Free" to your selves, m'k?
All of this is "just my opinion" but I think it's the right opinion!
What is it? PETA is requesting (which is how it always starts, then it moves to strongly requesting, then demanding, then protesting, then paint and other semi-violent acts...(in fact they are already protesting in some areas, holding signs with pictures of an incident from 1997)) that all major cities in America ban the horse-drawn carriages that give tourists and lovers a like gentle, soothing, aroma filled rides through the city. This is in response to an incident in NYC where a horse bolted, was hit by a car, and had to be put down. No people were injured in this incident. PETA also cites two other occurrences, one from last October and one from 1997. Clearly, this is a major issue! There have been 3 newsworthy events in nine years! Imagine if we had the same concern for people in this manner! There have been at least three deaths in youth sports in the past nine years (one football player, one basketball player, and one cheerleader) so let's ban youth sports. I've heard of three dogs attacking people in the recent past (well within nine years!). So for the peoples' safety, dog owning is now outlawed.
Ok, so we all see how ridiculous this is, but let me get to why I'm really steamed: This is a livelihood for some people. Here are some people trying to make ends meet by sitting behind a stink machine all day! Let's say these people own the horses. If the carriages are banned, now they have a massive expense and no way to generate income with it! So PETA would rather see thousands of people struggling to shelter, clothe, and feed their families than a few horses get injured on the job!
One of the major theses of the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is that the reason Europe advanced technologically much quicker than other regions is because of their use of large mammals. Large mammals in the Americas were killed off and eaten as opposed to being utilized as a work force and were primarily ignored in Africa. Boy, it's a good thing PETA didn't exist then or I'd have no internet to write this on!
Look, PETA, once we've got a society where we have nothing more to worry about regarding people, then we can start concerning ourselves with the animals. Until then, why don't you all just sing "Born Free" to your selves, m'k?
All of this is "just my opinion" but I think it's the right opinion!
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Kennedy shows his colors
"It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination." - Senior Senator Edward "I didn't kill anyone" Kennedy regarding a club that Samuel Alito (Pronounced A-lee-toe by most people, pronounced Ah-lee-o-toe by the distinguish Senator Kennedy) joined while he was in college.
The group was called the owl. It was a conservative group. Samuel Alito joined this group after the building for the previous group he was in was fire-bombed. He was a member of the ROTC and the people who are all for equality and peace fire-bombed the ROTC's building. Judge Alito joined the owl because they dedicated themselves to protesting violence as an avenue to peace, specifically the attack on the ROTC.
Now, Senator Kennedy is demanding that certain unknown details about Jugde Alito's membership in this club be presented to the committee because "It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination." You see, Senator Kennedy wants to discriminate against Judge Alito because he's a conservative. The Senator wants equality for all politicians that were created Democrats.
I have to laugh when people who are so clearly biased and discriminatory claim that they are for equality! Why do they get away with this? Because for some reason it's ok to be biased against Republicans, conservatives, the military, and religious people. But if the discrimination were reversed and a conservative were being openly biased against a liberal he or she is labeled as a hater. As one who continues the practices of the the right in judging and discriminating.
When Kennedy said, "It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination." I wanted the Republican Chair of the committee to say, "Then why, Senator Kennedy, are you choosing to discriminate against this man for his beliefs? Does he not deserve the same equality your are pontificating about right now?" What would he say then?!
I'm so glad that Kennedy has announced that he will serve only one more term! Then Massachusetts will no longer be held hostage by this liberal-my-parents-gave-me-everything-and-I'm-above-the-law "distinguished" Senator! (On a side note, this is the same man who voted to raise a certain tax that hit Massachusetts hard that he then circumvented by illegally claiming residence in another state where the tax didn't apply. I feel so represented!)
But that's just my opinion!
The group was called the owl. It was a conservative group. Samuel Alito joined this group after the building for the previous group he was in was fire-bombed. He was a member of the ROTC and the people who are all for equality and peace fire-bombed the ROTC's building. Judge Alito joined the owl because they dedicated themselves to protesting violence as an avenue to peace, specifically the attack on the ROTC.
Now, Senator Kennedy is demanding that certain unknown details about Jugde Alito's membership in this club be presented to the committee because "It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination." You see, Senator Kennedy wants to discriminate against Judge Alito because he's a conservative. The Senator wants equality for all politicians that were created Democrats.
I have to laugh when people who are so clearly biased and discriminatory claim that they are for equality! Why do they get away with this? Because for some reason it's ok to be biased against Republicans, conservatives, the military, and religious people. But if the discrimination were reversed and a conservative were being openly biased against a liberal he or she is labeled as a hater. As one who continues the practices of the the right in judging and discriminating.
When Kennedy said, "It deals with the fundamental issues of equality and discrimination." I wanted the Republican Chair of the committee to say, "Then why, Senator Kennedy, are you choosing to discriminate against this man for his beliefs? Does he not deserve the same equality your are pontificating about right now?" What would he say then?!
I'm so glad that Kennedy has announced that he will serve only one more term! Then Massachusetts will no longer be held hostage by this liberal-my-parents-gave-me-everything-and-I'm-above-the-law "distinguished" Senator! (On a side note, this is the same man who voted to raise a certain tax that hit Massachusetts hard that he then circumvented by illegally claiming residence in another state where the tax didn't apply. I feel so represented!)
But that's just my opinion!
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Warning: Government shutdown imminent!
I was listening to a radio station today and they were discussing Samuel Alito's judicial candidacy. This radio station brought in their "Judicial Expert" to answer a few questions regarding this candidate. "Alito scares me," this expert said. "We have three branches of government for a reason. Right now, two of them are controlled by one party." He continued to say, "That means we only have one branch left."
I did not make that up! This supposed judicial expert seems to believe that two branches of government are not functioning because they are controlled by the same party!
Wow, if there is only one branch right now that means that during the Clinton administration there were two years when there was no government! There was a time when the Democrats had the White House, the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court! How did we ever survive?! Well, let's hope the Supreme Court can stay out of the hands of the evil Republicans.
Well, it's either that or this "expert" is showing his extreme bias in this sentence. By saying "we" perhaps he means the "Democrats." The Democrats only control one branch of government right now. If that were true, at least he'd be being honest! The Democrats have controlled the Supreme Court for years!
It's about time that there was some balance in the courts! I had no real opinion about Mr. Alito prior to hearing these comments this morning. Now I want him in more than ever! If he frightens the left then he's the guy for me!
And that's just my opinion!
I did not make that up! This supposed judicial expert seems to believe that two branches of government are not functioning because they are controlled by the same party!
Wow, if there is only one branch right now that means that during the Clinton administration there were two years when there was no government! There was a time when the Democrats had the White House, the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court! How did we ever survive?! Well, let's hope the Supreme Court can stay out of the hands of the evil Republicans.
Well, it's either that or this "expert" is showing his extreme bias in this sentence. By saying "we" perhaps he means the "Democrats." The Democrats only control one branch of government right now. If that were true, at least he'd be being honest! The Democrats have controlled the Supreme Court for years!
It's about time that there was some balance in the courts! I had no real opinion about Mr. Alito prior to hearing these comments this morning. Now I want him in more than ever! If he frightens the left then he's the guy for me!
And that's just my opinion!
Monday, January 09, 2006
January "Just Your Opinion" Results
Poll for the week of January 23rd-January 30th
Question:What do you think of the "Just Your Opinion" Poll?
Results:
Poll for the week of January 16th-January 22nd
Question:Who do you think will win the Super Bowl?
Results:
Poll for the week of January 9th-January 15th
Question:Will Anyone Defeat the Colts in the playoffs?
Results:
Poll for the week of January 2nd-January 8th
Question: What was the biggest sports story of 2005?
Results:
Question:What do you think of the "Just Your Opinion" Poll?
Results:
I check every Monday! I can't wait for the next question!
- 1 vote (20%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 2 votes (40%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
Poll for the week of January 16th-January 22nd
Question:Who do you think will win the Super Bowl?
Results:
The Carolina Panthers (Lost in NFC Championship game)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 3 votes (60%)
- 1 vote (20%)
Poll for the week of January 9th-January 15th
Question:Will Anyone Defeat the Colts in the playoffs?
Results:
Yes, The Carolina Panthers will in the Super Bowl
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 3 votes (60%)
- 1 vote (20%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (20%)
Poll for the week of January 2nd-January 8th
Question: What was the biggest sports story of 2005?
Results:
Bruins trade Joe Thornton
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 2 votes (50%)
- 1 vote (25%)
- 0 votes (0%)
- 1 vote (25%)
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Warning: Sports Rants
If you don't read my sports rants be sure to catch a new non-sports post just below this one: Italian Judge.
Sportsline: Madison, Wisconsin. I'm driving down route 15 north in the attractive city of Madison. The rental car we've received was clearly prepared for us because when we started the car for the first time the radio was already set on the sports station! And what did I hear this Madison based radio station discussing? The Red Sox recent signing of J.T. Snow. That's right! Wisconsin is discussing the Red Sox! Gotta love it!
Sportsline: Boston Red Sox. So the Red Sox have signed J.T. Snow to a 1 year 2 million dollar contract. I was excited for this for a few hours till I checked out his stats. He has a slugging percentage of less than .400! Hello! Earth to Larry, the corner positions are the power positions! Well, I guess their thoughts are that it's about the same production as Millar for 1/2 the price. Oh, did I mention that the Madison radio station was saying that the Red Sox have really slid in this off season and they can't see how they could pull out anything higher than 3rd!
Sportsline: Boston Red Sox. Once again there is more attention on Manny Ramirez. ESPN reported that he wanted to stay, now MLB is reporting that Manny's agent said that Manny didn't make those comments. Who do we believe? Here's what I think: Manny doesn't want to leave. Manny's agent does want gobs of cash and therefore is saying that Manny wants to be traded and have the options on his contract accepted. Prediction: Manny's in left and Fillion's not in Fenway come April.
Sportsline: New England Patriots. I just want to say that I really hope that they are able to be the only team ever to win three Super Bowls in a row. I think that the best way for them to do this is for Cincinnati to defeat Pittsburgh so that the Patriots play Indianapolis in week 2 of the playoffs. With a win in Indy under their belt their confidence would be so pumped that they should be able to waltz into Mile High and beat Denver. We all know that it doesn't matter who goes to Detroit, the AFC team is walking out the Champion. Let's hope it's the Patriots!
Sportsline: Madison, Wisconsin. I'm driving down route 15 north in the attractive city of Madison. The rental car we've received was clearly prepared for us because when we started the car for the first time the radio was already set on the sports station! And what did I hear this Madison based radio station discussing? The Red Sox recent signing of J.T. Snow. That's right! Wisconsin is discussing the Red Sox! Gotta love it!
Sportsline: Boston Red Sox. So the Red Sox have signed J.T. Snow to a 1 year 2 million dollar contract. I was excited for this for a few hours till I checked out his stats. He has a slugging percentage of less than .400! Hello! Earth to Larry, the corner positions are the power positions! Well, I guess their thoughts are that it's about the same production as Millar for 1/2 the price. Oh, did I mention that the Madison radio station was saying that the Red Sox have really slid in this off season and they can't see how they could pull out anything higher than 3rd!
Sportsline: Boston Red Sox. Once again there is more attention on Manny Ramirez. ESPN reported that he wanted to stay, now MLB is reporting that Manny's agent said that Manny didn't make those comments. Who do we believe? Here's what I think: Manny doesn't want to leave. Manny's agent does want gobs of cash and therefore is saying that Manny wants to be traded and have the options on his contract accepted. Prediction: Manny's in left and Fillion's not in Fenway come April.
Sportsline: New England Patriots. I just want to say that I really hope that they are able to be the only team ever to win three Super Bowls in a row. I think that the best way for them to do this is for Cincinnati to defeat Pittsburgh so that the Patriots play Indianapolis in week 2 of the playoffs. With a win in Indy under their belt their confidence would be so pumped that they should be able to waltz into Mile High and beat Denver. We all know that it doesn't matter who goes to Detroit, the AFC team is walking out the Champion. Let's hope it's the Patriots!
The fate of Christianity rests on Italian judge
That's right! You heard it here first! (Or maybe not first, but you still heard it here.) An Italian judge will rule whether or not Jesus actually existed.
A lawsuit is being filed by an atheist who wants to "deal the final blow to the church." The lawsuit contests that a certain priest (and therefore all priests, really) is breaking an Italian law that is called "Abuse of popular opinion." This law is in place to protect the public from being swindled or cheated. The basis of the suit is that Jesus did not actually exist and the church is abusing popular opinion by insisting that he did.
Well, Jeremiah 31:35-36 must not be true! If this judge rules that Jesus didn't actually exist this will spell the end of Christianity! The faith of millions would be dashed against this ruling. Chaos would ensue as millions wander in a spiritual void, uncertain of what is and isn't true.
Suits spring up everywhere: Did Christopher Columbus exist? What about Caesar? Mohammed? Wait... what about me? Do I really exist? If I were to die would there be evidence that I actually lived?!
~End sarcasm~
I don't know why this man is wasting the courts time with this pointless lawsuit. The outcome really makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.
This just continues in the rest of the world what's happening in this country. A new friend and I coined the phrase that we feel captures this phenomenon perfectly: Generica. That's right, Generic America. We hold to no beliefs. Nothing is true. Nothing is recognized. We worship at the throne of the eye on the back of the dollar bill and we deify the signers of the Declaration of independence. That wonderful document that frees us so that we might believe in nothing.
God Bless Generica! Wow, I really rambled in this one! Well, if you've made it this far I ought to inform you that, apart from the facts, this is all just my opinion.
A lawsuit is being filed by an atheist who wants to "deal the final blow to the church." The lawsuit contests that a certain priest (and therefore all priests, really) is breaking an Italian law that is called "Abuse of popular opinion." This law is in place to protect the public from being swindled or cheated. The basis of the suit is that Jesus did not actually exist and the church is abusing popular opinion by insisting that he did.
Well, Jeremiah 31:35-36 must not be true! If this judge rules that Jesus didn't actually exist this will spell the end of Christianity! The faith of millions would be dashed against this ruling. Chaos would ensue as millions wander in a spiritual void, uncertain of what is and isn't true.
Suits spring up everywhere: Did Christopher Columbus exist? What about Caesar? Mohammed? Wait... what about me? Do I really exist? If I were to die would there be evidence that I actually lived?!
~End sarcasm~
I don't know why this man is wasting the courts time with this pointless lawsuit. The outcome really makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.
This just continues in the rest of the world what's happening in this country. A new friend and I coined the phrase that we feel captures this phenomenon perfectly: Generica. That's right, Generic America. We hold to no beliefs. Nothing is true. Nothing is recognized. We worship at the throne of the eye on the back of the dollar bill and we deify the signers of the Declaration of independence. That wonderful document that frees us so that we might believe in nothing.
God Bless Generica! Wow, I really rambled in this one! Well, if you've made it this far I ought to inform you that, apart from the facts, this is all just my opinion.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
"It ain't my fault"
I try not to write about "what happened today" but this takes the cake and really shows the victim mentality of our society.
Today, I passed out the paychecks where I work. I gave one to every one in my department. One woman came to me fuming claiming that I either had stolen her check or simply not given it to her. I assured her that I gave her the check and proceeded to spend the next half hour searching her desk with her for it. There was no appreciation because somehow it was my fault that this check was missing.
After the search she said that she'd mailed 2 items to customers but was sure that she hadn't put her paycheck in with either of these mailings. I said I would check. She remembered the destination of one of the mailings because it was international but couldn't remember the second destination. I volunteered to go to our "mailroom" and look for these mailings. I found the international one, opened it and the check was not there.
I then began searching for some nondescript mailing going to I don't know where. Well wouldn't you know it, I found it. I opened a "mailing" and there was her check. Apu was there when I found it. He was amazed! "The force is strong with this one!" He said. He was astonished that I new which "mailing" to look in. Frankly, so was I!
I brought it to her desk and she said, "Oh thank you so much! I don't' know what I would have done if it had been sent to our customer! You are a life saver! Thank you thank you thank you!"
Oh, wait... No she didn't!
She said this: "Marc, next time: on my keyboard. I never saw it! It was almost mailed to a customer." Yeah, like it was my fault that she picked up her check, packed it in an "envelope" and sent it to the "mailroom" to be mailed to our customers! It was somehow justification that I found it, because if I hadn't, boy was I gonna get it!
Hello! I didn't have to bring your check to your desk! I didn't have to waste an hour of my time searching your desk and then the entire "Mailroom" for the "mailings" that you "stuffed!" Take some responsibility!
Oh, and you can get your own check next time!
There ain't no "just my opinion" here! This is just the facts!
Today, I passed out the paychecks where I work. I gave one to every one in my department. One woman came to me fuming claiming that I either had stolen her check or simply not given it to her. I assured her that I gave her the check and proceeded to spend the next half hour searching her desk with her for it. There was no appreciation because somehow it was my fault that this check was missing.
After the search she said that she'd mailed 2 items to customers but was sure that she hadn't put her paycheck in with either of these mailings. I said I would check. She remembered the destination of one of the mailings because it was international but couldn't remember the second destination. I volunteered to go to our "mailroom" and look for these mailings. I found the international one, opened it and the check was not there.
I then began searching for some nondescript mailing going to I don't know where. Well wouldn't you know it, I found it. I opened a "mailing" and there was her check. Apu was there when I found it. He was amazed! "The force is strong with this one!" He said. He was astonished that I new which "mailing" to look in. Frankly, so was I!
I brought it to her desk and she said, "Oh thank you so much! I don't' know what I would have done if it had been sent to our customer! You are a life saver! Thank you thank you thank you!"
Oh, wait... No she didn't!
She said this: "Marc, next time: on my keyboard. I never saw it! It was almost mailed to a customer." Yeah, like it was my fault that she picked up her check, packed it in an "envelope" and sent it to the "mailroom" to be mailed to our customers! It was somehow justification that I found it, because if I hadn't, boy was I gonna get it!
Hello! I didn't have to bring your check to your desk! I didn't have to waste an hour of my time searching your desk and then the entire "Mailroom" for the "mailings" that you "stuffed!" Take some responsibility!
Oh, and you can get your own check next time!
There ain't no "just my opinion" here! This is just the facts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)