Many people accused me of homerism when I selected the now 12-1 Brady/Belichick combo to over-come the 5-12 Schotemhimer (Both records are post season only). What say you now? In this post, I am going to react to LT's outrage at the Patriots, preview all four possible Super Bowl match-ups and then let you know what I think the outcome of this weekends games will be.
Let's start with LT. Ladanian Thomlinson was outraged that the Patriots celebrated in the middle of the field in San Diego saying that the New England player should not have been mimicking Shawn Merriman's sack dance, that they were "classless" and that probably originated with "their head coach." He went on for several days, going so far as to compare it to TO's celebration on the star in Dallas stadium.
LT, do you know why we fought the Revolutionary War and not the Colonial Uprising? Or the Civil War and not the Confederate Revolution? Because the victor dictates the ending. If you want to have a say about how things end, try winning the game. And the difference between the Pats and TO is that the Pats were down by 11 at one point and were headed to the AFC Championship game. TO ran out to the star after scoring a touchdown in a regular season game.
I admit, I respect you for not calling out your teammates and coaches for dropping passes, muffing punt returns, intercepting fourth down passes and then fumbling, and for challenging a play (and wasting a time out) because they really really didn't want it to be true. I find it appalling, however, that you'd take your frustrations out on the first team to defeat you in your home stadium this year. Not to mention that you specifically called out one of the most respected, honorable men in the game. Belichick is all about class. By the way, a wise man once said that the truely classy people don't talk about how classy they are. That wise man? Seattle Seahawk wide receiver Deion Branch.
And now, a preview of all four possible Super Bowls: (in alphabetical order)
Chicago Bears vs Indianapolis Colts
This would probably be the most boring Super Bowl match-up. No "rematch talk" no "Dynasty debate" or "America's comeback" team. That and it would be a blow-out. Indy's protection of Peyton is fantastic and would easily negate Tank, and Indy's wide receivers and tight ends are too fast even for Urlacher. Chicago's strength is run defense, but thier defensive backs are suspect. So they could stop Rhodes and Addai but they'll have to have their line backers drop into zone to protect the underneath passes. Grossman isn't good enough to stay neck and neck with Peyton. Final score: 34-10 Indianapolis
Chicago Bears vs New England Patriots
If this is the match-up for the Super Bowl we get to hear two weeks of "rematch" talk. The over/under on the number of times we see the Refridgerator Perry crashing into the end zone is 315 (that's an average of 27 1/2 times per day). Of course, this is the team that Belichick would prefer to play. Grossman is ok, but he better close his eyes before the snap or his head will be spinning with the defensive alignments that will be dancing in front of him. The Patriots might take a quarter or two to fully figure out the Chicago D, they'd end up winning this contest. The first half would look like a defensive battle. The second half would be an example of first timer's mistakes and veteran's capitalization on those mistakes. Final score: 17-6 New England
New Orleans Saints vs Indianapolis Colts
This may be the game the network is hoping for. "Everyone's second favorite team" in the Saints vs Peyton's first chance at winning the big game. If the Saints defeat the Bears, they will set a Super Bowl record: They will have had the worst record the year before they played in the Super Bowl. The four teams that defeated Indy this year provided a blue print for this feat: run the ball. That's it, if you can successfully run the football against the Colts, you keep the ball out of Peyton's hands and the game is yours. The Saints have McAllister and Bush. It may be close, but the Saints would pull this game out. Once again Peyton's hopes would be thwarted. Final score: 27-24 New Orleans
New Orleans Saints vs New England Patriots
One would think that, win or lose, if the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl yet again, the debate over whether or not they are a dynasty would finally be settled. Even Bengals fans would have to admit that we have the first dynasty of the salary cap era. The question we have to ask is: can the team who stopped LT contain McAllister and Bush? The answer: yes. If the Patriots get to this game, they will have defeated the Jets, Chargers, and Colts. The Saints would have played the Eagles and Bears. It's pretty clear that after the giants the Pats have faced, the Saints would seem like they were knee high to a hobbit. The Pats would play their usual game of keeping it close till the end. This game would secure the Patriots fourth Super Bowl victory in six years. Dynasty Debate Done. Final score: 24-20 New England
So which Super Bowl do I expect to see? New Orleans vs Indianapolis. New Orleans should have no problem with Chicago. That game looks like a no brainer to me. Chicago will force a turn over or two, but their offense won't be able to turn those into points. The real question is "can Peyton beat Brady in the playoffs?" Peyton has taken the last two regular season meetings, but has yet to overcome the Patriots in the post season. The game is in Indy, but Brady and Co. won two of their three conference championships in Pittsburgh. Is there a tougher stadium in the AFC than the home of those terrible towels? That and most of the Patriots losses this year were at home. But when the final seconds tick off of the clock in the AFC championship game, Indy will be up by a score of 23-21 and will go on to lose to New Orleans in the Super Bowl.
You may not want to put any money on all of this, though. Because it is just my opinion.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
More troops in Iraq
Alright, I admit it. I'm a bit behind on the topics. However, this is one that I'd like to cover (slash discuss) before any further decisions are made by the current administration.
In the little Hamlet of Iraq we hear the musings, "To escalate or not to escalate, that is the question."
I'm not going to hold my faithful readers in suspense on this one. Here is my opinion:
Escalation in Iraq is not the answer. (No, Dr. James, do not attempt to adjust your monitor, you read that correctly.)
Here's why I think this is the case (And I'll offer a possible solution later in this post.): More troops in Iraq means more death in Iraq. There is no way of avoiding this. It's as simple as a law of averages. It's a gaurantee. I don't just mean more Iraqi deaths (as that is a foregone conclusion,) but many more American deaths as well. Furthermore, if you'll pardon the football analogy, I see the insurgents conducting themselves like the New England Patriots. New England usually does just enough to win. They don't often blow their opponents out of the water, they bide their time so that they end the game in victory. If the insurgents are doing this and we send more troops, they will increase their attacks. They will pour more of their seemingly limitless resourses into getting the US out resulting in even more deaths. I'll put it in a simple mathmatical equation so all (including the President) can understand:
Iraq + Escalation = Wicked Bad Idea!
There is speculation that "cutting and running" would create more death in Iraq as well as some believe that if we leave the consequence would be a civil war. However, that is not a certainty. More troops resulting in more death is.
Now for what I think I'd like to see. I've heard a theory that the Iraqi insurgents are attacking primarily because they want to see the US out of Iraq. Alright, let's conduct a little test. Iraq is not the weak, impotent nation that it was when the knee-jerkers first started calling for a "time-table for withdrawl" or a "complete retreat." I do not believe that it will crumble like Florida's defense will against Ohio State on Monday. I don't think we'll see another "Siagon." So let's leave with some conditions. We begin to slowly remove troops. No vacuum, no complete immediate withdrawl. A few hundred at a time we bring folks home. We do so as a message to the Iraqi people, government, and insurgents (in that order) that we so strongly care about the success of their democracy, that we are leaving so they can prove they are able to sustain their government and the peace. If the insurgents are attacking because we are present, they'd have no reason to continue their reign of destruction any longer. On our way out, we make it clear that we reserve the right to return the instant Iraq begins to look like Palestine/Israel. The moment we see anything that even resembles a civil war, we will be back so fast (with so many more "boots on the groung," "birds in the air," "resolve," and "shock and awe") that it will make thier heads spin. Iraq will become the 52nd state. (We'd have to make Puerto Rico the 51st or they'd be really peeved!)
So, that's what I think we should do. A slow withdrawl to see if the insurgency lessens and to give the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own two feet. What thinketh thou?
Mr. President, are you listening? Because this, after all, is just my opinion.
In the little Hamlet of Iraq we hear the musings, "To escalate or not to escalate, that is the question."
I'm not going to hold my faithful readers in suspense on this one. Here is my opinion:
Escalation in Iraq is not the answer. (No, Dr. James, do not attempt to adjust your monitor, you read that correctly.)
Here's why I think this is the case (And I'll offer a possible solution later in this post.): More troops in Iraq means more death in Iraq. There is no way of avoiding this. It's as simple as a law of averages. It's a gaurantee. I don't just mean more Iraqi deaths (as that is a foregone conclusion,) but many more American deaths as well. Furthermore, if you'll pardon the football analogy, I see the insurgents conducting themselves like the New England Patriots. New England usually does just enough to win. They don't often blow their opponents out of the water, they bide their time so that they end the game in victory. If the insurgents are doing this and we send more troops, they will increase their attacks. They will pour more of their seemingly limitless resourses into getting the US out resulting in even more deaths. I'll put it in a simple mathmatical equation so all (including the President) can understand:
Iraq + Escalation = Wicked Bad Idea!
There is speculation that "cutting and running" would create more death in Iraq as well as some believe that if we leave the consequence would be a civil war. However, that is not a certainty. More troops resulting in more death is.
Now for what I think I'd like to see. I've heard a theory that the Iraqi insurgents are attacking primarily because they want to see the US out of Iraq. Alright, let's conduct a little test. Iraq is not the weak, impotent nation that it was when the knee-jerkers first started calling for a "time-table for withdrawl" or a "complete retreat." I do not believe that it will crumble like Florida's defense will against Ohio State on Monday. I don't think we'll see another "Siagon." So let's leave with some conditions. We begin to slowly remove troops. No vacuum, no complete immediate withdrawl. A few hundred at a time we bring folks home. We do so as a message to the Iraqi people, government, and insurgents (in that order) that we so strongly care about the success of their democracy, that we are leaving so they can prove they are able to sustain their government and the peace. If the insurgents are attacking because we are present, they'd have no reason to continue their reign of destruction any longer. On our way out, we make it clear that we reserve the right to return the instant Iraq begins to look like Palestine/Israel. The moment we see anything that even resembles a civil war, we will be back so fast (with so many more "boots on the groung," "birds in the air," "resolve," and "shock and awe") that it will make thier heads spin. Iraq will become the 52nd state. (We'd have to make Puerto Rico the 51st or they'd be really peeved!)
So, that's what I think we should do. A slow withdrawl to see if the insurgency lessens and to give the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own two feet. What thinketh thou?
Mr. President, are you listening? Because this, after all, is just my opinion.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
NFL Predictions (Recap and Playoffs)
So there you have it. The NFL regular season is in the books and the playoff picture is firmly set. I'll be predicting the outcome of the playoffs as they stand later in the post. However, before the gridiron grind began I made some predictions regarding this final outcome, let's see how I did:
NFC East (Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins)
(Prediction: Dallas Actual: Philly)
Well, I both nailed and blew this division. I said it would be the most hotly contested division in the NFC, and it was with three of the four teams with a shot at first place in the second half of the year and three of these teams making the playoffs. However, I thought that the Eagles would crash into last place (especially after McNabb went down.) Who would've thought that Garcia would carry his team into first?! And had Dallas put some effort into fighting Detroit, they'd've been in first, so I was not right, but I was close. Half Credit. (Mudflaps and Apu, however, can both bear witness that before the season I predicted an 8-8 season from the Giants. Slam dunk on that one!)
NFC West (Seahawks, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals)
(Prediction: Seattle Actual: Seattle)
First, I'd like to personally thank the 49ers for making sure that the Denver Bronco frauds did not make it into the playoffs. They didn't deserve the victory vs New England last year and I'm happy that they won't be at the ball this year. I could pat myself on the back for calling this one correctly all around, but it's such an easy division.
NFC North (Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings)
(Prediction: Chicago Actual: Chicago)
Ooo, look, another tough call made in this division. I think the only thing that surprised me with this group was that Farve didn't break a hip this year. (And the Packers still had a chance at the playoffs late in the year.) But that's the NFC for you. Much weaker than the AFC so more folks have a chance at the big dance.
NFC South (Saints, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers)
(Prediction: Carolina Actual: New Orleans)
Well, this division proved harder to call than I thought. The double barrel running game of McAllister and Bush did rocket the Saints to victory. In fact, it got them to a first round bye and a home playoff game! So I got this one quite wrong.
NFC Wild Card
Predictions: Tampa Bay & Washington, Actual: Dallas & New York
So, 1 point for every correctly predicted playoff team and 1/2 point for wild card team from the predicted division (for a possible 7 points) 3 out of six for the playoff teams (Chicago, Dallas, Seattle) plus the 1/2 credit for 1 wild card division (NFC East) and the 8-8 finish of the Giants. 4 out of 7 for the NFC. On to the AFC (I don't think I faired much better.)
AFC East (Patriots, Jets, Dolphins, Bills)
(Prediction: New England Actual: New England)
I thought this was an easy division to call. However, SI (Sports Illustrated) predicted that the Dolphins would win this division and the Patriots would be a wild card team. I disagreed and am happy to say that I was correct. New England did indeed win this division in a manner that was never in question. A wild card team did come from the East. It was not the Dolphins, rather it was the Jets.
AFC West (Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders)
(Prediction: San Diego Actual: San Diego)
For this division I acurately predicted that the Broncos would not be back (again, thank you 49ers), that the Chiefs need a defense, that the Raiders would not finish any higher than 3rd (they were in last) and that the Chargers would dash into the playoffs on the back of LT's record setting year. Thank you, good night!
AFC North (Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Browns)
(Prediction:Cincinnati Actual: Baltimore)
Wow, so I really missed the mark on this division. What happened to the Bengals? And the Steelers? Not even a chance to repeat as they completely missed the playoffs! The Ravens with their power D snuck up and hog tied this division. They will be tough to beat in the post season.
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
(Prediction: Indianapolis Actual: Indianapolis)
No big surprises here. With one exception: for the first time in 10 games Indy lost to Houston! Just a sign of how far Indy will get in the playoffs: not very. Welcome to Marino-World, Mr. Manning. Here's the difference between he and you: He actually played in a Super Bowl.
AFC Wild Card
Predictions: Miami & Pittsburgh Actual: New York & Kansas City
Same scoring as before. 3 out of 6 for the division winners. 1 half point for the wild card team from the East. 3.5 out of 7 for a total of 7.5 out of 14. Just over 50% isn't so bad. (Better than SI, at least my Super Bowl match-up is still possible.)
So here's the playoff picture now and my predictions
Round 1:
NFC
Dallas @ Philly
Dallas wins this game because it's not in Dallas.
Giants @ Seattle
Seattle takes this game. The Giants have been falling apart and this game won't be any different. Besides, what is an 8-8 team doing in the playoffs?
AFC
Jets @ New England
New England has been struggling at home this year, but this is the playoffs. Brady is 10-1 in the playoffs and the game he lost he lost to the zebras. New England wins easily.
Kansas City @ Indy
Indy will run over KC giving the Manning band wagoners more fuel for their "Manning is the greatest" crap. To bad he loses the next week.
Second Round
NFC
Dallas @ Chicago
Sorry, Romo, your year ends here. Chicago's offense may be lacking, but you don't have enough D to stop them. TO will drop 3 passes for you and you'll go home.
Seattle @ New Orleans
No repeat visit for you Shawn. Your team can't stop Brees, Bush and McAllister. The Saints are headed to the Conference Championship.
AFC
Indy @ Baltimore
Mr. Manning, allow me to introduce you to something called Defense. You may have heard, it wins championships. You don't have one. Baltimore does. Sorry, you journey ends here.
New England @ San Diego
If LT were the only weapon that San Diego had, I'd give the Patriots more of a shot. They did stop Marshal Faulk and Kurt Warner in their first Super Bowl, but the Chargers have Gates, Caldwell, Rivers, LT... The other side of this coin is that D wins Championships, and the Patriots have a better D than the Chargers. If this turns into a scoring fest the Patriots win. My inclination is to pick the Chargers, but as this will be a hard fought game I believe the Patriots will emerge victorious. (Really, I'm flipping a coin here... and trying not to be a homer... The other hard part about this is that if the Patriots win, they are going to the Super Bowl because they can beat Baltimore, However, if the Chargers win it's Baltimore who will represent the AFC...) Ok, my final answer is: New England (How can I pick against a 10-1 QB/Coach Combo?) So, no, there will be no Rivers/Brees San Diego/New Orleans Super Bowl.
Conference Championships
NFC
New Orleans @ Chicago
The weather will probably not play a factor here. The Saints are primarily a rushing team, I don't think the cold gets to them. Chicago has a crazy D, but not enough of an offense to win this game. Watch for New Orleans to win a nail biter.
AFC
New England @ Baltimore
Baltimore had the D, but not enough offense. They would have to score twice on defense to win this game. I don't think they can do it. Brady leads his team to yet another Super Bowl game.
Super Bowl
It's not the one the networks wanted. No Bears/Pats rematch. No Rivers vs Brees show down. No Manning going for his first crown. Nope, it's
New England vs New Orleans
The rookie's nerves get to him and he fumbles a few times. Brady leads yet another march down field to win the game. And it's a Dynasty for sure now.
(Of course, if San Diego defeats New England, then it's Baltimore vs New Orleans and the story book ending is acheived. New Orleans wins the Super Bowl the year after Katrina hits.
There you have it. The JMO playoff predictions. Let's see if I can get better than 50% this time!
Thanks for reading, feel free to offer your winners and losers in the comments.
NFC East (Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins)
(Prediction: Dallas Actual: Philly)
Well, I both nailed and blew this division. I said it would be the most hotly contested division in the NFC, and it was with three of the four teams with a shot at first place in the second half of the year and three of these teams making the playoffs. However, I thought that the Eagles would crash into last place (especially after McNabb went down.) Who would've thought that Garcia would carry his team into first?! And had Dallas put some effort into fighting Detroit, they'd've been in first, so I was not right, but I was close. Half Credit. (Mudflaps and Apu, however, can both bear witness that before the season I predicted an 8-8 season from the Giants. Slam dunk on that one!)
NFC West (Seahawks, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals)
(Prediction: Seattle Actual: Seattle)
First, I'd like to personally thank the 49ers for making sure that the Denver Bronco frauds did not make it into the playoffs. They didn't deserve the victory vs New England last year and I'm happy that they won't be at the ball this year. I could pat myself on the back for calling this one correctly all around, but it's such an easy division.
NFC North (Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings)
(Prediction: Chicago Actual: Chicago)
Ooo, look, another tough call made in this division. I think the only thing that surprised me with this group was that Farve didn't break a hip this year. (And the Packers still had a chance at the playoffs late in the year.) But that's the NFC for you. Much weaker than the AFC so more folks have a chance at the big dance.
NFC South (Saints, Panthers, Falcons, Buccaneers)
(Prediction: Carolina Actual: New Orleans)
Well, this division proved harder to call than I thought. The double barrel running game of McAllister and Bush did rocket the Saints to victory. In fact, it got them to a first round bye and a home playoff game! So I got this one quite wrong.
NFC Wild Card
Predictions: Tampa Bay & Washington, Actual: Dallas & New York
So, 1 point for every correctly predicted playoff team and 1/2 point for wild card team from the predicted division (for a possible 7 points) 3 out of six for the playoff teams (Chicago, Dallas, Seattle) plus the 1/2 credit for 1 wild card division (NFC East) and the 8-8 finish of the Giants. 4 out of 7 for the NFC. On to the AFC (I don't think I faired much better.)
AFC East (Patriots, Jets, Dolphins, Bills)
(Prediction: New England Actual: New England)
I thought this was an easy division to call. However, SI (Sports Illustrated) predicted that the Dolphins would win this division and the Patriots would be a wild card team. I disagreed and am happy to say that I was correct. New England did indeed win this division in a manner that was never in question. A wild card team did come from the East. It was not the Dolphins, rather it was the Jets.
AFC West (Chargers, Chiefs, Broncos, Raiders)
(Prediction: San Diego Actual: San Diego)
For this division I acurately predicted that the Broncos would not be back (again, thank you 49ers), that the Chiefs need a defense, that the Raiders would not finish any higher than 3rd (they were in last) and that the Chargers would dash into the playoffs on the back of LT's record setting year. Thank you, good night!
AFC North (Ravens, Bengals, Steelers, Browns)
(Prediction:Cincinnati Actual: Baltimore)
Wow, so I really missed the mark on this division. What happened to the Bengals? And the Steelers? Not even a chance to repeat as they completely missed the playoffs! The Ravens with their power D snuck up and hog tied this division. They will be tough to beat in the post season.
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
(Prediction: Indianapolis Actual: Indianapolis)
No big surprises here. With one exception: for the first time in 10 games Indy lost to Houston! Just a sign of how far Indy will get in the playoffs: not very. Welcome to Marino-World, Mr. Manning. Here's the difference between he and you: He actually played in a Super Bowl.
AFC Wild Card
Predictions: Miami & Pittsburgh Actual: New York & Kansas City
Same scoring as before. 3 out of 6 for the division winners. 1 half point for the wild card team from the East. 3.5 out of 7 for a total of 7.5 out of 14. Just over 50% isn't so bad. (Better than SI, at least my Super Bowl match-up is still possible.)
So here's the playoff picture now and my predictions
Round 1:
NFC
Dallas @ Philly
Dallas wins this game because it's not in Dallas.
Giants @ Seattle
Seattle takes this game. The Giants have been falling apart and this game won't be any different. Besides, what is an 8-8 team doing in the playoffs?
AFC
Jets @ New England
New England has been struggling at home this year, but this is the playoffs. Brady is 10-1 in the playoffs and the game he lost he lost to the zebras. New England wins easily.
Kansas City @ Indy
Indy will run over KC giving the Manning band wagoners more fuel for their "Manning is the greatest" crap. To bad he loses the next week.
Second Round
NFC
Dallas @ Chicago
Sorry, Romo, your year ends here. Chicago's offense may be lacking, but you don't have enough D to stop them. TO will drop 3 passes for you and you'll go home.
Seattle @ New Orleans
No repeat visit for you Shawn. Your team can't stop Brees, Bush and McAllister. The Saints are headed to the Conference Championship.
AFC
Indy @ Baltimore
Mr. Manning, allow me to introduce you to something called Defense. You may have heard, it wins championships. You don't have one. Baltimore does. Sorry, you journey ends here.
New England @ San Diego
If LT were the only weapon that San Diego had, I'd give the Patriots more of a shot. They did stop Marshal Faulk and Kurt Warner in their first Super Bowl, but the Chargers have Gates, Caldwell, Rivers, LT... The other side of this coin is that D wins Championships, and the Patriots have a better D than the Chargers. If this turns into a scoring fest the Patriots win. My inclination is to pick the Chargers, but as this will be a hard fought game I believe the Patriots will emerge victorious. (Really, I'm flipping a coin here... and trying not to be a homer... The other hard part about this is that if the Patriots win, they are going to the Super Bowl because they can beat Baltimore, However, if the Chargers win it's Baltimore who will represent the AFC...) Ok, my final answer is: New England (How can I pick against a 10-1 QB/Coach Combo?) So, no, there will be no Rivers/Brees San Diego/New Orleans Super Bowl.
Conference Championships
NFC
New Orleans @ Chicago
The weather will probably not play a factor here. The Saints are primarily a rushing team, I don't think the cold gets to them. Chicago has a crazy D, but not enough of an offense to win this game. Watch for New Orleans to win a nail biter.
AFC
New England @ Baltimore
Baltimore had the D, but not enough offense. They would have to score twice on defense to win this game. I don't think they can do it. Brady leads his team to yet another Super Bowl game.
Super Bowl
It's not the one the networks wanted. No Bears/Pats rematch. No Rivers vs Brees show down. No Manning going for his first crown. Nope, it's
New England vs New Orleans
The rookie's nerves get to him and he fumbles a few times. Brady leads yet another march down field to win the game. And it's a Dynasty for sure now.
(Of course, if San Diego defeats New England, then it's Baltimore vs New Orleans and the story book ending is acheived. New Orleans wins the Super Bowl the year after Katrina hits.
There you have it. The JMO playoff predictions. Let's see if I can get better than 50% this time!
Thanks for reading, feel free to offer your winners and losers in the comments.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Why Isaac will not "believe" in Santa
Even though he does not read this blog,I must first apologize to my good friend Legolas. Several years ago, he told me that his kids (none of whom had, or have, yet been born) would not "believe" in Santa Claus. In my typical "I'm-right-and-you-are-wrong" fashion, I let him have it. I lambasted him, asking how he was going to keep his children from spoiling it for other kids. Telling him that it was foolish and unnecessary, that Santa was harmless. Legolas: I'm sorry.
Some of you may be questiong why "believe" is in quotation marks. As a student of history, I have every intention of telling Isaac the true story of Saint Nicholas, My hope is that he will believe that this generous man truly did exist, but that he is either currently with the Lord, or awaiting judgement day (depending on your theology on such matters). So Isaac will believe in the person that we now refer to as Santa, but he will not believe that Santa still exists. There are several reasons why.
I'll begin with what I view as the most obvious: Santa detracts from Jesus. In our ultra consumer-driven culture, Santa represents the giving and receiving of gifts on Christmas. While some I know try to justify this by saying that the wise men gave gifts to Christ, or that Jesus was the ultimate gift to man, I see this as justification after the fact. If Jesus is the ultimate gift, shouldn't we be giving to Him? And if it's the wise men, Santa shouldn't begin his breaking and entering spree til some time in January. Kris Kringle's detraction from the true "reason for the season" is further exacerbated by the current over-use of Santa to sell at Christmas time. (You may have noticed that "Christmas time" now begins the day after Halloween, rather than the day after Thanksgiving, as it used to.) Anecedotally, The Queen of Hearts and I were at a family Christmas party last year. The Queen's father has a massive family and there were probably two dozen "Santa-aged" children present. Many parents found their kids to be uncontrollable until... Santa arrived. (So it was the Queen's female cousin in a Santa suit, these kids wanted to believe so much, that it didn't seem to bother most of them that Santa sounded like a woman). Suddenly, there were 24 little angels in the room seated quitely at Santa's feet awaiting what great gift he would bestow upon them. It was as though he had attained the status of deity for these young minds. I was highly disturbed. Not only does Santa detract from Jesus, he almost usurps his position.
Second, I would rather not lie to my child regarding an apparently immortal, strangely powerful, loving being who can visit every home that celebrates Christmas in a single night giving material gifts. A being who doesn't really exist. Primarily because I want him to believe in the immortal, omnipotent, all loving, omnipresent, giver of the single greatest gift: salvation. If he learns that I lied about Santa, does he then doubt the existence of God and Christ? A relative of mine was explaining how his second grade daughter came home questioning the existence of jolly old St. Nick. Apparently, a child at school told her Santa wasn't real. The father of this seven year old then set out an elaborate plan to convince her that Santa did exist. His end purpose was to further deceive his child. No thanks, I'll pass.
Something I realized recently is that our Santa myth sets up the potential for an incorrect (and potentially damaging) view of God. The similarities between Santa and God are quite evident as I listed above. There are two great differences that could be confusing if a child believes in Kris Kringle. First, both Jesus and St. Nick both truly lived, but only one is still alive. Second, what do you have to do for Santa to give you something other than coal? You must be good! Every sidewalk Santa asks the same thing, "Have you been a good [boy/girl] this year?" However, God's blessings are not contingent on our behavior. They are based on His grace and love, not whether or not we cursed when we got our finger caught in the blender when we were trying to get out that last bit of milk shake. This second difference is one that many believers struggle with anyway, it does not need to be subconsciously encouraged.
I see in the Bible many calls to be counter-cultural. Because America is supposedly a "Christian Nation," we often feel that it's ok to be an American Christian because they are almost synonmous. I no longer see it that way and this is just one way that we will hopefully stand out as believers. We are Christians who happen to be Americans. Our loyalty to the kingdom of God comes first.
Will Isaac be missing out on anything? I remember when I learned that Santa didn't exist. I figured it out because Santa and the Easter Bunny had the same handwriting. I was pretty mad at my parents for lying to me for years. (The night before Easter, my mom would wear a hat with bunny ears on it, so in case we woke up we'd think we saw the Easter Bunny. I did see the Easter Bunny, and told kids that I had, til I was in third grade). I'm hoping that Isaac will miss out on all of that.
We'll try to explain to him that some people believe that Santa exists and we shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. However, for his whole life, I hope Isaac will know the following truths: Jesus loves him, the Red Sox are the best team in baseball, and Santa doesn't really exist.
This may be just my opinion, but it's being put into action.
Some of you may be questiong why "believe" is in quotation marks. As a student of history, I have every intention of telling Isaac the true story of Saint Nicholas, My hope is that he will believe that this generous man truly did exist, but that he is either currently with the Lord, or awaiting judgement day (depending on your theology on such matters). So Isaac will believe in the person that we now refer to as Santa, but he will not believe that Santa still exists. There are several reasons why.
I'll begin with what I view as the most obvious: Santa detracts from Jesus. In our ultra consumer-driven culture, Santa represents the giving and receiving of gifts on Christmas. While some I know try to justify this by saying that the wise men gave gifts to Christ, or that Jesus was the ultimate gift to man, I see this as justification after the fact. If Jesus is the ultimate gift, shouldn't we be giving to Him? And if it's the wise men, Santa shouldn't begin his breaking and entering spree til some time in January. Kris Kringle's detraction from the true "reason for the season" is further exacerbated by the current over-use of Santa to sell at Christmas time. (You may have noticed that "Christmas time" now begins the day after Halloween, rather than the day after Thanksgiving, as it used to.) Anecedotally, The Queen of Hearts and I were at a family Christmas party last year. The Queen's father has a massive family and there were probably two dozen "Santa-aged" children present. Many parents found their kids to be uncontrollable until... Santa arrived. (So it was the Queen's female cousin in a Santa suit, these kids wanted to believe so much, that it didn't seem to bother most of them that Santa sounded like a woman). Suddenly, there were 24 little angels in the room seated quitely at Santa's feet awaiting what great gift he would bestow upon them. It was as though he had attained the status of deity for these young minds. I was highly disturbed. Not only does Santa detract from Jesus, he almost usurps his position.
Second, I would rather not lie to my child regarding an apparently immortal, strangely powerful, loving being who can visit every home that celebrates Christmas in a single night giving material gifts. A being who doesn't really exist. Primarily because I want him to believe in the immortal, omnipotent, all loving, omnipresent, giver of the single greatest gift: salvation. If he learns that I lied about Santa, does he then doubt the existence of God and Christ? A relative of mine was explaining how his second grade daughter came home questioning the existence of jolly old St. Nick. Apparently, a child at school told her Santa wasn't real. The father of this seven year old then set out an elaborate plan to convince her that Santa did exist. His end purpose was to further deceive his child. No thanks, I'll pass.
Something I realized recently is that our Santa myth sets up the potential for an incorrect (and potentially damaging) view of God. The similarities between Santa and God are quite evident as I listed above. There are two great differences that could be confusing if a child believes in Kris Kringle. First, both Jesus and St. Nick both truly lived, but only one is still alive. Second, what do you have to do for Santa to give you something other than coal? You must be good! Every sidewalk Santa asks the same thing, "Have you been a good [boy/girl] this year?" However, God's blessings are not contingent on our behavior. They are based on His grace and love, not whether or not we cursed when we got our finger caught in the blender when we were trying to get out that last bit of milk shake. This second difference is one that many believers struggle with anyway, it does not need to be subconsciously encouraged.
I see in the Bible many calls to be counter-cultural. Because America is supposedly a "Christian Nation," we often feel that it's ok to be an American Christian because they are almost synonmous. I no longer see it that way and this is just one way that we will hopefully stand out as believers. We are Christians who happen to be Americans. Our loyalty to the kingdom of God comes first.
Will Isaac be missing out on anything? I remember when I learned that Santa didn't exist. I figured it out because Santa and the Easter Bunny had the same handwriting. I was pretty mad at my parents for lying to me for years. (The night before Easter, my mom would wear a hat with bunny ears on it, so in case we woke up we'd think we saw the Easter Bunny. I did see the Easter Bunny, and told kids that I had, til I was in third grade). I'm hoping that Isaac will miss out on all of that.
We'll try to explain to him that some people believe that Santa exists and we shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. However, for his whole life, I hope Isaac will know the following truths: Jesus loves him, the Red Sox are the best team in baseball, and Santa doesn't really exist.
This may be just my opinion, but it's being put into action.
Friday, December 15, 2006
A little bit of everything
Once again, I apologize for the extended delay between posts. I hope that there are still people out there who periodically check this venue of discussion to make sure I am still alive. Apu, thank you for letting me know that you do, feel free to encourage others to do the same.
Alright, this will be another epic multi-issue post. I will try to remain current and not post on things that are no longer relevant.
First, on a personal note, it's been a bit difficult living here in CT. We haven't yet found a home church, which means our access to a community of believers is limited. We did find a Baptist church that holds its services entirely in Polish. Isaac is sitting up now and doing long division. (Ok, that second part isn't entirely accurate.) I am still unemployed but I am waiting to hear about a non-sports, non-film job opportunity for which I interviewed. The flip side of the lack of income/lack of work issue is that it's been nice being home with Isaac and Vanessa and enjoying Isaac's early months of growth.
Next, to current affairs (I'll hit sports last so that I don't lose those of you who don't much care about sports):
Newsline: Boston. So the Governor-elect of MA has decided to throw off the chains of tradition and not allow anyone to conduct a background check on the people who he is going to appoint to public office. Allow me to shed some light on the predicament MA has willingly gotten themselves into: You have a defense laywer who has defended convicted rapists, murderers, and cop killers, among others. Mind you, he's assuredly gotten some people acquitted or he wouldn't have been as successful as he's been, and not every sentence is a life sentence. Now this man is running the Commonwealth's government and will not allow background checks on his appointed officials. Does that instill a sense of confidence in you? Does he owe some people "favors?" I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.
Newsline: The Supreme Court: The highest court in the nation is currently hearing a case that once again involves the desegragation of schools. Did you think that was decided with Brown v. Board of Education? Think again. There are two states that are involved in this litigation. These two states regularly bus children to different school systems to ensure that the schools are integrated so that they comply with the historic ruling listed above. The problem is not that the schools refuse to be integrated, but that the schools that have been receiving the bussed students are now forced to turn away students from their own town, forcing those students to be bussed to the school from which the non-resident students would be attending. Why is this before the Supreme Court? Only the white students are being turned away. Apparently, the school already has too many white students. Now take a moment and replace the word "white" in the above sentences with "black" or "hispanic" or "minority." Outraged? Why not before? Bottom line: Bus in whomever you like, that's not the issue. However, do not tell parents who live in your town and pay taxes that go to fund your school that their children are not allowed to attend there. Schools are funded by town budgets so the town has a choice. A) Refund the taxes of the people whose children are being shipped to another town against their will (and pay for the added expense those children cause in said other town.) or B) Let the kids go to school with the children who live next door to them.
Newsline: Connecticut: Enfield, Connecticut has a graduating class of about 450 students. Their gymnasium holds 800 people. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's less than 1 family member per graduating student (especially if you count faculty and staff who would be attending.) In the past, the school has held their graduation ceremony at the Bushnell in Hartford. (For those of you in Boston, think "The Wang".) This was no inexpensive endeavor, however. The school had to cut a check for $18,000 for the use of that venue. There is a "mega-church" in Enfield that seats just about the same number of people as the Bushnell and is only asking $6,000 for the use of their sanctuary. What a great deal for this school (a school that was spending $18,000 of the tax payer's money). I bet we all know what's coming next. The ACLU has stepped in. They are fighting the school system saying that they can't have it in a church because that "favors one religion over another." The church has promised to remove all of their banners and mobile religious symbols. Behind the staging area is a stain glass window of a dove. The ACLU laywers say that the issue isn't the symbols, simply the symbolic nature that the building is a church. Any guesses on how many complaints they've had from the 450 families who have graduation seniors? One. So that one person could possibly take $12,000 from the sports, computers, art, music, another teacher's aide, field trips, you name it, all because they are offended that the graduation might be held in a building that is a church. For crying out loud, what if everything someone was offended by didn't happen or exist? No more rap music. The middle finger is outlawed. Forget all of the profanity you know. Most of prime time TV is a big no-no. The Religious Right is disbanded. Political parties are parties no more. The Yankees cease to exist. You see what I'm getting at. Really, sometimes people need to suck it up and deal. (One more thing about the offended people and the church. They wouldn't be offended if the graduation was catered by Dunkin Donuts saying that was the town showing favor of one doughnut place over another, demanding that it be catered by a non-Dunkins, non-Krispy doughnut provider. Why is it that the church is so offensive? Is it because it appears to require one to change how they live? (when in actuality, once one has faith, it is the Holy Spirit that encourages the change?) What would these people have done in acient Greece? "Can't do that, that favors Hermes over Ares, or Aphrodite over Hades.")
Sportsline: New Orleans: So I am no longer pulling for the New Orleans Saints. I was hoping they'd do well with the reconstruction of their city and Reggie's rookie year, not to mention the resurgence of Drew Brees. However, they committed one of the most despicable actions in sports and, therefore, have lost my support. They purposefully ran up the score against Dallas last week. Now it's one thing to have a potent defense and perhaps recover a fumble or grab an interception and run it back. Or get a turnover and run a potent offense against a porous D. That's not what happened. Up by 25 points in the fourth quarter, New Orleans lined up as though they were going to kick the ball away and instead executed an on-sides kick. An on-sides kick! Despicable, low, no good, needless. It's something my brother-in-law does against me in Madden '07. It's not something a professional head coach does against his former team. Maybe the coach had Brees in his fantasy league and wanted to make sure he got some extra fantasy points because they already had the spread beat if he had money on the game. If that had been done by a high school coach he'd be fired (or at least fined.) That kind of unsportsman-like coaching has no place in the NFL.
Sportsline: Boston: So Theo has finally made his fantasy come true. The Red Sox have signed Julio Lugo. Why Epstein has been infatuated with this player, I have no idea. He steals, he strikes out, and he bunts. This is not the Moneyball player that Theo claims to adore. I'll miss the most reliable defensive short stop the Red Sox have ever had. Maybe we can sign him and move him to second, because there is no way that Loretta is sticking around. Also on the theme of the Red Sox, they better sign "The Monster" or they wasted $51.1 million. I heard a rumor that he was signed for $52 million over 6 or 10 years, but that has been unconfirmed at this time. Making the total cost for this player $103.1 million. (and Scott Boras, the jerkiest agent in sports would get $5.2 million over 6 or 10 years. He doesn't really need any other players, does he? He's kinda like Jay Mahr's character in Jerry Maguire, you gotta deal with him, but nobody really likes him.) I wonder if the Sox will see another complete team turnaround like they did last year. Everyone gone but Papi and 'Tek. Yup, once again they are trying to trade Manny, will they never learn? I'm out of WEEI range so my news may be old. But it's met with the same mixed emotions it would be if I heard it from Jerry and John, Dale and Holey, or The Big O, Pete, and Buck.
Finally: If you've made it this far, I have a question to pose for which I have no answer. I've been wrestling with this and would like others' input. Here it is: Is health care a human right? Please comment with your answer (and who pays for it...)
Again, sorry it's been so long. Thanks for wading through these issues with me. I hope it will be less than a month before you receive another installment of that which is just my opinion.
Alright, this will be another epic multi-issue post. I will try to remain current and not post on things that are no longer relevant.
First, on a personal note, it's been a bit difficult living here in CT. We haven't yet found a home church, which means our access to a community of believers is limited. We did find a Baptist church that holds its services entirely in Polish. Isaac is sitting up now and doing long division. (Ok, that second part isn't entirely accurate.) I am still unemployed but I am waiting to hear about a non-sports, non-film job opportunity for which I interviewed. The flip side of the lack of income/lack of work issue is that it's been nice being home with Isaac and Vanessa and enjoying Isaac's early months of growth.
Next, to current affairs (I'll hit sports last so that I don't lose those of you who don't much care about sports):
Newsline: Boston. So the Governor-elect of MA has decided to throw off the chains of tradition and not allow anyone to conduct a background check on the people who he is going to appoint to public office. Allow me to shed some light on the predicament MA has willingly gotten themselves into: You have a defense laywer who has defended convicted rapists, murderers, and cop killers, among others. Mind you, he's assuredly gotten some people acquitted or he wouldn't have been as successful as he's been, and not every sentence is a life sentence. Now this man is running the Commonwealth's government and will not allow background checks on his appointed officials. Does that instill a sense of confidence in you? Does he owe some people "favors?" I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.
Newsline: The Supreme Court: The highest court in the nation is currently hearing a case that once again involves the desegragation of schools. Did you think that was decided with Brown v. Board of Education? Think again. There are two states that are involved in this litigation. These two states regularly bus children to different school systems to ensure that the schools are integrated so that they comply with the historic ruling listed above. The problem is not that the schools refuse to be integrated, but that the schools that have been receiving the bussed students are now forced to turn away students from their own town, forcing those students to be bussed to the school from which the non-resident students would be attending. Why is this before the Supreme Court? Only the white students are being turned away. Apparently, the school already has too many white students. Now take a moment and replace the word "white" in the above sentences with "black" or "hispanic" or "minority." Outraged? Why not before? Bottom line: Bus in whomever you like, that's not the issue. However, do not tell parents who live in your town and pay taxes that go to fund your school that their children are not allowed to attend there. Schools are funded by town budgets so the town has a choice. A) Refund the taxes of the people whose children are being shipped to another town against their will (and pay for the added expense those children cause in said other town.) or B) Let the kids go to school with the children who live next door to them.
Newsline: Connecticut: Enfield, Connecticut has a graduating class of about 450 students. Their gymnasium holds 800 people. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's less than 1 family member per graduating student (especially if you count faculty and staff who would be attending.) In the past, the school has held their graduation ceremony at the Bushnell in Hartford. (For those of you in Boston, think "The Wang".) This was no inexpensive endeavor, however. The school had to cut a check for $18,000 for the use of that venue. There is a "mega-church" in Enfield that seats just about the same number of people as the Bushnell and is only asking $6,000 for the use of their sanctuary. What a great deal for this school (a school that was spending $18,000 of the tax payer's money). I bet we all know what's coming next. The ACLU has stepped in. They are fighting the school system saying that they can't have it in a church because that "favors one religion over another." The church has promised to remove all of their banners and mobile religious symbols. Behind the staging area is a stain glass window of a dove. The ACLU laywers say that the issue isn't the symbols, simply the symbolic nature that the building is a church. Any guesses on how many complaints they've had from the 450 families who have graduation seniors? One. So that one person could possibly take $12,000 from the sports, computers, art, music, another teacher's aide, field trips, you name it, all because they are offended that the graduation might be held in a building that is a church. For crying out loud, what if everything someone was offended by didn't happen or exist? No more rap music. The middle finger is outlawed. Forget all of the profanity you know. Most of prime time TV is a big no-no. The Religious Right is disbanded. Political parties are parties no more. The Yankees cease to exist. You see what I'm getting at. Really, sometimes people need to suck it up and deal. (One more thing about the offended people and the church. They wouldn't be offended if the graduation was catered by Dunkin Donuts saying that was the town showing favor of one doughnut place over another, demanding that it be catered by a non-Dunkins, non-Krispy doughnut provider. Why is it that the church is so offensive? Is it because it appears to require one to change how they live? (when in actuality, once one has faith, it is the Holy Spirit that encourages the change?) What would these people have done in acient Greece? "Can't do that, that favors Hermes over Ares, or Aphrodite over Hades.")
Sportsline: New Orleans: So I am no longer pulling for the New Orleans Saints. I was hoping they'd do well with the reconstruction of their city and Reggie's rookie year, not to mention the resurgence of Drew Brees. However, they committed one of the most despicable actions in sports and, therefore, have lost my support. They purposefully ran up the score against Dallas last week. Now it's one thing to have a potent defense and perhaps recover a fumble or grab an interception and run it back. Or get a turnover and run a potent offense against a porous D. That's not what happened. Up by 25 points in the fourth quarter, New Orleans lined up as though they were going to kick the ball away and instead executed an on-sides kick. An on-sides kick! Despicable, low, no good, needless. It's something my brother-in-law does against me in Madden '07. It's not something a professional head coach does against his former team. Maybe the coach had Brees in his fantasy league and wanted to make sure he got some extra fantasy points because they already had the spread beat if he had money on the game. If that had been done by a high school coach he'd be fired (or at least fined.) That kind of unsportsman-like coaching has no place in the NFL.
Sportsline: Boston: So Theo has finally made his fantasy come true. The Red Sox have signed Julio Lugo. Why Epstein has been infatuated with this player, I have no idea. He steals, he strikes out, and he bunts. This is not the Moneyball player that Theo claims to adore. I'll miss the most reliable defensive short stop the Red Sox have ever had. Maybe we can sign him and move him to second, because there is no way that Loretta is sticking around. Also on the theme of the Red Sox, they better sign "The Monster" or they wasted $51.1 million. I heard a rumor that he was signed for $52 million over 6 or 10 years, but that has been unconfirmed at this time. Making the total cost for this player $103.1 million. (and Scott Boras, the jerkiest agent in sports would get $5.2 million over 6 or 10 years. He doesn't really need any other players, does he? He's kinda like Jay Mahr's character in Jerry Maguire, you gotta deal with him, but nobody really likes him.) I wonder if the Sox will see another complete team turnaround like they did last year. Everyone gone but Papi and 'Tek. Yup, once again they are trying to trade Manny, will they never learn? I'm out of WEEI range so my news may be old. But it's met with the same mixed emotions it would be if I heard it from Jerry and John, Dale and Holey, or The Big O, Pete, and Buck.
Finally: If you've made it this far, I have a question to pose for which I have no answer. I've been wrestling with this and would like others' input. Here it is: Is health care a human right? Please comment with your answer (and who pays for it...)
Again, sorry it's been so long. Thanks for wading through these issues with me. I hope it will be less than a month before you receive another installment of that which is just my opinion.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Untangling the "Spin" cycle
Ok, are we, as American voters, stupid? Or does it just look that way? Let's look at the messages we've been hearing during this heated and often hateful political campaign. We are going to do this by looking at what was said, what was meant, and what has been spun by the opposing party:
The President:
The Democrats:
Somehow, the citizens of the United States bought the spin of the Democrats, but not the spin of the Republicans. Here's what gets me: They've been saying the exact same thing! And yet the Dems were able to sell their crap in a more convincing way than the GOP was able to sell theirs.
I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, regardless of how they feel about why we went into Iraq, believes that the best thing to do is to completely retreat and leave a vacuum of power in that volitale nation. (If you do, please enlighten me on your reasoning. I honestly am interested to hear it.)
Now the time you've all been waiting for, here is my spin. If nothing changes in Iraq, the Democrats will now shoulder the load of the failure. If they cut and run, they look like cowards and will lose power in two years. If they are unable to stem the tide of insurgents, they look just as inept as the Republicans did. And (God forbid) if we are hit again on our home soil, it's the Democrats that will have to do the explaining. If they think they can do it, more power to them. It's not the time that I'd choose to step into power.
By the way, if you voted for a non-incumbant Democrat as a protest of the war but aren't intersted in them reinstating partial birth abortions, or upping the funding to stem cell research, you better make sure you let them know. Nancy Pelosi (The new speaker of the house (and the first woman to hold that post)) has already promised that they will be pushing these issues through Congress. Don't let them pull a bait and switch on you, email you Congressperson now!
Anyway, just my opinion. Feel free to share yours.
The President:
- What was said"We need to stay the course."
What was meant: We can't just up and leave. We have to do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home. (Listen to any one of the President's speeches when he's said this and he always follows it up with something like this: "We often need to change our tactics or our method, but we cannot leave until victory has been attained.")
What it has been spun into: "Who cares how many people are dying! What difference does it make that it looks like we haven't made any progress? We're gonna keep on keeping on with what we've been doing like a foolish cowpoke riding a blind horse towards a cliff! And we're in power so y'all can just stew in yer pony's manure."
The Democrats:
- What's been said: "We can no longer afford to stay the course."
What was meant: We need to change what's been going on in Iraq. We need to alter our tactics and do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home.
What it's been spun into: We need to retreat with out tails between our legs. We should never have gone in, we need to get out. We don't care what happens to the Iraqi people, just get our soldiers out now!
Somehow, the citizens of the United States bought the spin of the Democrats, but not the spin of the Republicans. Here's what gets me: They've been saying the exact same thing! And yet the Dems were able to sell their crap in a more convincing way than the GOP was able to sell theirs.
I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, regardless of how they feel about why we went into Iraq, believes that the best thing to do is to completely retreat and leave a vacuum of power in that volitale nation. (If you do, please enlighten me on your reasoning. I honestly am interested to hear it.)
Now the time you've all been waiting for, here is my spin. If nothing changes in Iraq, the Democrats will now shoulder the load of the failure. If they cut and run, they look like cowards and will lose power in two years. If they are unable to stem the tide of insurgents, they look just as inept as the Republicans did. And (God forbid) if we are hit again on our home soil, it's the Democrats that will have to do the explaining. If they think they can do it, more power to them. It's not the time that I'd choose to step into power.
By the way, if you voted for a non-incumbant Democrat as a protest of the war but aren't intersted in them reinstating partial birth abortions, or upping the funding to stem cell research, you better make sure you let them know. Nancy Pelosi (The new speaker of the house (and the first woman to hold that post)) has already promised that they will be pushing these issues through Congress. Don't let them pull a bait and switch on you, email you Congressperson now!
Anyway, just my opinion. Feel free to share yours.
Legislating Morality
Alright, in light of the recent "Thumping" the GOP received yesterday, I have a few political thoughts to get off of my chest! As it has been a while, this will be a long post.
First: When did the Democrats become the party of the African Americans? Seems to me that any student of history would have to conclude that it is in fact the Republicans who have done the most good for that demographic. What do I mean? Let's take a stroll down memory lane:
1860's: The civil war is raging. The moral in the North is very low. One political party believes it can take back the White House from the "warmonger" Abraham Lincoln due to the heavy losses by the Union army in what was supposed to be a "quick" war to suppress a "rebellion." This party is fine allowing the South to own slaves. This pary uses peace as it's platform explaining that slavery is completely acceptable. Do we all remember that Lincoln was a Republican? The Democrats were fine allowing the then Africans to remain in chains.
1960's: One hundred years later and the civil rights movement is at the forefront of political debate. In Southern states, agian, the Democratic platform is one of segregation, "separate but equal" is their way of circumventing a supreme court decision.
1990: Suddenly, Bill Clinton is an honorary African American. The Democrat's represent the "black voice" in government. What happened?! I've a controvercial theory (Would you expect anything less from me?). I submit that the agenda of the Democratic party as a whole has changed very little. Though social programs and affirmative action (etc) they are giving minority demographics what they think they "need" rather than what they truely do need. By doing this, the government can exercise a very real control over them. Because the gov't hands them what they need, they are forced to rely on the gov't rather than rely on their own abilities. Minorities need the opportunity to break the cycle in which they continually find themselves in, they don't need the gov't spoon feeding them. The problem that I see is that we forget that the roll of gov't is to offer equal opportunity, not equal results.
Second: A favorite mantra of the liberal left is "you can't legislate morality." Well, my question to them is, what can you legislate? Aren't laws simlpy rules that are to guide the behavior of indiviuals so that society can be sustained? Sounds a lot like morality to me. Let's see, if morality can't be legislated the following laws must imidiatly be abolished: Any law against: Murder, slavery, theft, assalt, business monopolies, child pornography, rape, and drinking and driving. Also, we have to remove any laws about obeying the law. The choice to drive the speed limit is a moral choice. If you can't legislate morality there's no need for laws at all.
Third: The "Thumping." So, the Democrats have taken over control of the House. (If anyone wasn't frightened enough by the horror films that came out around Halloween, here's something to give you nightmares: Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency! (Insert image of "The Scream" here.)) And depending on what Leiberman does, it will basically be 50-50 in the Senate. Ok, I'm all for the balance of power in gov't. I see it as the least possible evil. Followed closely by an all GOP gov't and then an all Dem gov't.
Here is what bugs me. This was entirely based on the Iraq war. And in the future I foresee a well planned bait and switch. "You elected us to set a time table for Iraq and put more pressure on that nation to rule themselves. Oh, we are also going to legalize gay marriage, raise the minimum wage, roll back the tax cuts, and spend spend spend. What? We didn't mention that in our one-issue campaigns? Well, you should have seen that coming. It's always been in the cards, it comes with the territory, and all of those other wonderful cliches."
Actually, I kinda hope they do try lots of extreme leftist things. It will make it easier for the Republican's to keep the White House.
Finally, I hope that Joseph Leiberman thumbs his nose at the Democrats by remaining independant. It would serve them right for supporting a different candidate in his state, causing him to lose the Democratic primary and run as an independant. The Democrats lost a Senate seat in CT and I love it.
So there you go. It's been a while, hope this gives you something to chew on, spelling mistakes and all. Don't forget, it's all just my opinion.
First: When did the Democrats become the party of the African Americans? Seems to me that any student of history would have to conclude that it is in fact the Republicans who have done the most good for that demographic. What do I mean? Let's take a stroll down memory lane:
1860's: The civil war is raging. The moral in the North is very low. One political party believes it can take back the White House from the "warmonger" Abraham Lincoln due to the heavy losses by the Union army in what was supposed to be a "quick" war to suppress a "rebellion." This party is fine allowing the South to own slaves. This pary uses peace as it's platform explaining that slavery is completely acceptable. Do we all remember that Lincoln was a Republican? The Democrats were fine allowing the then Africans to remain in chains.
1960's: One hundred years later and the civil rights movement is at the forefront of political debate. In Southern states, agian, the Democratic platform is one of segregation, "separate but equal" is their way of circumventing a supreme court decision.
1990: Suddenly, Bill Clinton is an honorary African American. The Democrat's represent the "black voice" in government. What happened?! I've a controvercial theory (Would you expect anything less from me?). I submit that the agenda of the Democratic party as a whole has changed very little. Though social programs and affirmative action (etc) they are giving minority demographics what they think they "need" rather than what they truely do need. By doing this, the government can exercise a very real control over them. Because the gov't hands them what they need, they are forced to rely on the gov't rather than rely on their own abilities. Minorities need the opportunity to break the cycle in which they continually find themselves in, they don't need the gov't spoon feeding them. The problem that I see is that we forget that the roll of gov't is to offer equal opportunity, not equal results.
Second: A favorite mantra of the liberal left is "you can't legislate morality." Well, my question to them is, what can you legislate? Aren't laws simlpy rules that are to guide the behavior of indiviuals so that society can be sustained? Sounds a lot like morality to me. Let's see, if morality can't be legislated the following laws must imidiatly be abolished: Any law against: Murder, slavery, theft, assalt, business monopolies, child pornography, rape, and drinking and driving. Also, we have to remove any laws about obeying the law. The choice to drive the speed limit is a moral choice. If you can't legislate morality there's no need for laws at all.
Third: The "Thumping." So, the Democrats have taken over control of the House. (If anyone wasn't frightened enough by the horror films that came out around Halloween, here's something to give you nightmares: Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency! (Insert image of "The Scream" here.)) And depending on what Leiberman does, it will basically be 50-50 in the Senate. Ok, I'm all for the balance of power in gov't. I see it as the least possible evil. Followed closely by an all GOP gov't and then an all Dem gov't.
Here is what bugs me. This was entirely based on the Iraq war. And in the future I foresee a well planned bait and switch. "You elected us to set a time table for Iraq and put more pressure on that nation to rule themselves. Oh, we are also going to legalize gay marriage, raise the minimum wage, roll back the tax cuts, and spend spend spend. What? We didn't mention that in our one-issue campaigns? Well, you should have seen that coming. It's always been in the cards, it comes with the territory, and all of those other wonderful cliches."
Actually, I kinda hope they do try lots of extreme leftist things. It will make it easier for the Republican's to keep the White House.
Finally, I hope that Joseph Leiberman thumbs his nose at the Democrats by remaining independant. It would serve them right for supporting a different candidate in his state, causing him to lose the Democratic primary and run as an independant. The Democrats lost a Senate seat in CT and I love it.
So there you go. It's been a while, hope this gives you something to chew on, spelling mistakes and all. Don't forget, it's all just my opinion.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Things that don't make sense
I'll be talking about NBC a few times in this post so I'll use them as bookmarks:
NBC (1): Has anyone else noticed that the show Friday Night Lights is on Tuesday night? I understand that most of the demographic they are aiming for would be out on Friday night at the game so it doesn't make a ton of sense to put the show in that time slot. I'd call it something different, though. You can still piggy back on the success of the film in the advertisements for Gridiron Guts & Goalline Glory that airs on Tuesdays. (I bet the high school football fanatics love that it's on Tuesdays. It'd be like having an NFL game on Wednesday!)
Gas prices: I'm going to start out by saying you can't have it both ways because it just doesn't make sense and then explain myself. When gas prices spiked and topped $3.00 per gallon, people blamed the President. Apparently he wasn't powerful enough to do anything to stop the incredible rise and so somehow, it was his fault. Now that gas has fallen below $60.00 a barrel and less than $2.25 a gallon, those same people are saying that this was some type of political move by the right to attempt to retain seats in the house and the senate! So on one had he was powerless to stop it, and on on the other, not only is he powerful, he devious and calculating as well! Seriously, you can't have it both ways.
NBC (2): I happend to flip on channel 7 one Saturday and saw Zidgel, Midgel, Fidgel and Kevin. That's right, the 3-2-1 Penguins were on! It's a new Saturday Morning progam where NBC is showing Babar, Veggietales, 3-2-1 Penguins, and other wholesome children's programing. I was very excited to see that NBC was going to be showing such God centered programing! Then I read an article that NBC was removing any "non historical references to God" including the VeggieTales tag line "Remember, God made you and he loves you very much!" I was floored. Phil Visher admitted that he was told that VT would be edited for tv, but he thought it would be for the time allotted, not for content! Remember, this is the network that has brought us Medium, Law & Order: SVU (that stands for "Special Victim's Unit" which is all sexual crimes), Las Vegas, Passions, and Friday Night Lights (which I'm sure will be completely wholesome.) So we can do pyschics, sexual crime, hookers, gambling, greed, etc, but God forbid we mention God. (Whoops, even that line probably wouldn't be allowed!) What demographic is NBC looking to cater to?
Did I make any sense? Perhaps. We all know, that it's just my opinion.
NBC (1): Has anyone else noticed that the show Friday Night Lights is on Tuesday night? I understand that most of the demographic they are aiming for would be out on Friday night at the game so it doesn't make a ton of sense to put the show in that time slot. I'd call it something different, though. You can still piggy back on the success of the film in the advertisements for Gridiron Guts & Goalline Glory that airs on Tuesdays. (I bet the high school football fanatics love that it's on Tuesdays. It'd be like having an NFL game on Wednesday!)
Gas prices: I'm going to start out by saying you can't have it both ways because it just doesn't make sense and then explain myself. When gas prices spiked and topped $3.00 per gallon, people blamed the President. Apparently he wasn't powerful enough to do anything to stop the incredible rise and so somehow, it was his fault. Now that gas has fallen below $60.00 a barrel and less than $2.25 a gallon, those same people are saying that this was some type of political move by the right to attempt to retain seats in the house and the senate! So on one had he was powerless to stop it, and on on the other, not only is he powerful, he devious and calculating as well! Seriously, you can't have it both ways.
NBC (2): I happend to flip on channel 7 one Saturday and saw Zidgel, Midgel, Fidgel and Kevin. That's right, the 3-2-1 Penguins were on! It's a new Saturday Morning progam where NBC is showing Babar, Veggietales, 3-2-1 Penguins, and other wholesome children's programing. I was very excited to see that NBC was going to be showing such God centered programing! Then I read an article that NBC was removing any "non historical references to God" including the VeggieTales tag line "Remember, God made you and he loves you very much!" I was floored. Phil Visher admitted that he was told that VT would be edited for tv, but he thought it would be for the time allotted, not for content! Remember, this is the network that has brought us Medium, Law & Order: SVU (that stands for "Special Victim's Unit" which is all sexual crimes), Las Vegas, Passions, and Friday Night Lights (which I'm sure will be completely wholesome.) So we can do pyschics, sexual crime, hookers, gambling, greed, etc, but God forbid we mention God. (Whoops, even that line probably wouldn't be allowed!) What demographic is NBC looking to cater to?
Did I make any sense? Perhaps. We all know, that it's just my opinion.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Journalism and ethics
The writers of the book "Game of Shadows" (the expose book that makes the claim that Barry Bonds has been taking steroids since 1999) are facing over a year of jail time. They have refused to relinquish the name of the person from whom they received an illegal transcript of Barry Bonds grand jury testimony. Apparently, they believe they are within their legal rights to withhold this information or at the very least, are ethically required to protect their informant.
So here is the question of the hour: If you were a journalist, would you give up your source to avoid going to prison?
The issues that I would have to consider are as follows: The source did something illegal and now expects me to cover for him. There is no telling whether or not the journalists gave their word that they wouldn't turn the informant in to the authorities. Even if they had, is there wisdom in agreeing to protect someone from punishment if they broke a law that is not unethical? Grand jury testimony must be protected or else people would fear testifying.
Do their ethical requirements change if they approached the snitch and asked for the information? I argue that they don't. The leaker is still the one who chose to break the law and is responsible for his choice (and if he were reimbursed for this leak, he's all the more in the wrong).
An odd twist to this case is that the journalists have not committed a crime by simply having the leaked information. This is not like stolen property, where it is against the law to have possession of it. Their crime is refusing to answer a question posed to them by a judge. They are in contempt of court.
I suppose it would have to come down to how strongly I felt about the information. Did my source leak information to me that could topple the government? I'd probably protect them. Did they leak information to me regarding mob or organized crime activity? I'd definitely protect them (mostly because I'm probably safer in prison anyway.) Did they leak information about something that nearly everyone accepted as fact? I'd probably turn them in.
Many people have said this falls under the first amendment with freedom of the press. However, they wrote a book. They are making money off of this information. This wasn't a breaking news story, this was a for-profit endeavor. Also, journalists are free to print whatever they like, it's how they get their information that's in question. If a journalist broke and entered an office to obtain information, is he or she immune from prosecution for that crime? I don't think so.
Bottom line: There are consequences for our actions. The man who leaked the grand jury testimony should have assumed he'd face possible jail time. If the journalists want to protect him and take his jail time, that's their prerogative. However, they are not ethically required to protect him from the consequences of his own actions.
Well, that's just my opinion. What's yours?
So here is the question of the hour: If you were a journalist, would you give up your source to avoid going to prison?
The issues that I would have to consider are as follows: The source did something illegal and now expects me to cover for him. There is no telling whether or not the journalists gave their word that they wouldn't turn the informant in to the authorities. Even if they had, is there wisdom in agreeing to protect someone from punishment if they broke a law that is not unethical? Grand jury testimony must be protected or else people would fear testifying.
Do their ethical requirements change if they approached the snitch and asked for the information? I argue that they don't. The leaker is still the one who chose to break the law and is responsible for his choice (and if he were reimbursed for this leak, he's all the more in the wrong).
An odd twist to this case is that the journalists have not committed a crime by simply having the leaked information. This is not like stolen property, where it is against the law to have possession of it. Their crime is refusing to answer a question posed to them by a judge. They are in contempt of court.
I suppose it would have to come down to how strongly I felt about the information. Did my source leak information to me that could topple the government? I'd probably protect them. Did they leak information to me regarding mob or organized crime activity? I'd definitely protect them (mostly because I'm probably safer in prison anyway.) Did they leak information about something that nearly everyone accepted as fact? I'd probably turn them in.
Many people have said this falls under the first amendment with freedom of the press. However, they wrote a book. They are making money off of this information. This wasn't a breaking news story, this was a for-profit endeavor. Also, journalists are free to print whatever they like, it's how they get their information that's in question. If a journalist broke and entered an office to obtain information, is he or she immune from prosecution for that crime? I don't think so.
Bottom line: There are consequences for our actions. The man who leaked the grand jury testimony should have assumed he'd face possible jail time. If the journalists want to protect him and take his jail time, that's their prerogative. However, they are not ethically required to protect him from the consequences of his own actions.
Well, that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Fashion on the move
First, something somewhat encouraging and yet incredably humorous: The fashion industry in Europe is finally moving in the right direction. At a fashion show in Madrid, the city grounded 30% of the models that had participated the year before. The reason they were kept off of the runway is that they were too underweight and did not promote a healthy body image. Milan is going to follow in the footsteps of this landmark decision. This is the encouraging part. The reaction to this action has got me rolling!
New York is livid. Some of the comments have been, "What about the freedom of the designer?" Freedom to do what? Make clothes that only models and hunger strike survivors could wear? Freedom to break out of the constraints of the modeling industry? Wouldn't that mean making clothes that look good on someone who doesn't wear them like a hanger? Or is it freedom to perpetuate an unhealthy body image? Freedom to try and make 98% of people feel poorly about how they look.
(Here's the one that really got me): when asked how she felt about being banned from the event, one model responded, "This is crazy. You can't discriminate against people because they are thin. That's like discriminating against people because they are fat."
No, really. She said that.
"That's like discriminating against people because they are fat." Like your industry has been doing for multiple decades? Yeah. How does it feel? Now instead of "I can't eat that crouton, I might lose my job" it's, "I must eat this ice cream or my BMI will be too low and I won't be able to work!"
Another designer from New York said, "I'm tired of the fashion industry being the scapegoat for eating disorders and other illnesses." Psst, there is a difference between "scapegoat" and "reason." I think you need to look it up. See, a scapegoat doesn't deserve the blame.
I've encountered too many women (and a few men) who have to deal with body image issues daily. I am thrilled that the runway may finally have a women who actually look healthy on it. I can only hope that print media will soon follow.
Second, the news: The rumors are true. Some may have noticed that there have been some whispers that The Queen of Hearts and I are taking our little Full House out of Massachusetts.
This is true. We are moving to central Connecticut at the end of the month. My family has a beautiful single family house with about 1/2 acre of land that we are going to be moving into. Isaac will have a yard. Vanessa will not be cooped up in a stuff apartment. I might have an opportunity to work at a nEarby sportS emPloyer iN the next town over.
We are sad to leave our family, church, friends, theater troupe, coworkers, neighbors, library (they have a great DVD selection), ocean, etc. But we are excited to see what God has in store for us as we feel this is in His plan.
We thank you for your prayers. I will attempt to keep up with this blog but posts may not be as often as they have been in the past.
We are doing what is best for our family. And I sincerely hope that is the truth, and not just my opinion.
New York is livid. Some of the comments have been, "What about the freedom of the designer?" Freedom to do what? Make clothes that only models and hunger strike survivors could wear? Freedom to break out of the constraints of the modeling industry? Wouldn't that mean making clothes that look good on someone who doesn't wear them like a hanger? Or is it freedom to perpetuate an unhealthy body image? Freedom to try and make 98% of people feel poorly about how they look.
(Here's the one that really got me): when asked how she felt about being banned from the event, one model responded, "This is crazy. You can't discriminate against people because they are thin. That's like discriminating against people because they are fat."
No, really. She said that.
"That's like discriminating against people because they are fat." Like your industry has been doing for multiple decades? Yeah. How does it feel? Now instead of "I can't eat that crouton, I might lose my job" it's, "I must eat this ice cream or my BMI will be too low and I won't be able to work!"
Another designer from New York said, "I'm tired of the fashion industry being the scapegoat for eating disorders and other illnesses." Psst, there is a difference between "scapegoat" and "reason." I think you need to look it up. See, a scapegoat doesn't deserve the blame.
I've encountered too many women (and a few men) who have to deal with body image issues daily. I am thrilled that the runway may finally have a women who actually look healthy on it. I can only hope that print media will soon follow.
Second, the news: The rumors are true. Some may have noticed that there have been some whispers that The Queen of Hearts and I are taking our little Full House out of Massachusetts.
This is true. We are moving to central Connecticut at the end of the month. My family has a beautiful single family house with about 1/2 acre of land that we are going to be moving into. Isaac will have a yard. Vanessa will not be cooped up in a stuff apartment. I might have an opportunity to work at a nEarby sportS emPloyer iN the next town over.
We are sad to leave our family, church, friends, theater troupe, coworkers, neighbors, library (they have a great DVD selection), ocean, etc. But we are excited to see what God has in store for us as we feel this is in His plan.
We thank you for your prayers. I will attempt to keep up with this blog but posts may not be as often as they have been in the past.
We are doing what is best for our family. And I sincerely hope that is the truth, and not just my opinion.
Friday, September 08, 2006
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:
If you answer was D, please answer the following:
If your answer to question 1 was E, please answer the following:
If you have made it this far, please answer yes or no to the following:
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
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 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 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 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 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
The NFL season has begun!
Number of NFL games in the 2006 season: 1
Number of NFL games in the 2006 season where the refs had a significant effect on the outcome: 1
Apparently, one of the alterations that we were not made aware of regarding the "Coach's Challenge" is the new "Optional" rule. The refs seem to have the option as to whether or not they want to review a play.
The officials claimed they didn't see the flag. Well, what was Nick Saban (head coach of the Dolphins) supposed to do? Run on the field dancing and hurling the flag at a ref's bum?
Yes.
The truth of it is, Nick didn't receive the updated "Coach's Challange rules." You see, he failed to do the "red flag rhyme." It goes something like this:
I must now this field invade
I don't like the call you made
You need to, I wish you would,
go under the replay hood
Then he had to recite one of the following: (depending what the play he's challenging was)
To challenge an incomplete pass call
You know I don't live by deceit
That pass was not incomplete.
To challenge a complete pass call
I have come to kick and scratch
There's no way he made that catch.
To challenge in or out of bounds
At your job, you're doing fine
I think you need to watch the line.
To challenge the game clock
Please stop lighting up your bong
I think the game clock is wrong
To challenge a fumble
How’d you make that stupid call?
You missed when he lost the ball!
To challenge a touchdown
I’m sure you don’t like my tone
Check again for that end zone.
Don't forget, there are hand motions and gyrations that go with each of these rhymes. Because Saban failed to fully perform the challenge routine while dangling the red flag in front of the referees, they decided they didn't want to review the play where the tight end was clearly out of bounds before he entered the end zone. Which forced the Dolphins to go to the air, which forced the interceptions, etc, etc, etc...
Be on the lookout, I've heard that Belichick has a few verses of his own.
Number of NFL games in the 2006 season where the refs had a significant effect on the outcome: 1
Apparently, one of the alterations that we were not made aware of regarding the "Coach's Challenge" is the new "Optional" rule. The refs seem to have the option as to whether or not they want to review a play.
The officials claimed they didn't see the flag. Well, what was Nick Saban (head coach of the Dolphins) supposed to do? Run on the field dancing and hurling the flag at a ref's bum?
Yes.
The truth of it is, Nick didn't receive the updated "Coach's Challange rules." You see, he failed to do the "red flag rhyme." It goes something like this:
I don't like the call you made
You need to, I wish you would,
go under the replay hood
Then he had to recite one of the following: (depending what the play he's challenging was)
You know I don't live by deceit
That pass was not incomplete.
To challenge a complete pass call
I have come to kick and scratch
There's no way he made that catch.
To challenge in or out of bounds
At your job, you're doing fine
I think you need to watch the line.
To challenge the game clock
Please stop lighting up your bong
I think the game clock is wrong
To challenge a fumble
How’d you make that stupid call?
You missed when he lost the ball!
To challenge a touchdown
I’m sure you don’t like my tone
Check again for that end zone.
Don't forget, there are hand motions and gyrations that go with each of these rhymes. Because Saban failed to fully perform the challenge routine while dangling the red flag in front of the referees, they decided they didn't want to review the play where the tight end was clearly out of bounds before he entered the end zone. Which forced the Dolphins to go to the air, which forced the interceptions, etc, etc, etc...
Be on the lookout, I've heard that Belichick has a few verses of his own.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
NFL Preview
With the Sox struggling to make the playoffs and football season about a week away, it is time for the Just My Opinion NFL Preview show! We're going to out line the surprises and "Not so surprising" for each division, along with my expected playoff set up and Super Bowl winner. (If you don't want to read each division, there's a quick version at the bottom.)
NFC East (Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins)
With Eli entering his second year as a starter, TO joining the Cowboys, and all the additions to the Redskins, this division may be the most contested in the NFC. You wouldn't have heard me predicting this two years ago when this was one of the weakest divisions in the NFL and we all knew the Eagles would run away with it. Well, this year I believe the Eagles will land in last place. I don't think the Giants will make the playoffs. Eli is still just too young. There is wild card potential from this division.
Winner: Dallas
NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, St. Louis)
This division should just take the year off. Seattle has lost too many players to have a repeat appearance in the Super Bowl but there's nobody who is going to beat them from the NFC West! Arizona will improve vastly, but you can't win games without a defense. Their aging veterans will win more than the 5 games they won last year but they won't make it to the post season. St. Louis is going to have to acclimate to the new coach and the Niners might win more than the 4 they won last year. Seattle runs away with this one.
Winner: Seattle
NFC North (Vikings, Bears, Lions, Packers)
This is another cake pick. The Lions blew up their offense in an attempt to get better. If I were to compare them to another Detroit team: they are the Tigers of two years ago working their way to the Tigers of this season. They will be good, but not this year. The Packers have already dug their own grave by allowing Favre to decide whether or not he's returning (and then allowing him to play). I think he'll have a 1:2 TD:INT ratio this year. The Vikings are still recovering from last year's debacle and the Bear's D is unstoppable! Expect the Bear's maul the competition.
Winner: Chicago
NFC South (Panthers, Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers)
This one's not so cut and dry. The Panthers should take it, but they are the only team who didn't significant improve in the off season and with their injury prone superstars it may be a crap shoot. Here's what to watch: Can Vick complete more than 50% of his passes? Will the double barrel running game of Bush and McAllister rocket the Saints to victory? Is Sims ready to be a top rate passer rather than the dink and dunker that he's been? Watch for a wild card to come out of this division.
Winner: Carolina
NFC Wild Cards: Tampa Bay and Washington
AFC East (Dolphins, Jets, Patriots, Bills)
While the Dolphins have improved and are the popular pick for the national media, they still won't win this division. The Jets managed to get worse in the off season and the Bills have remained terrible. With the third easiest schedule in the NFL, the Patriots will run away with the playoff spot from the East. Watch for a fishy wild card team, though.
Winner: New England
AFC West (Raiders, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs)
Somehow the Broncos managed to make it to the post season last year. I hope they enjoyed it, because they won't be back. They've lost too much and failed to acquire the talent to replace it. The Chargers should have been their last year and will be able to power through this year. The Chiefs still need defense! The Raiders? They might finish third in the division.
Winner: San Diego
AFC North (Bengals, Ravens, Browns, Steelers)
This division was shaping up to be a dogfight. A damaged Palmer vs a damaged Big Ben with a surging Browns and a contending Ravens! Now Ben's in the hospital, Palmer's looking less damaged than before the hit, the Browns are smoke and mirrors and the Ravens are hopeful but unlikely playoff contenders. The Bengals should run away with the AFC North. There may be a wild card team coming out of this division.
Winner: Cincinnati
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
It pains me to say it, so I'll get it out of the way: The Colts will again win this division. Without the Edge, Manning no longer has the same run threat so double covering Harrison will be much easier. Watch for Wayne to have a career year because of this. Also, Pittsburgh offered the NFL a toutorial on how to defeat the Colts in the playoffs last year (They took notes from all of the Indy/NE games.) The problem is, no one else in this division can beat them. Will they go far in the post season? No, but they'll get there. The Jaguars are their biggest competition, but watch for some surprise wins from Houston. Maybe a wild card team as well.
Winner:Indianapolis
AFC Wild Card: Miami and Pittsburgh
Quick Break Down:
NFC
East: Dallas (Bye)
West: Seattle
North: Chicago
South: Carolina (Bye)
Wild Card: Tampa Bay, Washington
AFC
East: New England (Bye)
West: San Diego
North: Cincinnati (Bye)
South: Indianapolis
Wild Card: Miami and Pittsburgh
Second Round teams:
NFC
Dallas
Carolina
Seattle
Chicago
AFC
New England
Cincinnati
San Diego
Pittsburgh
Championship game:
NFC
Dallas
Carolina
AFC
New England
Cincinnati
Super Bowl
New England vs Dallas
Champion
New England
Don't forget to check back in January to see how I did with my predictions. Don't put any money on these picks, though, because they are (after all) just my opinion.
NFC East (Giants, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins)
With Eli entering his second year as a starter, TO joining the Cowboys, and all the additions to the Redskins, this division may be the most contested in the NFC. You wouldn't have heard me predicting this two years ago when this was one of the weakest divisions in the NFL and we all knew the Eagles would run away with it. Well, this year I believe the Eagles will land in last place. I don't think the Giants will make the playoffs. Eli is still just too young. There is wild card potential from this division.
Winner: Dallas
NFC West (Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, St. Louis)
This division should just take the year off. Seattle has lost too many players to have a repeat appearance in the Super Bowl but there's nobody who is going to beat them from the NFC West! Arizona will improve vastly, but you can't win games without a defense. Their aging veterans will win more than the 5 games they won last year but they won't make it to the post season. St. Louis is going to have to acclimate to the new coach and the Niners might win more than the 4 they won last year. Seattle runs away with this one.
Winner: Seattle
NFC North (Vikings, Bears, Lions, Packers)
This is another cake pick. The Lions blew up their offense in an attempt to get better. If I were to compare them to another Detroit team: they are the Tigers of two years ago working their way to the Tigers of this season. They will be good, but not this year. The Packers have already dug their own grave by allowing Favre to decide whether or not he's returning (and then allowing him to play). I think he'll have a 1:2 TD:INT ratio this year. The Vikings are still recovering from last year's debacle and the Bear's D is unstoppable! Expect the Bear's maul the competition.
Winner: Chicago
NFC South (Panthers, Falcons, Saints, Buccaneers)
This one's not so cut and dry. The Panthers should take it, but they are the only team who didn't significant improve in the off season and with their injury prone superstars it may be a crap shoot. Here's what to watch: Can Vick complete more than 50% of his passes? Will the double barrel running game of Bush and McAllister rocket the Saints to victory? Is Sims ready to be a top rate passer rather than the dink and dunker that he's been? Watch for a wild card to come out of this division.
Winner: Carolina
NFC Wild Cards: Tampa Bay and Washington
AFC East (Dolphins, Jets, Patriots, Bills)
While the Dolphins have improved and are the popular pick for the national media, they still won't win this division. The Jets managed to get worse in the off season and the Bills have remained terrible. With the third easiest schedule in the NFL, the Patriots will run away with the playoff spot from the East. Watch for a fishy wild card team, though.
Winner: New England
AFC West (Raiders, Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs)
Somehow the Broncos managed to make it to the post season last year. I hope they enjoyed it, because they won't be back. They've lost too much and failed to acquire the talent to replace it. The Chargers should have been their last year and will be able to power through this year. The Chiefs still need defense! The Raiders? They might finish third in the division.
Winner: San Diego
AFC North (Bengals, Ravens, Browns, Steelers)
This division was shaping up to be a dogfight. A damaged Palmer vs a damaged Big Ben with a surging Browns and a contending Ravens! Now Ben's in the hospital, Palmer's looking less damaged than before the hit, the Browns are smoke and mirrors and the Ravens are hopeful but unlikely playoff contenders. The Bengals should run away with the AFC North. There may be a wild card team coming out of this division.
Winner: Cincinnati
AFC South (Texans, Jaguars, Colts, Titans)
It pains me to say it, so I'll get it out of the way: The Colts will again win this division. Without the Edge, Manning no longer has the same run threat so double covering Harrison will be much easier. Watch for Wayne to have a career year because of this. Also, Pittsburgh offered the NFL a toutorial on how to defeat the Colts in the playoffs last year (They took notes from all of the Indy/NE games.) The problem is, no one else in this division can beat them. Will they go far in the post season? No, but they'll get there. The Jaguars are their biggest competition, but watch for some surprise wins from Houston. Maybe a wild card team as well.
Winner:Indianapolis
AFC Wild Card: Miami and Pittsburgh
Quick Break Down:
NFC
East: Dallas (Bye)
West: Seattle
North: Chicago
South: Carolina (Bye)
Wild Card: Tampa Bay, Washington
AFC
East: New England (Bye)
West: San Diego
North: Cincinnati (Bye)
South: Indianapolis
Wild Card: Miami and Pittsburgh
Second Round teams:
NFC
Dallas
Carolina
Seattle
Chicago
AFC
New England
Cincinnati
San Diego
Pittsburgh
Championship game:
NFC
Dallas
Carolina
AFC
New England
Cincinnati
Super Bowl
New England vs Dallas
Champion
New England
Don't forget to check back in January to see how I did with my predictions. Don't put any money on these picks, though, because they are (after all) just my opinion.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Surviving the Red Sox
Once again, the non-sports comes first so I don't lose half of my readers right off the bat. (Please note the sports euphemism. We use them all the time, when we just want to touch base or when we are trying to throw someone a curve...)
Survivor: CBS's show that was once the talk of the town is now trying to keep itself from getting voted off the island. Apparently, Survivor's ratings have been plummeting like the Red Sox season and the producers feel like they need a gimmick to up the viewership for the 13th season of their show. They've tried to throw in a monkey wrench with each new season to surprise both the participants and the viewers. They've even gone so far as to have a "Survivor: All Star" season. Apparently they've run out of ideas.
What are they doing this year? For starters, instead of just two tribes, there are four. Not only that, but those four tribes are divided up by race. Yup, the four teams are Caucasians, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Nothing like throwing a little gasoline on a fire, huh CBS? The producers have been quoted as saying they hope that people will tune in to route for their own race. Pardon?! "We want to foster a feeling of racism in America. We don't think enough people focus on it, so we're going to give them an easy opportunity to do so."
I'm not ignorant enough to think that there aren't racist people watching the show pulling for people of their own color. But CBS is going out of its way to encourage this behavior!
This also means that the casting directors had a quota for each race to make sure the teams were even. And if you were of questionable or multiple decent, could you be on the show? "Well, my mother is Irish, but my dad is Portuguese." Oh, sorry, we don't have a team for that. Maybe you could try back next year when our teams will be divided by religion.
Don't get me wrong. This won't change how I feel about Survivor. I've always strongly disliked the show. So much so that it would be difficult for me to dislike it more than I already do. I'm simply astounded by the irresponsibility of the producers and the network to allow this divisive plan.
In a time when people are still claiming that had the victims of Katrina been white the response would have been different, it is exactly this type of stupidity that we do not need. (There are those in New Orleans who have gone so far as to say that the levees were sabotaged by the government to make sure it was the poor black section of the city that was flooded in an effort to protect the affluent white areas.) We have enough people playing the race card (including (but not limited to) politicians, lawyers, "civil rights leaders," "reverends," singers, rappers, athletes, agents, actors, and newscasters) that we don't need the people supplying America (and often times, the world) with entertainment elevating ignorance and racism on a pedestal as though it's something to be attained rather than destroyed.
The Red Sox: So the Red Sox continue to lose. Or rather, the people wearing the uniforms of the Red Sox continue to lose. Who are these people?! Here was the lineup for the past few days:
Crisp CF
Pedroia 2B
Loretta DH
Youkilis LF
Lowell 3B
Pena (Carlos, not Willie Mo) 1B
Lopez C
Kapler RF
Cora SS
There is not a single person in this lineup who played in the post season for the Red Sox last year! Compare this lineup to the 2004 lineup:
Damon CF
Cabrera SS
Ortiz DH
Manny LF
'Tek C
Nixon RF
Meuller 3B
Millar 1B
Bellhorn 2B
or even earlier this year:
Youkilis 1B
Loretta 2B
Ortiz DH
Manny LF
'Tek C
Nixon RF
Lowell 3B
Crisp CF
A-Gon SS
Take a look at the lineup on the DL:
Crisp (possibly injured shoulder in last night's game) CF
Adam Stern 2B
Ortiz 1B
Manny LF
Willie Mo Pena DH
'Tek C
Nixon RF
A-Gon SS
If I'm a Red Sox opponent, I'd rather face the current team than the players on the DL! Who are these people!?
I'm not saying that injuries are the only reason the Sox are losing, but when you lose your 3, 4, 5, and 6 hitters you're done! That's the "Giant" part of the lineup! They are expected to be back soon (Ortiz as soon as tomorrow, 'Tek and Nixon have rehab games with Pawtucket tonight) but it will be too late. Thanks for playing.
Of course, I don't know how much better next year will look like. It's expected that the following people will not be on the team next year:
Nixon
Crisp
A-Gon
Loretta
and possibly Lowell
Which means we'll have Willie Mo as our every day RF, Pedroia at 2B, Youk may move to 3B, and who knows who will play CF or SS?
*sigh* (fist waving in the air) Just wait till next year!
Survivor: CBS's show that was once the talk of the town is now trying to keep itself from getting voted off the island. Apparently, Survivor's ratings have been plummeting like the Red Sox season and the producers feel like they need a gimmick to up the viewership for the 13th season of their show. They've tried to throw in a monkey wrench with each new season to surprise both the participants and the viewers. They've even gone so far as to have a "Survivor: All Star" season. Apparently they've run out of ideas.
What are they doing this year? For starters, instead of just two tribes, there are four. Not only that, but those four tribes are divided up by race. Yup, the four teams are Caucasians, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Nothing like throwing a little gasoline on a fire, huh CBS? The producers have been quoted as saying they hope that people will tune in to route for their own race. Pardon?! "We want to foster a feeling of racism in America. We don't think enough people focus on it, so we're going to give them an easy opportunity to do so."
I'm not ignorant enough to think that there aren't racist people watching the show pulling for people of their own color. But CBS is going out of its way to encourage this behavior!
This also means that the casting directors had a quota for each race to make sure the teams were even. And if you were of questionable or multiple decent, could you be on the show? "Well, my mother is Irish, but my dad is Portuguese." Oh, sorry, we don't have a team for that. Maybe you could try back next year when our teams will be divided by religion.
Don't get me wrong. This won't change how I feel about Survivor. I've always strongly disliked the show. So much so that it would be difficult for me to dislike it more than I already do. I'm simply astounded by the irresponsibility of the producers and the network to allow this divisive plan.
In a time when people are still claiming that had the victims of Katrina been white the response would have been different, it is exactly this type of stupidity that we do not need. (There are those in New Orleans who have gone so far as to say that the levees were sabotaged by the government to make sure it was the poor black section of the city that was flooded in an effort to protect the affluent white areas.) We have enough people playing the race card (including (but not limited to) politicians, lawyers, "civil rights leaders," "reverends," singers, rappers, athletes, agents, actors, and newscasters) that we don't need the people supplying America (and often times, the world) with entertainment elevating ignorance and racism on a pedestal as though it's something to be attained rather than destroyed.
The Red Sox: So the Red Sox continue to lose. Or rather, the people wearing the uniforms of the Red Sox continue to lose. Who are these people?! Here was the lineup for the past few days:
Pedroia 2B
Loretta DH
Youkilis LF
Lowell 3B
Pena (Carlos, not Willie Mo) 1B
Lopez C
Kapler RF
Cora SS
There is not a single person in this lineup who played in the post season for the Red Sox last year! Compare this lineup to the 2004 lineup:
Cabrera SS
Ortiz DH
Manny LF
'Tek C
Nixon RF
Meuller 3B
Millar 1B
Bellhorn 2B
or even earlier this year:
Loretta 2B
Ortiz DH
Manny LF
'Tek C
Nixon RF
Lowell 3B
Crisp CF
A-Gon SS
Take a look at the lineup on the DL:
Adam Stern 2B
Ortiz 1B
Manny LF
Willie Mo Pena DH
'Tek C
Nixon RF
A-Gon SS
If I'm a Red Sox opponent, I'd rather face the current team than the players on the DL! Who are these people!?
I'm not saying that injuries are the only reason the Sox are losing, but when you lose your 3, 4, 5, and 6 hitters you're done! That's the "Giant" part of the lineup! They are expected to be back soon (Ortiz as soon as tomorrow, 'Tek and Nixon have rehab games with Pawtucket tonight) but it will be too late. Thanks for playing.
Of course, I don't know how much better next year will look like. It's expected that the following people will not be on the team next year:
Crisp
A-Gon
Loretta
and possibly Lowell
Which means we'll have Willie Mo as our every day RF, Pedroia at 2B, Youk may move to 3B, and who knows who will play CF or SS?
*sigh* (fist waving in the air) Just wait till next year!
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Fatherhood
Alright, alright, the masses have spoken. I'll do my best to reflect upon this new hat I'm wearing that says "Daddy."
Ok, if it isn't the heart of honesty it isn't worth posting. The first thought I have when I ponder fatherhood is that I feel like I'm trailblazing. (How's that for you Jenna? Remember that continuous discussion?) As many of my regular readers are aware, I didn't have the best example of how to be a father from my father. Some would say I didn't really have a father, just a much older brother. The fact that he was mostly out of the house since I was four simply adds to this feeling: I'm the first "daddy" in my family.
And as the first "daddy" I've already received my first Father's Day present (from Vanessa before Isaac was born (in fact, I think it was before he had a name)) and it is his first baseball glove. I'm very excited to be able to spend time with my son! Exposing him to all the different sports that I know and finding out which ones he likes (he has no choice regarding Ultimate Frisbee. He's going to like that one.)
I tend to see kids differently now. Every child I see is a possibility of what Isaac might become. So as I'm exiting the mall and I see the losers who have nothing better to do but smoke and loiter I ponder how they got to that point and what can I do to keep Isaac from it. I watch the LLWS and see parents who are clearly living vicariously through their kids and pray that I never do that. I look at some of the mistakes my folks made and hope I do better. There is a lot to think about as a dad. I want to discover who Isaac is and then encourage him in those areas while at the same time shaping him to be a man of God. I foresee it as being a very delicate balance.
I've heard many people say that their favorite time is when their children were newborns. Advising us that they are so cute at this time and we should cherish it. Yeah. I guess that's true. But the flip side of that is it's so hard to interact with a being that just eats, poops, sleeps, and burps. Recently, he's begun smiling and laughing. This is a major step forward and has been the highlight of my days. When my son wakes up and sees that I'm home from work and flashes he cute little smile and utters his backwards laugh (he inhales as he laughs, instead of exhaling) I'm borderline speechless.
While I'm unable to feed Isaac without some planning ahead, I have found something I'm quite good at. Getting him to sleep. I think my record is two point eight minutes. The only problem is that he's so comfortable in my arms that he nearly always wakes up when I try to put him in his bed. Would anyone like to know the song I sing to my son that calms him the most? I've tried many. Here's the winner.
Another word of advice I've oft heard is that my life will never be the same. The problem is that it is nearly always said as a negative. "Oh? You're having a baby? Well, your life will never be the same. It's over!" Instead of what I've found to be the truth: "My life will never be the same." It's beginning anew; just as it did when I wed my love.
I've been all over the world and seen a lot of amazing sights; a little boy who's been experiencing this world for just over two months who is the living example of the love that my wife and I share may just be on the top of that list.
Ok, if it isn't the heart of honesty it isn't worth posting. The first thought I have when I ponder fatherhood is that I feel like I'm trailblazing. (How's that for you Jenna? Remember that continuous discussion?) As many of my regular readers are aware, I didn't have the best example of how to be a father from my father. Some would say I didn't really have a father, just a much older brother. The fact that he was mostly out of the house since I was four simply adds to this feeling: I'm the first "daddy" in my family.
And as the first "daddy" I've already received my first Father's Day present (from Vanessa before Isaac was born (in fact, I think it was before he had a name)) and it is his first baseball glove. I'm very excited to be able to spend time with my son! Exposing him to all the different sports that I know and finding out which ones he likes (he has no choice regarding Ultimate Frisbee. He's going to like that one.)
I tend to see kids differently now. Every child I see is a possibility of what Isaac might become. So as I'm exiting the mall and I see the losers who have nothing better to do but smoke and loiter I ponder how they got to that point and what can I do to keep Isaac from it. I watch the LLWS and see parents who are clearly living vicariously through their kids and pray that I never do that. I look at some of the mistakes my folks made and hope I do better. There is a lot to think about as a dad. I want to discover who Isaac is and then encourage him in those areas while at the same time shaping him to be a man of God. I foresee it as being a very delicate balance.
I've heard many people say that their favorite time is when their children were newborns. Advising us that they are so cute at this time and we should cherish it. Yeah. I guess that's true. But the flip side of that is it's so hard to interact with a being that just eats, poops, sleeps, and burps. Recently, he's begun smiling and laughing. This is a major step forward and has been the highlight of my days. When my son wakes up and sees that I'm home from work and flashes he cute little smile and utters his backwards laugh (he inhales as he laughs, instead of exhaling) I'm borderline speechless.
While I'm unable to feed Isaac without some planning ahead, I have found something I'm quite good at. Getting him to sleep. I think my record is two point eight minutes. The only problem is that he's so comfortable in my arms that he nearly always wakes up when I try to put him in his bed. Would anyone like to know the song I sing to my son that calms him the most? I've tried many. Here's the winner.
Another word of advice I've oft heard is that my life will never be the same. The problem is that it is nearly always said as a negative. "Oh? You're having a baby? Well, your life will never be the same. It's over!" Instead of what I've found to be the truth: "My life will never be the same." It's beginning anew; just as it did when I wed my love.
I've been all over the world and seen a lot of amazing sights; a little boy who's been experiencing this world for just over two months who is the living example of the love that my wife and I share may just be on the top of that list.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Wanted: The Thief of Ortiz's 2006 MVP
It's been clear to all that, up until the All Star Break, David Ortiz was the front runner in regards to the AL MVP. It's not looking so good now. Why is that? Is David's performance falling off that much? No. He is still playing like an MVP. So who is stealing Big Papi's MVP award?
Here are the suspects:
The Writers: These are the people who vote for the MVP. They stole David's MVP last year and gave it to A-Fraud. He has further proven himself to be a fraud this year and (hopefully) is not being considered for the 2006 AL MVP. The writers have also broadcast a strong bias against voting for a designated hitter for this award. There is no A-Fraud for them to give it to this year, but there is Mauer (C-Twins) and Jeter (SS-Yankees). Perhaps they have their sights set on stealing David's MVP for the second year in a row.
Manny Ramirez: There are two ways that Papi's Pal could be purloining his place of prominence. First, Manny was on fire during the Red Sox crash and burn at the hands of the Yankees. I've always felt that the league MVP needs to be the team MVP as well. If Manny is competing with Papi for the team MVP he may steal some MVP votes from him. The second way that Manny could steal the award is by way of his hammy. Manny suddenly had a cramp in his hammy after he made it known that he was upset with the game scorer when a hit he had was scored an error. He had to be talked into playing the next game, then left the game after that early with a "cramp." With Manny out of the lineup, Tito has been batting Kevin Youkilis behind Ortiz. Since then, Ortiz has received two intentional walks. Without Manny behind him, nobody pitches to David. Manny may be unintentionally taking the MVP from his teammate.
Derek Jeter: There are musings that Jeter may be the writers' favorite for the non DH MVP. He's had a decent year and with the player to his right committing error after error, he's shining on that infield. Here's the problem that I have with the Jeter for MVP campaign. I don't see how a Yankee can ever be MVP. The MVP of the league needs to be the MVP of his team. When you are shuffled in a lineup with Damon, Giambi, Matsui, Sheffield, A-Fraud, Williams, Cano, Posada, Abreu and Rivera how can you possibly be the MVP of that group?! They have proven that they can cruise without two of their best players. However, as the writers have proven: they don't care. Jeter may end up stealing Papi's MVP.
Joe Mauer: While Big Papi leads the majors in RBI and Home Runs (two of the three aspects of baseball's "Triple Crown.") Mr. Mauer holds the other for the American League: batting average. Normally, this wouldn't be a concern. The MVP rarely has the best batting average. Here's the catch. Mauer is a catcher and catchers hardly ever win the batting title, let alone lead the entire majors in this category. This wouldn't be an issue if Mauer were a short stop or center fielder, positions known for their hitting ability. So, combine the fact that a catcher has the best batting average with the writers who will vote for a relief pitcher before they'll vote for a DH and you have an equation that robs David of his second deserved MVP.
The Red Sox Bullpen: "Wait a minute, Marc. How can the Red Sox pitching be stealing David's MVP? They aren't the one's pitching to him!" True enough. However, all too often, the writers won't vote for a player on a team that doesn't make the playoffs. How can the MVP of the league not be good enough to elevate his team to the post season? I bet the writers who can't stomach voting for a DH are praying the Sox continue to falter so that they have a different excuse other than "Well, he doesn't play the field." So, hear me know and believe me later: If the Red Sox pitching doesn't shape up and if the Sox don't get to play October ball (Come on, don't we all want to hear more of "the Hunt for Red Soxtober"?) then David Ortiz will not be awarded the AL MVP and for the second time in two years it will have been stolen from him. Just as it was stolen from Pujols by Bonds all those years before.
Verdict: If Big Papi doesn't get the big award we can blame the pitching. Not only are they sinking the Sox season, they are taking David's hopes of an MVP honor down with them.
Mark my words, this will prove to be more than just my opinion!
Here are the suspects:
The Writers: These are the people who vote for the MVP. They stole David's MVP last year and gave it to A-Fraud. He has further proven himself to be a fraud this year and (hopefully) is not being considered for the 2006 AL MVP. The writers have also broadcast a strong bias against voting for a designated hitter for this award. There is no A-Fraud for them to give it to this year, but there is Mauer (C-Twins) and Jeter (SS-Yankees). Perhaps they have their sights set on stealing David's MVP for the second year in a row.
Manny Ramirez: There are two ways that Papi's Pal could be purloining his place of prominence. First, Manny was on fire during the Red Sox crash and burn at the hands of the Yankees. I've always felt that the league MVP needs to be the team MVP as well. If Manny is competing with Papi for the team MVP he may steal some MVP votes from him. The second way that Manny could steal the award is by way of his hammy. Manny suddenly had a cramp in his hammy after he made it known that he was upset with the game scorer when a hit he had was scored an error. He had to be talked into playing the next game, then left the game after that early with a "cramp." With Manny out of the lineup, Tito has been batting Kevin Youkilis behind Ortiz. Since then, Ortiz has received two intentional walks. Without Manny behind him, nobody pitches to David. Manny may be unintentionally taking the MVP from his teammate.
Derek Jeter: There are musings that Jeter may be the writers' favorite for the non DH MVP. He's had a decent year and with the player to his right committing error after error, he's shining on that infield. Here's the problem that I have with the Jeter for MVP campaign. I don't see how a Yankee can ever be MVP. The MVP of the league needs to be the MVP of his team. When you are shuffled in a lineup with Damon, Giambi, Matsui, Sheffield, A-Fraud, Williams, Cano, Posada, Abreu and Rivera how can you possibly be the MVP of that group?! They have proven that they can cruise without two of their best players. However, as the writers have proven: they don't care. Jeter may end up stealing Papi's MVP.
Joe Mauer: While Big Papi leads the majors in RBI and Home Runs (two of the three aspects of baseball's "Triple Crown.") Mr. Mauer holds the other for the American League: batting average. Normally, this wouldn't be a concern. The MVP rarely has the best batting average. Here's the catch. Mauer is a catcher and catchers hardly ever win the batting title, let alone lead the entire majors in this category. This wouldn't be an issue if Mauer were a short stop or center fielder, positions known for their hitting ability. So, combine the fact that a catcher has the best batting average with the writers who will vote for a relief pitcher before they'll vote for a DH and you have an equation that robs David of his second deserved MVP.
The Red Sox Bullpen: "Wait a minute, Marc. How can the Red Sox pitching be stealing David's MVP? They aren't the one's pitching to him!" True enough. However, all too often, the writers won't vote for a player on a team that doesn't make the playoffs. How can the MVP of the league not be good enough to elevate his team to the post season? I bet the writers who can't stomach voting for a DH are praying the Sox continue to falter so that they have a different excuse other than "Well, he doesn't play the field." So, hear me know and believe me later: If the Red Sox pitching doesn't shape up and if the Sox don't get to play October ball (Come on, don't we all want to hear more of "the Hunt for Red Soxtober"?) then David Ortiz will not be awarded the AL MVP and for the second time in two years it will have been stolen from him. Just as it was stolen from Pujols by Bonds all those years before.
Verdict: If Big Papi doesn't get the big award we can blame the pitching. Not only are they sinking the Sox season, they are taking David's hopes of an MVP honor down with them.
Mark my words, this will prove to be more than just my opinion!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
What a joke 2
Volume II "The Sports Version"
Be sure to catch "What a joke volume I" below (it was yesterday's post).
I'll start with the non-major league sports so as not to lose you all right off the bat.
The Little League World Series: This isn't all about the LLWS, but the rules are the same so I figured I'd use that heading.
I caught just a few minutes of the LLWS, but what I saw I found disturbing. First, it looked like these 11 year olds were throwing junk (curve balls for the non sports inclined among us.) This is really bad for a preteens elbow and really should not be allowed.
I also saw a child hit a home run. What an exciting moment for him. And what did he do? Showboat. He hit the ball, dropped the bat alla Manny Ramirez, and watched it fly for a few moments before he started jogging. Hello! You're 11! I really hope his coach let him have it regarding sportsmanship and the proper way to play the game.
Little League in America has universal rules. One of those rules is that every player on the team who is at the game must be in the field for at least 3 defensive outs and have at least one at bat. There was a coach who realized in the top of the sixth (that's their final inning) with at 9-7 lead that he'd failed to play one player. He put him in the game and told his team to make sure the game was tied when the half inning ended so that the child could get an at bat and they'd have a chance to win the game. The other team's coach also noticed the oversight and told his players to swing and miss knowing that if the game ended without that child getting an at bat his team would win even though the score was not in their favor. So, while one coach was telling his team to throw the game so that the rules could be followed, the other was telling his team to throw the game so that the rules could be exploited.
1) What does this rule teach the kids? Life is fair, everyone deserves a turn, winning doesn't matter, blah blah blah. Bad rule.
2) What did the first coach teach the kids? Even though it's a bad rule, it's not immoral and it should be abided by, so much so that he tried to extend the game to obey the rule.
3) What did the second coach teach the kids? Winning is everything. Whatever it takes! If you can't win based on your own abilities, win based on someone else's mistake!
By the way, there is a happy medium between winning doesn't matter and winning is everything.
Lastly in regards to Little League, there was a close game where the team in the field intentionally walked a slugger to face the kid who followed him in the line up. Now, forgetting the outrage that 10 year olds are intentionally walking each other, the batter who was up next was a cancer patient! They walked the teams slugger to face the cancer patient who hadn't had a hit in who knows how many at bats! He struck out ending the game. Once again, coaches really need to find the balance between winning doesn't matter and winning is everything. Because the coach who had his pitcher walk the slugger just doesn't get it.
The Red Sox: Maybe some of you have been waiting for this part of the post. Yesterday, the Yankees completed a five game sweep in Fenway pushing the Red Sox to 6 1/2 games back in the division. What's the problem? Pitching, pitching, pitching! I'm sure glad that Bronson is off the team. I mean, the Sox only averaged 5 runs a game against the Yankees so their offense clearly needed some help! Well, when your opponent averages around 8 runs a game there's something wrong on the mound, not at the plate.
(Hey Dr. James & Mudflaps, you'll both appreciate this part.) While the pitching is to blame, there should be some red flags flying when a major league pitching roster gives up 14 walks in a game (game 3). 14 walks. These are major league pitchers. If there are 14 walks being handed out that strike zone must be pretty darn small! I saw the two batters that Becket walked forcing home two runs. Both of those batter struck out looking and yet were awarded first base.
While the umpire had a hand in the loss, the weight falls in the bullpen. The Red Sox were unable to hold leads of as much as 3 runs. That is not a team that's going to make it into the playoffs. (And they lost yesterday on a wild pitch...)
I still believe that making no move at the deadline was the right move. 'Tek and Nixon went down after that time. Perhaps it is the fact that 'Tek isn't their for the young pitchers to aim at. Their decline did coincide with his departure from behind the plate.
"But the Yankees had injuries too." Sure they did. Matsui and Sheffield are both hurt. Leaving them with the skeleton crew of Jeter, A-Rod, Posada, Giambi, Damon, Williams and Cano. I have no idea how they are winning with that depleted lineup!
Don't get me wrong. It ain't over. 5 down in the wild card, 6 1/2 in the division with over 40 to play. Hopefully the geriatrics from New York will slip a few rungs as well. The post season is still a possibility.
So, there you have it. A few things that are, in just my opinion, complete and utter jokes.
Be sure to catch "What a joke volume I" below (it was yesterday's post).
I'll start with the non-major league sports so as not to lose you all right off the bat.
The Little League World Series: This isn't all about the LLWS, but the rules are the same so I figured I'd use that heading.
I caught just a few minutes of the LLWS, but what I saw I found disturbing. First, it looked like these 11 year olds were throwing junk (curve balls for the non sports inclined among us.) This is really bad for a preteens elbow and really should not be allowed.
I also saw a child hit a home run. What an exciting moment for him. And what did he do? Showboat. He hit the ball, dropped the bat alla Manny Ramirez, and watched it fly for a few moments before he started jogging. Hello! You're 11! I really hope his coach let him have it regarding sportsmanship and the proper way to play the game.
Little League in America has universal rules. One of those rules is that every player on the team who is at the game must be in the field for at least 3 defensive outs and have at least one at bat. There was a coach who realized in the top of the sixth (that's their final inning) with at 9-7 lead that he'd failed to play one player. He put him in the game and told his team to make sure the game was tied when the half inning ended so that the child could get an at bat and they'd have a chance to win the game. The other team's coach also noticed the oversight and told his players to swing and miss knowing that if the game ended without that child getting an at bat his team would win even though the score was not in their favor. So, while one coach was telling his team to throw the game so that the rules could be followed, the other was telling his team to throw the game so that the rules could be exploited.
1) What does this rule teach the kids? Life is fair, everyone deserves a turn, winning doesn't matter, blah blah blah. Bad rule.
2) What did the first coach teach the kids? Even though it's a bad rule, it's not immoral and it should be abided by, so much so that he tried to extend the game to obey the rule.
3) What did the second coach teach the kids? Winning is everything. Whatever it takes! If you can't win based on your own abilities, win based on someone else's mistake!
By the way, there is a happy medium between winning doesn't matter and winning is everything.
Lastly in regards to Little League, there was a close game where the team in the field intentionally walked a slugger to face the kid who followed him in the line up. Now, forgetting the outrage that 10 year olds are intentionally walking each other, the batter who was up next was a cancer patient! They walked the teams slugger to face the cancer patient who hadn't had a hit in who knows how many at bats! He struck out ending the game. Once again, coaches really need to find the balance between winning doesn't matter and winning is everything. Because the coach who had his pitcher walk the slugger just doesn't get it.
The Red Sox: Maybe some of you have been waiting for this part of the post. Yesterday, the Yankees completed a five game sweep in Fenway pushing the Red Sox to 6 1/2 games back in the division. What's the problem? Pitching, pitching, pitching! I'm sure glad that Bronson is off the team. I mean, the Sox only averaged 5 runs a game against the Yankees so their offense clearly needed some help! Well, when your opponent averages around 8 runs a game there's something wrong on the mound, not at the plate.
(Hey Dr. James & Mudflaps, you'll both appreciate this part.) While the pitching is to blame, there should be some red flags flying when a major league pitching roster gives up 14 walks in a game (game 3). 14 walks. These are major league pitchers. If there are 14 walks being handed out that strike zone must be pretty darn small! I saw the two batters that Becket walked forcing home two runs. Both of those batter struck out looking and yet were awarded first base.
While the umpire had a hand in the loss, the weight falls in the bullpen. The Red Sox were unable to hold leads of as much as 3 runs. That is not a team that's going to make it into the playoffs. (And they lost yesterday on a wild pitch...)
I still believe that making no move at the deadline was the right move. 'Tek and Nixon went down after that time. Perhaps it is the fact that 'Tek isn't their for the young pitchers to aim at. Their decline did coincide with his departure from behind the plate.
"But the Yankees had injuries too." Sure they did. Matsui and Sheffield are both hurt. Leaving them with the skeleton crew of Jeter, A-Rod, Posada, Giambi, Damon, Williams and Cano. I have no idea how they are winning with that depleted lineup!
Don't get me wrong. It ain't over. 5 down in the wild card, 6 1/2 in the division with over 40 to play. Hopefully the geriatrics from New York will slip a few rungs as well. The post season is still a possibility.
So, there you have it. A few things that are, in just my opinion, complete and utter jokes.
Monday, August 21, 2006
What a Joke
So, while I realize I'm slowly becoming that guy that I was complaining about in my last post (the guy who never posts) I'm doing my best to entertain you with my thoughts. The next two posts are going to be all about things that I think are complete jokes. This post will be the non-sports post, and tomorrows will be the sports post, (though not entirely major league sports.)
First up:
Hollywood: More specifically "Snakes on a plane." Here's the plot, concentrate because it's complicated: An assassin puts a piece of luggage on a plane. It's full of snakes. The luggage is programmed to open at a certain time releasing these snakes... that are on a plane. The snakes start killing people... who are on the plane. Because the assassin wants to kill on specific passenger... who is on said plane. Can't wait to catch this one!
What is wrong with Hollywood that they can't put out a good movie anymore unless it was a book or a movie before?! Have all of the creative people packed up and vacated the left coast? Here's the biggest joke of this movie: It was the highest grossing movie at the box office this weekend, out dueling the other intellectual movie out right now: "Ricky Bobby: Ballad of Talladega Nights."
Teen Choice Awards: As though our culture wasn't youth oriented enough, now we have the Teen Choice Awards. This respectable awards show has such categories as "Choice Liplock," "Choice Hottie," "Choice Rumble," and "Choice Grill." (For those of you who are too old to know what a grill is, it is not the following: the barbeque in your backyard, the metal grate in front of your car radiator, or an interrogation scene. It's teeth. The celebs all had gold, silver, or jewels attached to their teeth!) The award given is a 6 foot surf board. This award is so all encompassing it deals with movies, TV, and music.
Ooo ooo, and this year's broadcast included the first live performance of K-Fed! (That's Kevin Federline, you know, the nobody who married Brittany Spears and now is some amazing singer! Lucky for her that she married someone so talented!)
My major issues with this concept are as follows: First: It's nearly impossible to create a piece of entertainment that is appropriate for 13 year olds and yet will hold the attention of a modern 17 or 18 year old. There is WAY too much of a difference between the beginning of the teen years and the end to have something that would attract all teens. The solution to this is to entertain the older teens knowing that the younger will watch anyway. Isn't that part of our problem? Don't we have kids in sixth grade acting like they are juniors in high school? Aren't researchers giving sex surveys to middle schoolers because they are no longer acting like middle schoolers? Second: Doesn't this simply encourage Hollywood to pander to this age group even more? Aren't we sick of movies like Ricky Bobby and American Pie? Third: I heard a song the other day that had a line "I'm going to be 18 until I die." This is another major problem I see. Our society LOVES youth. We yearn for it and try to keep it as long as we can. Skin care, hair replacement, even TV shows (that 70's show so 30 and 40 year olds can relive their youth) are signs of our desire to remain young. But what are the consequences of that? Divorce because we shirk responsibility? Teen drug use and pregnancy because we'd rather be their friends than their parents? Does our culture of "I'm a victim" stem from our desire to remain young? This award show is not necessary, nor is it benificial. Finally: Do you really think that the celebs take this seriously? Do you think Reese Witherspoon is going to put her surf board next to her Oscar statuette?
There were a few redeeming points of this laugh-fest. Several winners tried to use the acceptance speech as a platform to send out a good message to the youth. Sandra Bullock (who won for Choice Liplock with Keanu Reeves) encouraged people to be faithful in marriage (Keanu didn't really get it and was somewhat countered what she said, but not terribly). Jessica Alba (who won for choice hottie) attempted to encourage teens not to be obsessed with their looks. She thanked her hair and make up people and the photographers and graphic artists who had been air brushing her for years. She opened her thank you speech with, "We need to remember that looks don't matter, accept in this category." One other surprise was that "She's the Man" (a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s "Twelfth Night") took home Choice comedy or musical.
Don't forget to check back tomorrow for the complete jokes that I've seen recently in sports!
First up:
Hollywood: More specifically "Snakes on a plane." Here's the plot, concentrate because it's complicated: An assassin puts a piece of luggage on a plane. It's full of snakes. The luggage is programmed to open at a certain time releasing these snakes... that are on a plane. The snakes start killing people... who are on the plane. Because the assassin wants to kill on specific passenger... who is on said plane. Can't wait to catch this one!
What is wrong with Hollywood that they can't put out a good movie anymore unless it was a book or a movie before?! Have all of the creative people packed up and vacated the left coast? Here's the biggest joke of this movie: It was the highest grossing movie at the box office this weekend, out dueling the other intellectual movie out right now: "Ricky Bobby: Ballad of Talladega Nights."
Teen Choice Awards: As though our culture wasn't youth oriented enough, now we have the Teen Choice Awards. This respectable awards show has such categories as "Choice Liplock," "Choice Hottie," "Choice Rumble," and "Choice Grill." (For those of you who are too old to know what a grill is, it is not the following: the barbeque in your backyard, the metal grate in front of your car radiator, or an interrogation scene. It's teeth. The celebs all had gold, silver, or jewels attached to their teeth!) The award given is a 6 foot surf board. This award is so all encompassing it deals with movies, TV, and music.
Ooo ooo, and this year's broadcast included the first live performance of K-Fed! (That's Kevin Federline, you know, the nobody who married Brittany Spears and now is some amazing singer! Lucky for her that she married someone so talented!)
My major issues with this concept are as follows: First: It's nearly impossible to create a piece of entertainment that is appropriate for 13 year olds and yet will hold the attention of a modern 17 or 18 year old. There is WAY too much of a difference between the beginning of the teen years and the end to have something that would attract all teens. The solution to this is to entertain the older teens knowing that the younger will watch anyway. Isn't that part of our problem? Don't we have kids in sixth grade acting like they are juniors in high school? Aren't researchers giving sex surveys to middle schoolers because they are no longer acting like middle schoolers? Second: Doesn't this simply encourage Hollywood to pander to this age group even more? Aren't we sick of movies like Ricky Bobby and American Pie? Third: I heard a song the other day that had a line "I'm going to be 18 until I die." This is another major problem I see. Our society LOVES youth. We yearn for it and try to keep it as long as we can. Skin care, hair replacement, even TV shows (that 70's show so 30 and 40 year olds can relive their youth) are signs of our desire to remain young. But what are the consequences of that? Divorce because we shirk responsibility? Teen drug use and pregnancy because we'd rather be their friends than their parents? Does our culture of "I'm a victim" stem from our desire to remain young? This award show is not necessary, nor is it benificial. Finally: Do you really think that the celebs take this seriously? Do you think Reese Witherspoon is going to put her surf board next to her Oscar statuette?
There were a few redeeming points of this laugh-fest. Several winners tried to use the acceptance speech as a platform to send out a good message to the youth. Sandra Bullock (who won for Choice Liplock with Keanu Reeves) encouraged people to be faithful in marriage (Keanu didn't really get it and was somewhat countered what she said, but not terribly). Jessica Alba (who won for choice hottie) attempted to encourage teens not to be obsessed with their looks. She thanked her hair and make up people and the photographers and graphic artists who had been air brushing her for years. She opened her thank you speech with, "We need to remember that looks don't matter, accept in this category." One other surprise was that "She's the Man" (a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s "Twelfth Night") took home Choice comedy or musical.
Don't forget to check back tomorrow for the complete jokes that I've seen recently in sports!
Monday, August 14, 2006
Living in the US is so taxing!
It's been quite some time since I've been able to post on here and for my loyal blog checkers, I apologize. I know how frustrating it is to continually check someone’s blog only to find that it's still as it was a week ago. (You know who you are...)
So over the next few posts, I'll be discussing some of the things I've been mulling over during my recent blog silence.
Taxes: I am amazed that the American people are not more outraged over taxes. In regards to our money, our government gets us coming and going! They tax our money when we earn it: Income tax. This is anywhere from 20%-50% of your income depending on how much you make in a year. They tax us when we don't earn it: Capital Gains Taxes on interest of our savings or stocks. They tax us when it's a gift: Estate Tax. If my mother dies, and leaves me stuff, the government takes some of it! Then they tax us when we spend it: Sales Tax. And there are the specific items that have their own tax: Gas Tax, Prepared food tax, Amusement Tax, Liquor tax, Luxury tax, Cigarette tax, telephone taxes, Then they tax us because we own it: Property tax, Recreational vehicle tax, Excise tax, etc.
And don't forget, any fee you pay to your city or state for a license is really a tax without the title: Dog license, drivers license, car registration, parking meters, building permit, yard sale permit, hunting license, fishing license, marriage license, toll roads, and traffic fines to name a few.
And yet somehow states don't have enough money for education. The feds can't balance a budget! “We need to raise taxes!” ("There's nothing more permanent than a temporary tax." (and a temporary dorm at Gordon)) How is this possible?!
Here is a semi complete list of current taxes:
Accounts Receivable Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (40 cents per gallon)
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
Local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
But it gets better! All of these taxes still don't seem to cover the cost of running a government! Lawmakers and tax-takers have to become more creative. Check out this completely real and true tax that I found: In Tennessee, when you acquire an illegal drug (even "moonshine"), you have 48 hours to report to the Department of Revenue and pay your tax, in exchange for which you'll receive stamps to affix to your illegal substance. The stamps serve as evidence you paid the tax on the illegal product. You need not provide identification to get the stamps and it's illegal for revenue employees to rat you out. If you are caught with an illegal substance that you have not paid the tax on, not only are you arrested, but you are also fined for the tax you didn't pay!
Here's the question: None of these existed a hundred years ago and yet our nation was the among most prosperous in the world, had zero national debt, had a larger middle class than it does now, and it was commonplace for one parent to work and actually support the family. What happened?!
Where does all of this tax money GO?! We shouldn't have half of these taxes! The first to go should be the state and federal income tax! *sigh* Just my opinion.
So over the next few posts, I'll be discussing some of the things I've been mulling over during my recent blog silence.
Taxes: I am amazed that the American people are not more outraged over taxes. In regards to our money, our government gets us coming and going! They tax our money when we earn it: Income tax. This is anywhere from 20%-50% of your income depending on how much you make in a year. They tax us when we don't earn it: Capital Gains Taxes on interest of our savings or stocks. They tax us when it's a gift: Estate Tax. If my mother dies, and leaves me stuff, the government takes some of it! Then they tax us when we spend it: Sales Tax. And there are the specific items that have their own tax: Gas Tax, Prepared food tax, Amusement Tax, Liquor tax, Luxury tax, Cigarette tax, telephone taxes, Then they tax us because we own it: Property tax, Recreational vehicle tax, Excise tax, etc.
And don't forget, any fee you pay to your city or state for a license is really a tax without the title: Dog license, drivers license, car registration, parking meters, building permit, yard sale permit, hunting license, fishing license, marriage license, toll roads, and traffic fines to name a few.
And yet somehow states don't have enough money for education. The feds can't balance a budget! “We need to raise taxes!” ("There's nothing more permanent than a temporary tax." (and a temporary dorm at Gordon)) How is this possible?!
Here is a semi complete list of current taxes:
Accounts Receivable Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (40 cents per gallon)
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
Local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
But it gets better! All of these taxes still don't seem to cover the cost of running a government! Lawmakers and tax-takers have to become more creative. Check out this completely real and true tax that I found: In Tennessee, when you acquire an illegal drug (even "moonshine"), you have 48 hours to report to the Department of Revenue and pay your tax, in exchange for which you'll receive stamps to affix to your illegal substance. The stamps serve as evidence you paid the tax on the illegal product. You need not provide identification to get the stamps and it's illegal for revenue employees to rat you out. If you are caught with an illegal substance that you have not paid the tax on, not only are you arrested, but you are also fined for the tax you didn't pay!
Here's the question: None of these existed a hundred years ago and yet our nation was the among most prosperous in the world, had zero national debt, had a larger middle class than it does now, and it was commonplace for one parent to work and actually support the family. What happened?!
Where does all of this tax money GO?! We shouldn't have half of these taxes! The first to go should be the state and federal income tax! *sigh* Just my opinion.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
33 ways to make sports better.
Though this may look like a sports post, it should be entertaining and perhaps enlightening for all. With all the controversy surrounding many sports (the ref in last years NFL, Floyd Landis in the Tour de France, 'Roids in the MLB) something needs to be done! As a public service, I have compiled a list of 33 ideas that would make sports better for all. Here they are in no certain order:
1) Anyone heard yelling "Get in the hole" as soon as the golfer hits the ball is immediately escorted off of the course.
2) Bring back the glowing puck
3) Full time NFL refs
4) Salary cap for all sports
5) Salary floor for all sports
6) Price cap for tickets
7) NFL OT is no longer decided by a coin flip. The home team gets to choose the ball or the side to defend
8) MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL all on free TV
9) Certain play by play and color commentary people no longer allowed to speak over the air! (You know who you are!)
10) Make NASCAR drivers do a physical challenge during their pit stops. They have to accurately complete a complicated math problem while their tires are being changed or they are penalized a few seconds at the end of pit row.
11) The following phrases are outlawed:
"110%"
"We just need to score more than the other team"
"We didn't get it done tonight"
12) Call Peyton Manning for false starts! It's illegal to put your hands under center and then pull back with out the ball for any reason, including to audible.
13) No more horseracing. Period.
14) The following people need to be permanently removed from their sports and their records expunged:
Barry Bonds
Mark McGuire
Rafael Palmiero
Jason Giambi
Jose Cansaco
T.O.
Randy Moss
15) The following people need to be reinstated to their sports:
Shoeless Joe
16) Soccer ties are no longer allowed. Any ties after regulation are decided based on attack time. The team with the most attack time wins.
17) There needs to be a Triple A for the NBA. I'm sick of young players "learning on the court."
18) MLB should institute what the UK soccer league has. The worst team drops down a league and the best one from the lower league takes their place. (I'm talking to you Kansas City! "Tomorrow, the Seattle Mariners face off against the Pawtucket Red Sox")
19) No more sideline reporters. We don't have them in baseball, soccer, and hockey and we don't miss them.
20) Instant replay for baseball. Just like football. Red flag, three times, you are charged an out if you are wrong.
21) Get rid of the NIT (No-one's Interested Tournament) If you didn't make it to the big dance, don't go to the loser's ball.
22) Homeruns are not highlights
23) The Tour de France route changes every year. Riders are not informed where the route goes until the day of that stage. If you get lost: too bad.
24) Tiger starts two strokes over par
25) Playoff tournament for college football, no more Fiesta Kleenex Tidybowl Bowls!
26) Shorter hockey season. Ice hockey should not be played in April!
27) Change the win/loss determination for pitchers with the ability for the scorer to award the win or the loss and the ability for no pitcher to get the win.
28) No more no-calls on superstars in the NBA. Call consistently!
29) Olympic medal winners are automatically allowed back for the next Olympics to defend their championships. They do not have to qualify. They do not count against their nation if there is a certain number of athletes that are allowed to be sent from any one country for their event.
30) Test Test Test! Universal drug testing for all performance enhancing drugs including the Head Growth Hormone (Thanks Mudflaps)
31) No retro jerseys for certain teams (like the Padres and the Astros!)
32) If you can't find a sport to broadcast on your cable sports station, don't try to convince me that dominoes is a sport!
33) Where is the professional Ultimate Frisbee?
Feel free to add your own or disagree with any of these. Because, after all, they are just my opinion.
1) Anyone heard yelling "Get in the hole" as soon as the golfer hits the ball is immediately escorted off of the course.
2) Bring back the glowing puck
3) Full time NFL refs
4) Salary cap for all sports
5) Salary floor for all sports
6) Price cap for tickets
7) NFL OT is no longer decided by a coin flip. The home team gets to choose the ball or the side to defend
8) MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL all on free TV
9) Certain play by play and color commentary people no longer allowed to speak over the air! (You know who you are!)
10) Make NASCAR drivers do a physical challenge during their pit stops. They have to accurately complete a complicated math problem while their tires are being changed or they are penalized a few seconds at the end of pit row.
11) The following phrases are outlawed:
"110%"
"We just need to score more than the other team"
"We didn't get it done tonight"
12) Call Peyton Manning for false starts! It's illegal to put your hands under center and then pull back with out the ball for any reason, including to audible.
13) No more horseracing. Period.
14) The following people need to be permanently removed from their sports and their records expunged:
Barry Bonds
Mark McGuire
Rafael Palmiero
Jason Giambi
Jose Cansaco
T.O.
Randy Moss
15) The following people need to be reinstated to their sports:
Shoeless Joe
16) Soccer ties are no longer allowed. Any ties after regulation are decided based on attack time. The team with the most attack time wins.
17) There needs to be a Triple A for the NBA. I'm sick of young players "learning on the court."
18) MLB should institute what the UK soccer league has. The worst team drops down a league and the best one from the lower league takes their place. (I'm talking to you Kansas City! "Tomorrow, the Seattle Mariners face off against the Pawtucket Red Sox")
19) No more sideline reporters. We don't have them in baseball, soccer, and hockey and we don't miss them.
20) Instant replay for baseball. Just like football. Red flag, three times, you are charged an out if you are wrong.
21) Get rid of the NIT (No-one's Interested Tournament) If you didn't make it to the big dance, don't go to the loser's ball.
22) Homeruns are not highlights
23) The Tour de France route changes every year. Riders are not informed where the route goes until the day of that stage. If you get lost: too bad.
24) Tiger starts two strokes over par
25) Playoff tournament for college football, no more Fiesta Kleenex Tidybowl Bowls!
26) Shorter hockey season. Ice hockey should not be played in April!
27) Change the win/loss determination for pitchers with the ability for the scorer to award the win or the loss and the ability for no pitcher to get the win.
28) No more no-calls on superstars in the NBA. Call consistently!
29) Olympic medal winners are automatically allowed back for the next Olympics to defend their championships. They do not have to qualify. They do not count against their nation if there is a certain number of athletes that are allowed to be sent from any one country for their event.
30) Test Test Test! Universal drug testing for all performance enhancing drugs including the Head Growth Hormone (Thanks Mudflaps)
31) No retro jerseys for certain teams (like the Padres and the Astros!)
32) If you can't find a sport to broadcast on your cable sports station, don't try to convince me that dominoes is a sport!
33) Where is the professional Ultimate Frisbee?
Feel free to add your own or disagree with any of these. Because, after all, they are just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)