I should simply begin all of my posts with "are you seated? Because we're in for a loooooong ride!" So let's start the engines. (Here's the break down: Sports first (as always), Movies, TV, Politics, closing with Potent Potables (Kudos for you if you get that joke). Actually, it's more of a Wild Card closing)
How about dem Sox?! 10.5 as of May 26th! I'm loving it!
Bret Favre is very upset that the Packers did not do everything in their power to get Randy Moss into Green Bay. So upset, in fact, that he's demanded a trade. No really. A trade! As though, somehow, Randy Moss would alleviate Favre's need for a walker! The man who should have retired two seasons ago demanded a trade. I'm sure that the front office is terrified that some team that needs an aging QB on the decline will offer them something more than that net that catches the field goals and extra points. Of course, he couldn't threaten to retire. The Packers might start firing people just to make him follow through!
Jason Giambi has finally admitted that he took steroids. Of course, delutional people will still try to claim that he didn't say the words "I took steroids." However, I'm not sure what "Everyone was taking them, so was I." Could be referring to if not the juice. Why is he still playing? Your guess is better than mine.
I finally say The Da Vinci Code. I liked it better the first time when it was called National Treasure. The only difference between these two movies is that in NT, they actually had to go places to figure out the clues. They both get to the destination only to learn that the "treasure" (if you will) is not there. Then (Surprise, surprise) it's one step further. In DVC the hairdressing mistake that was Tom Hanks along with Amalie only had to go to three different paintings in the Louvre, then to a bank... and that was basically it. Everything else could have been figured out right there if there weren't a crazed albino monk trying to kill them. There was one potential moment for redemption with DVC. At the end Hanks says, "There's been so much debate over whether [Jesus] was human or divine." I thought, perhaps? Maybe? Could he really be about to say "Why couldn't He be both?" No, no. He says, "Maybe human is divine." So blatantly New Age I wanted to vomit.
I'm already hooked on On the Lot. Part of me is afraid to watch thinking it will expose me as a fraud of a filmmaker. Another part can't tear my eyes from it in the hopes that I might consider myself an equal with the contestants. More to follow in future posts.
In Iraq, Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the disappearance of the four missing soldiers. They must be lying! I have been told over and over by the media and countless politicians that Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq! So the real mystery is who really has the soldiers and why would Al-Qaeda lie about their activities? I look forward to Al Gore's answer.
Speaking of Al Gore (Hmmm Al Gore, Al-Qaeda???): He was on The Late Show with David Letterman and said that Iraq was "The worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." What did David do? He sat back and let him rail on. He did not challenge him. He did not assert that absolute statements like that make the speaker sound asinine. He simply listened like a puppy being taught to fetch the paper. Al also said thank you to the soldiers. For what? For being part of "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States?" Funny, I would have thought that Bay of Pigs might have ranked up there. Maybe the Isolationism during the destruction of the Jews. How about the strategy of "separate but equal?" Or, wait, those were Democratic ideas. How foolish of me, those don't count! He went on to discuss how this administration takes the facts and tries to squeeze them into their "Preconceived notions." Is anyone else double over with laughter at the double standard? What exactly are global warming "Scientists" doing? Are they not taking the facts and squeezing them into their own preconceived notions? Anyway, Gore remains irrelevant until he announces that he's running again.
I'm so sick of the Gardasil advertisements. There is a completely veiled agenda hidden in their "get vaccinated" message. Gardasil prevents only one type of cervical cancer. The one that is a sexually transmitted disease! That's it! Politicians in my two states (MA, CT) are calling for all high school females to receive this shot! (Some are requesting that the age be lowered to Junior High.) Why?! We can't teach abstinence, but let's make sure we vaccinate the girls against the STD! And just to be safe we'll give them some condom's too. We don't want our kids to smoke, so you have to be 18 to buy them. Guess what? Kids do it anyway. Let's just hand out the packs in "health" class. We don't want them to drink so you have to be 21. Guess what? Their gonna do it anyway. Maybe Math class is a good place to hand out the twelve packs. How does this make any sense to any logical adult? We attempt to deny teens access to all of the things we don't want them to do, save sex. Please, please, someone explain this to me.
And speaking of teens: There's a town in Connecticut that is requiring students to take a breathalyzer test before they are allowed to enter their prom. If they fail, their parents are called to take them home. What are the students saying? They are outraged! It's not over any feelings that the school doesn't trust them. They feel like it is their night to "have fun" and the school is attempting to take that from them. Pardon? You are 18 (if that!) You have no business having alcohol period! Let alone at (or before) a school sponsored event! And you still have the nerve to be upset?! Is anyone else concerned about the future of this nation?
And speaking of the future of this nation: Our little Full House is almost a year old. He's beinging to sign and he understands much of what we say! He walks when we hold his hands. Take it from me: Parenthood is cooler and more fun than I ever dreamed it would be!
So... there you have it. My musings for the past few weeks. I've said a lot, but all in all, it's all just my opinion.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Hodge Podge
Well, once again I have lots to post about. I’ll do my best to remember it all and make it interesting... I’ve put the major point in bold so you can skip around and read only what interests you. This is going to be a long one so let’s get right to it:
We’ll start with sports:
(Apu, this one is specifically for you!) So how about those Smallball Red Sox! Bunting for hits, stealing bases, actually winning games by less than three runs! I can’t help but wonder what their current 22-10 record would look like if they were still playing that out-dated Moneyball game! I’m so glad that the Red Sox brass have seen the light!
Barry Bonds is steadily closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. Now, in the past I’ve advocated beaning Mr. Bonds every time he comes to the plate. However, that would result in suspensions for pitchers and might stir up some sympathy for Barry. I suggest a new strategy. Just walk him. Every single time Barry steps up to the plate give him first base. If the bases are loaded, it’s better to allow one run rather than four. Besides, with Mr. Head Growth Hormone on first, turning two suddenly becomes three times easier. There is no way he is going to steal and the rest of the lineup is having major issues with the bat so force them to bring him around to score. If the manager puts in a pinch runner, good! Less chances for the man of the massive head to completely defile the game. I would love it if he didn’t see another strike all year.
Roger Clemens is a Yankee. Let’s be honest is anyone really surprised? Allow me to break this down if you will: Roger has said that he will make his decision taking into account team loyalty, family, a chance to win it all, and the history of the game. And what did he actually base his decision on? Money. It’s a simple process of elimination. Loyalty and family both point to the Astros. He already has a contract to work for them once he retires from actually playing the game (It appears that will be sometime between 2012 and 2022). Also, he spent more years with the Red Sox than he ever did with the Yankees. Family clearly is not a factor as his son is a minor league catcher for Houston (Also tying into the history of the game: As far as I know, if his son were to be called up, it would be the first father/son pitcher/catcher tandem in the history of MLB). As for a chance to win it all: The Yankees were struggling when he made his decision. Mired in last place in the American League East they were seven games behind the soaring Sox. Even though it was May, the Yankees have a tough road ahead of them (especially if they keep losing by 12 runs to the likes of the Rangers!) And the History of the game? Roger Clemens is tied for the most wins as a Red Sox pitcher with Cy Young. You may have heard of him, there’s some unimportant award given out every year that bears his name. One more win as a Red Sox pitcher and Clemens would sit alone as the winningest pitcher in Red Sox history. So what could he have based his decision on? The Yankees offered him the most money. That’s it. So what type of difference will he make? Well, he struggled last year against the National League, never pitching more than six innings (often leaving the game after the fifth) and he’s not going to being pitching until June. So what the Yankees have done is rented an aging mercenary who will, without a doubt, tire their faltering bullpen every five days. Clemens is expected to receive approximately nine million dollars per start. Assuming he throws 100 pitches per start (which is an exaggeration. The Yanks will be lucky if they can squeeze 90 out of him twice this year) that would be $90,000 per pitch. That is a very very expensive gamble! I can’t wait till we face him in Fenway!
Moving on: Imus is suing CBS. Good for him. I hope he wins big! Oh, and I have it on good authority that it was actually pressure from Hilary Clinton that forced him out! You heard it hear first! (More on her later).
The "reverend" Al Sharpton had more "intelligent" things to say recently. This time regarding Mit Romney (former Gov. of MA, current Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party and unashamed Mormon.) Sharpton said, "And as for the only Mormon candidate running for office, you don’t need to worry about him, the people who truly believe in God will defeat him. He is only temporary." Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending the Mormon faith. However, this is a public figure who screams bloody murder when anything is said that even appears to be anti-black opening insulting someone of a different religion. When Romney stated that the comment saddened him in it’s bigoted nature Sharpen’s response was not an apology, it was an excuse. He said that his comments were taken "out of context" because the Mormon church "has a history of racism." Well, if that isn’t a reason to slander someone’s religion, I don’t know what is! I’ve got news for you, good luck finding a religion that doesn’t have a history of racism! (You may not be aware of this, Al, but any favortism or prejudice based on race is racism.) Oh yeah, and apology not accepted because it wasn’t offered and I think you should lose your job (what do you do, anyway?) until Imus has his back!
Paris Hilton is trying to escape the slammer. This would be a huge mistake if the Govinator decides to pardon her. The petition on her website talks about the indecencies that she’d face. That other criminals just like her face every day. Why should she receive special treatment? Because she’s rich? Famous? Innocent? (Well, two out of three ain’t bad.) Martha served her time. Paris should too!
Global Warming remains a hot topic today. I’m only going to briefly touch on the fact that the loudest "chicken little"s who squak about how it will kill us all are the ones doing the least to prevent it! Gore’s Tennessee electric bill for a month was equal to that of what the average Tennessian’s bill is for the year and Ms Rodham-Clinton used three different private jets to fly around the state of South Carolina in one day! Not only that, but one of the jets wasn’t big enough for her so she sent it away and had another fly in from a different part of the state! (That’s four flights for three trips in one day, for those of you who are keeping track.) Then to hide her private flight, she had the jet taxi to where the commercial flights arrive so she could appear to have taken an "everyman" flight, rather than walk into the airport through the private jet area! Anyway...now that we are outraged about that, I have to tell you it’s not really what I’m ranting about... I think that there are things we need to concern ourselves with before we bother with Global Warming! For example: Acid Rain. This was going to destroy our environment in the 80’s! What have we done to stop it? Nothing! It must still be a silent killer waiting to strike! Oh, but wait, before we consider that, we have to be worried about Global Cooling! In the 70’s all the scientists could talk about was the coming Ice Age! There was tons of evidence of both potential catastrophes! Perhaps our efforts to avoid the coming Ice Age have gone too far and that is what’s causing this warming?! No, that can’t be true, because GW pundits are claiming the upward trend has been occurring for 115 years! That means that while we couldn’t send letters any way other than by pony, and before we had that new fangled horseless carriage, and prior to man’s flight, and before slavery was abolished we were able to accurately pinpoint the temperature around the globe! Amazing! Remember this post. In 12 years, we’ll be looking back at the Global Warming hysteria and chuckling about how it went the way of our fears of the Russia’s dropping a nuclear bomb on us in the 50’s.
Thanks for wading through all of that. I’m hoping to be able to post more regularly now. (the play has stalled, but I’m still plugging away at it.) And, always remember, everything you’ve just read is nothing more than just my opinion.
We’ll start with sports:
(Apu, this one is specifically for you!) So how about those Smallball Red Sox! Bunting for hits, stealing bases, actually winning games by less than three runs! I can’t help but wonder what their current 22-10 record would look like if they were still playing that out-dated Moneyball game! I’m so glad that the Red Sox brass have seen the light!
Barry Bonds is steadily closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. Now, in the past I’ve advocated beaning Mr. Bonds every time he comes to the plate. However, that would result in suspensions for pitchers and might stir up some sympathy for Barry. I suggest a new strategy. Just walk him. Every single time Barry steps up to the plate give him first base. If the bases are loaded, it’s better to allow one run rather than four. Besides, with Mr. Head Growth Hormone on first, turning two suddenly becomes three times easier. There is no way he is going to steal and the rest of the lineup is having major issues with the bat so force them to bring him around to score. If the manager puts in a pinch runner, good! Less chances for the man of the massive head to completely defile the game. I would love it if he didn’t see another strike all year.
Roger Clemens is a Yankee. Let’s be honest is anyone really surprised? Allow me to break this down if you will: Roger has said that he will make his decision taking into account team loyalty, family, a chance to win it all, and the history of the game. And what did he actually base his decision on? Money. It’s a simple process of elimination. Loyalty and family both point to the Astros. He already has a contract to work for them once he retires from actually playing the game (It appears that will be sometime between 2012 and 2022). Also, he spent more years with the Red Sox than he ever did with the Yankees. Family clearly is not a factor as his son is a minor league catcher for Houston (Also tying into the history of the game: As far as I know, if his son were to be called up, it would be the first father/son pitcher/catcher tandem in the history of MLB). As for a chance to win it all: The Yankees were struggling when he made his decision. Mired in last place in the American League East they were seven games behind the soaring Sox. Even though it was May, the Yankees have a tough road ahead of them (especially if they keep losing by 12 runs to the likes of the Rangers!) And the History of the game? Roger Clemens is tied for the most wins as a Red Sox pitcher with Cy Young. You may have heard of him, there’s some unimportant award given out every year that bears his name. One more win as a Red Sox pitcher and Clemens would sit alone as the winningest pitcher in Red Sox history. So what could he have based his decision on? The Yankees offered him the most money. That’s it. So what type of difference will he make? Well, he struggled last year against the National League, never pitching more than six innings (often leaving the game after the fifth) and he’s not going to being pitching until June. So what the Yankees have done is rented an aging mercenary who will, without a doubt, tire their faltering bullpen every five days. Clemens is expected to receive approximately nine million dollars per start. Assuming he throws 100 pitches per start (which is an exaggeration. The Yanks will be lucky if they can squeeze 90 out of him twice this year) that would be $90,000 per pitch. That is a very very expensive gamble! I can’t wait till we face him in Fenway!
Moving on: Imus is suing CBS. Good for him. I hope he wins big! Oh, and I have it on good authority that it was actually pressure from Hilary Clinton that forced him out! You heard it hear first! (More on her later).
The "reverend" Al Sharpton had more "intelligent" things to say recently. This time regarding Mit Romney (former Gov. of MA, current Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party and unashamed Mormon.) Sharpton said, "And as for the only Mormon candidate running for office, you don’t need to worry about him, the people who truly believe in God will defeat him. He is only temporary." Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending the Mormon faith. However, this is a public figure who screams bloody murder when anything is said that even appears to be anti-black opening insulting someone of a different religion. When Romney stated that the comment saddened him in it’s bigoted nature Sharpen’s response was not an apology, it was an excuse. He said that his comments were taken "out of context" because the Mormon church "has a history of racism." Well, if that isn’t a reason to slander someone’s religion, I don’t know what is! I’ve got news for you, good luck finding a religion that doesn’t have a history of racism! (You may not be aware of this, Al, but any favortism or prejudice based on race is racism.) Oh yeah, and apology not accepted because it wasn’t offered and I think you should lose your job (what do you do, anyway?) until Imus has his back!
Paris Hilton is trying to escape the slammer. This would be a huge mistake if the Govinator decides to pardon her. The petition on her website talks about the indecencies that she’d face. That other criminals just like her face every day. Why should she receive special treatment? Because she’s rich? Famous? Innocent? (Well, two out of three ain’t bad.) Martha served her time. Paris should too!
Global Warming remains a hot topic today. I’m only going to briefly touch on the fact that the loudest "chicken little"s who squak about how it will kill us all are the ones doing the least to prevent it! Gore’s Tennessee electric bill for a month was equal to that of what the average Tennessian’s bill is for the year and Ms Rodham-Clinton used three different private jets to fly around the state of South Carolina in one day! Not only that, but one of the jets wasn’t big enough for her so she sent it away and had another fly in from a different part of the state! (That’s four flights for three trips in one day, for those of you who are keeping track.) Then to hide her private flight, she had the jet taxi to where the commercial flights arrive so she could appear to have taken an "everyman" flight, rather than walk into the airport through the private jet area! Anyway...now that we are outraged about that, I have to tell you it’s not really what I’m ranting about... I think that there are things we need to concern ourselves with before we bother with Global Warming! For example: Acid Rain. This was going to destroy our environment in the 80’s! What have we done to stop it? Nothing! It must still be a silent killer waiting to strike! Oh, but wait, before we consider that, we have to be worried about Global Cooling! In the 70’s all the scientists could talk about was the coming Ice Age! There was tons of evidence of both potential catastrophes! Perhaps our efforts to avoid the coming Ice Age have gone too far and that is what’s causing this warming?! No, that can’t be true, because GW pundits are claiming the upward trend has been occurring for 115 years! That means that while we couldn’t send letters any way other than by pony, and before we had that new fangled horseless carriage, and prior to man’s flight, and before slavery was abolished we were able to accurately pinpoint the temperature around the globe! Amazing! Remember this post. In 12 years, we’ll be looking back at the Global Warming hysteria and chuckling about how it went the way of our fears of the Russia’s dropping a nuclear bomb on us in the 50’s.
Thanks for wading through all of that. I’m hoping to be able to post more regularly now. (the play has stalled, but I’m still plugging away at it.) And, always remember, everything you’ve just read is nothing more than just my opinion.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Silence is broken
It's incredibly unfortunate that I have not blogged since the Oscars. To my faithful, I apologize. I have lots to say tonight and I'll start with the reasons for my silence.
The library in this town does not allow me to even visit my own blog, let alone post on it. My current employment has the same filter. When I am home, it is difficult for me to separate myself from the Queen of Hearts and our little son in order to post. My work schedule is terrible and I truly have only a few hours a night to spend with my wife before she (and I) fall asleep due to exhaustion.
So there are the reasons and here come the opinions:
Today, I heard that the Patriots traded their fourth round pick for one of NFL's bad boys Randy Moss! So while on one hand I'm salivating over the thought of the Brady to Moss connection, I'm not so certain that Belichick can reign in this part time player. I am pleased that they only gave up a fourth round pick for him (as that is about all he is worth at this time) and if Randy can be rehabilitated the same way that Corey Dillon was, I'll be happier than . Let's hope it pays off
Continuing with sports, I'd like to offer to facts regarding the American League East: First place, The Boston Red Sox. Dead last, the New York Yankees! Need I say more? Well, I think I will anyway. Beckett has been a great surprise this year. Come from behind wins and a shut down bullpen spells a potentially very successful year! These two factors were very conspicuously missing from last season's Red Sox. Not to mention unlikely heroics by players not named Ortiz or Ramirez! Hey, I'll take 5 of the first 6 games against the Evil Empire (6 of the last 7 meetings if you go back to last season)! Looks like this could be a very good year. (See, Dr. James? No predictions!)
Another reason I've been absent from the blogging world is that when I do get a few moments to myself, I've been spending them writing a play. As it stands (in its very incomplete status) it is a four person play about a young idealistic university student who joins a terrorist group and is selected as the executioner of their most recent hostage, an older Assistant to the US Army Chief of Staff. They are forced to spend three days together before the student must end the Soldier's life. At this point, I'm still not sure how it ends so that's all the information I can provide.
Now to the more serious issues. I'm going to attempt to hide my next opinion here because I know that I will take a lot of flack for it, but here goes. Regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy: First, let me say that my heart goes out to the students who had to suffer (and are still suffering) through this ordeal. Also, I can't imagine the pain that the families are dealing with. Now for the unpopular portion of this post: First, I'd like to suggest that a campus alert was: a) unwarranted and b) illogical. The shooting in the morning appeared to be a jilted lover out for revenge and there was no reason to suspect that he would continue to kill. This is supported even further by the fact that the additional rampage didn't occur until several hours after the initial shooting. Had an alert been issued, it very well may have been revoked by the time the second shootings occurred. Many of the people I've spoken to who believed that a campus wide alert was necessary attended schools about the same size as my alma mater, just under 2000 students. VT is over 25,000! It is a small city. It's not something you shut down by flipping a switch. Now my second unpopular position: There was one classroom where the shooter killed or wounded about fifty students. This was the classroom where he chained the doors shut. All of these factors mean a few different things: 1) The shooter chained his own way out. 2) he had to reload. How did over 50 college students allow a man to pick them off one by one when he had to stop and reload and had no plan of escape? He had a emi-automatic weapon and, had they banded together, the students could have ended it there. He couldn't have gotten all of them at once. I'm not trying to make light of the situation, just asking some logical, glaring questions that others appear afraid to pose.
Finally, I've been outraged over Don Imus for a while, and it's time I vented about it. Imus is a shock jock. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet he seems to be held to a different standard that all of the others. Did anyone actually hear the stupid comment that he made about the Rutger's Women's Basketball team? It was a throw away. It was a sad, terrible, unsuccessful attempt at humor. It's clear that it wasn't believed, just something said to garner a response. And boy did it ever! Now the man has been fired for doing his job. It's tough to make a living that way! And who is it that came running to tear him down? The "reverends": Jackson and Sharpton. It's funny, I can turn on MTV, VH1, BET, or drop in any rap CD by an African American artist and hear African American women be called "ho's" with absolutely zero sense of humor. But God forbid a white man should say it. I think this points out several sad aspects of our society. First, and most pitiful: The need that Jackson and Sharpton feel to appear relevant. Their war is over. Racism has not ended, but the racism that they fought years ago, for all practical purposes, has been purged from our society. Yet here they are, at the forefront attempting to revive it so that they can swoop in and kill it again. Second, the cowardliness of major corporations. Many advertisers pulled their support of Imus' morning show following the incident. They're fine when Howard Stern makes fun of midgets, or when Mike and Mike rag on unemployed thirty year old men who live in their mother's basements, or when Christians are made fun of, or lesbians, or rednecks, or Republicans, or the President (if you look at his spending, he's no Republican), or former presidents, or Sanjya. But don't say anything about black people or we'll pull our funding. Why? Are they scared? Do they really care about the content of the show? Or do they care about how many people hear their jingle? This just happened to be "News-worthy" (which is a joke in itself) so they did the "right" thing and pulled their funding. Imus' "humor" is through insult. Why was this over the line and nothing else has been for 25 years?! Finally, (and perhaps the most disturbing) is the clear reverse racism that is now rampant in our nation. The "n" word is fine, as long as you have the right skin tone. For crying out loud, Imus didn't even make a universal comment about black people. He made a comment about 12 people. Some of whom happened to be African American! Imagine the fallout if he had said some racist generalization about all black people! I think the whole radio station would have been shut down! Anyway, I don't think the man should have lost his job over it.
Again, I apologize for the length of time I've been away. I hope this installment will hold you over until I'm able to post again. And never forget, the preceding has been just my opinion.
The library in this town does not allow me to even visit my own blog, let alone post on it. My current employment has the same filter. When I am home, it is difficult for me to separate myself from the Queen of Hearts and our little son in order to post. My work schedule is terrible and I truly have only a few hours a night to spend with my wife before she (and I) fall asleep due to exhaustion.
So there are the reasons and here come the opinions:
Today, I heard that the Patriots traded their fourth round pick for one of NFL's bad boys Randy Moss! So while on one hand I'm salivating over the thought of the Brady to Moss connection, I'm not so certain that Belichick can reign in this part time player. I am pleased that they only gave up a fourth round pick for him (as that is about all he is worth at this time) and if Randy can be rehabilitated the same way that Corey Dillon was, I'll be happier than . Let's hope it pays off
Continuing with sports, I'd like to offer to facts regarding the American League East: First place, The Boston Red Sox. Dead last, the New York Yankees! Need I say more? Well, I think I will anyway. Beckett has been a great surprise this year. Come from behind wins and a shut down bullpen spells a potentially very successful year! These two factors were very conspicuously missing from last season's Red Sox. Not to mention unlikely heroics by players not named Ortiz or Ramirez! Hey, I'll take 5 of the first 6 games against the Evil Empire (6 of the last 7 meetings if you go back to last season)! Looks like this could be a very good year. (See, Dr. James? No predictions!)
Another reason I've been absent from the blogging world is that when I do get a few moments to myself, I've been spending them writing a play. As it stands (in its very incomplete status) it is a four person play about a young idealistic university student who joins a terrorist group and is selected as the executioner of their most recent hostage, an older Assistant to the US Army Chief of Staff. They are forced to spend three days together before the student must end the Soldier's life. At this point, I'm still not sure how it ends so that's all the information I can provide.
Now to the more serious issues. I'm going to attempt to hide my next opinion here because I know that I will take a lot of flack for it, but here goes. Regarding the Virginia Tech tragedy: First, let me say that my heart goes out to the students who had to suffer (and are still suffering) through this ordeal. Also, I can't imagine the pain that the families are dealing with. Now for the unpopular portion of this post: First, I'd like to suggest that a campus alert was: a) unwarranted and b) illogical. The shooting in the morning appeared to be a jilted lover out for revenge and there was no reason to suspect that he would continue to kill. This is supported even further by the fact that the additional rampage didn't occur until several hours after the initial shooting. Had an alert been issued, it very well may have been revoked by the time the second shootings occurred. Many of the people I've spoken to who believed that a campus wide alert was necessary attended schools about the same size as my alma mater, just under 2000 students. VT is over 25,000! It is a small city. It's not something you shut down by flipping a switch. Now my second unpopular position: There was one classroom where the shooter killed or wounded about fifty students. This was the classroom where he chained the doors shut. All of these factors mean a few different things: 1) The shooter chained his own way out. 2) he had to reload. How did over 50 college students allow a man to pick them off one by one when he had to stop and reload and had no plan of escape? He had a emi-automatic weapon and, had they banded together, the students could have ended it there. He couldn't have gotten all of them at once. I'm not trying to make light of the situation, just asking some logical, glaring questions that others appear afraid to pose.
Finally, I've been outraged over Don Imus for a while, and it's time I vented about it. Imus is a shock jock. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet he seems to be held to a different standard that all of the others. Did anyone actually hear the stupid comment that he made about the Rutger's Women's Basketball team? It was a throw away. It was a sad, terrible, unsuccessful attempt at humor. It's clear that it wasn't believed, just something said to garner a response. And boy did it ever! Now the man has been fired for doing his job. It's tough to make a living that way! And who is it that came running to tear him down? The "reverends": Jackson and Sharpton. It's funny, I can turn on MTV, VH1, BET, or drop in any rap CD by an African American artist and hear African American women be called "ho's" with absolutely zero sense of humor. But God forbid a white man should say it. I think this points out several sad aspects of our society. First, and most pitiful: The need that Jackson and Sharpton feel to appear relevant. Their war is over. Racism has not ended, but the racism that they fought years ago, for all practical purposes, has been purged from our society. Yet here they are, at the forefront attempting to revive it so that they can swoop in and kill it again. Second, the cowardliness of major corporations. Many advertisers pulled their support of Imus' morning show following the incident. They're fine when Howard Stern makes fun of midgets, or when Mike and Mike rag on unemployed thirty year old men who live in their mother's basements, or when Christians are made fun of, or lesbians, or rednecks, or Republicans, or the President (if you look at his spending, he's no Republican), or former presidents, or Sanjya. But don't say anything about black people or we'll pull our funding. Why? Are they scared? Do they really care about the content of the show? Or do they care about how many people hear their jingle? This just happened to be "News-worthy" (which is a joke in itself) so they did the "right" thing and pulled their funding. Imus' "humor" is through insult. Why was this over the line and nothing else has been for 25 years?! Finally, (and perhaps the most disturbing) is the clear reverse racism that is now rampant in our nation. The "n" word is fine, as long as you have the right skin tone. For crying out loud, Imus didn't even make a universal comment about black people. He made a comment about 12 people. Some of whom happened to be African American! Imagine the fallout if he had said some racist generalization about all black people! I think the whole radio station would have been shut down! Anyway, I don't think the man should have lost his job over it.
Again, I apologize for the length of time I've been away. I hope this installment will hold you over until I'm able to post again. And never forget, the preceding has been just my opinion.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Oscar observations
I should have known that I would break my blogging silence because of the Oscars. Even though I didn't want to, I watched the ceremonies this year. I think I'll start with my solution to making the Oscars shorter:
First (and I think most obvious) lessen the amount of time the presenters take to walk to the podium! Either simply make the distance they have to traverse shorter, or have them ready to go by the time the previous segment is complete! I can't tell you how crazy bored I was hearing "Ladies and gentlemen, the webbed crusader and his leading lady Toby MacGuire and Kirsten Dunst" *Thunderous obligatory applause rings throughout the theater as these two presenters trudge the 3/4 of a mile from the very back of the stage, around the massive statue of the oscar, to the podium on the far end of the stage!* Give me a break! Who designed this? Richard Simmons? "Walk off that weight so you look four tenths of an ounce thinner when you present the award!" How about this: The announcer says, "Ladies and Gentlemen, two time Academy Award winner and five time Academy Award Nominee Tom Hanks and Kate Winslet." And Bang the camera cuts to the podium and ~shocker~ they are already there! That would easily cut a half hour from the show. There is no less than 30 minutes of walking during the Oscars.
Second: No one is allowed to thank anyone they aren't related to. Thank your wife, mother, kids, uncle who got you the gig, whatever. But if the person's name appears in the credits of your film, you cannot thank them. It is assumed that you are going to thank anyone who worked on your film from the Executive Producer to the Kraft Services Guy. From Key Grip to Best Boy to stand-in Gaffer. If you have something you actually want to say (like Al Gore, the director of West Bank Story, or Alan Arkin) say it, but don't waste our time thanking all of these people we've never heard of and don't care about. (With the following exceptions: Winners in a Best Actor category may thank the following people by title only: "Co-Stars," "Screen Writers," "Director," and (above all) "Editor" because, really, the editor makes or breaks your performance. Winners in a Writing category may thank the following: "People from whom they stole their movie idea," "Movies from which they stole their movie idea," "People who stole their movie idea and did it poorly making their movie idea look better." Everyone may thank the Academy.) The best way to merge into this is to allow "thank yous" to first names only for a year or two and then cutting them out completely. Besides if you thank people by first names (or nicknames) more people will think you are thanking them. "I'd like to thank Steven, Harrison, John, Leo, Bill, Sparky, Duke, Will, and MadDog (there's always a MadDog...) Then once the "thank yous" are removed... ahh... just think of it, the glorious Oscar night where people either had something meaningful to say (whether we agree with it or not (Michael Moore)) or they thank their family, the Academy and walk away! With the first suggestion combined with this one, we are looking at a 2 1/2 hour Oscar night!
Finally, stop playing all five nominated Original Songs. The five Original Scores don't get any stage time. You don't show the fifteen best shorts (live action, animated, and documentary). Why do you waste our time with four losing songs? That should be an added benefit to winning, you get your song played at the Oscars. That cuts out another twenty minutes.
So there you have it, I've cut the Oscars down to just over 2 hours (rather than just over 4) and what have we lost? Women attempting to walk in dresses that were never designed to allow it. An hour of meaningless name dropping and four songs we didn't want to hear anyway.
Now for further musings on the Oscars/Academy:
Jennifer Hudson won best supporting actress. Two years ago she was singing in her home town church choir. Why is it that I applaud the Academy for this gesture and it makes me sick at the same time? I'm amazed that the elitist Academy didn't shun her because she was a nobody and hasn't paid her dues. And yet I look at amazing actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman who only last year finally got his Oscar. Perhaps I'd prefer to have seen the nomination as the gesture of welcome to stardom and seen them hold off on the win for her. Or am I just jealous? Why couldn't I have gotten a break like that? Or any of my friends who are still starving their way through Hollywood/New York/Chicago? (Upon further review, there is an additional reason why Ms Hudson won last night. Her competition was two actress from the same movie who cancel each other out (This always occurs, if there is a category with two nominees from the same movie, they will never win (see Best Song: three Dreamgirls songs, none of which walked away with the Oscar) People who want to vote for that movie will inevitably split their votes between the nominees allowing a third party to win.) Her other competition was a nine year old girl (She can't win yet) and a woman who has won in the past. (Had Cate's performance been absolutely breathtaking, she'd have had a chance, but it wasn't an amazing role. (That's another challenge that the amazing actors face, people begin to expect the fantastic and you have to exceed their expectations to win (Perhaps this is why it took 6 nominations for Martin to win his Award))). So two opponents cancel each other, one's age basically disqualifies her, and a previous winner who didn't shock and awe. That only left Jennifer.
The Best Actor award is no longer about the best actor. It's about the best role and the best accent. Here's a rule that's only been broken twice: White guy + crazy/retarded character = Oscar. (Most recent time it was broken: Sean Penn in Sam I Am but remember, he isn't exactly Hollywood's sweetheart.) We can throw Biopic into that equation as a variable. Look at the people nominated this year: Whitaker (Biopic/accent/African), Gosling (accent/New York), DiCaprio (accent/South African (And a bad one at that. Had he been nominated for the movie he should have been nominated for (The Departed) he might have one, but he didn't have an accent in the Scorese's picture.)) Smith (Biopic/who is still trying to get the Oscar he earned with another Biopic: Ali) and O'Toole (The unofficial life time achievement Oscar (his 7th nod)). It used to be that the Best Actor was the person who best embodied whatever character he was given. (The last time I saw this time of nomination was Kevin Spacey in American Beauty) Now it's who happens to land the best role (other Biopic nods: Pheonix & Witherspoon (Walk the Line), Foxx (Ray Charles), Mirren (The Queen), etc). Look, if an actor lands an "Everyman" role and makes you believe he's that "Everyman" character, he should have a shot at the statue. Because this is no longer true, I want to see the screenwriters go up and accept the Best Actor Award because it's the characters they are writing that are winning the awards, not the people portraying them.
In case anyone was wondering, I got ten categories correct and was kicking myself for changing my selections from four others that actually did win. I correctly predicted:
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Original Score
Best Makeup
Best Documentary Feature
Best Documentary Short
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects
and changed my answer from the winner to a loser in:
Best Costume Design
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Song
Best Live Action Short Film
So there you have it. My thoughts on the 2007 Academy Awards. I'd like to thank my wife for putting up with my blogging, I'd like to thank my readers, I'd like to thank MadDog, and, oh, how could I forget ... It's just my opinion.
First (and I think most obvious) lessen the amount of time the presenters take to walk to the podium! Either simply make the distance they have to traverse shorter, or have them ready to go by the time the previous segment is complete! I can't tell you how crazy bored I was hearing "Ladies and gentlemen, the webbed crusader and his leading lady Toby MacGuire and Kirsten Dunst" *Thunderous obligatory applause rings throughout the theater as these two presenters trudge the 3/4 of a mile from the very back of the stage, around the massive statue of the oscar, to the podium on the far end of the stage!* Give me a break! Who designed this? Richard Simmons? "Walk off that weight so you look four tenths of an ounce thinner when you present the award!" How about this: The announcer says, "Ladies and Gentlemen, two time Academy Award winner and five time Academy Award Nominee Tom Hanks and Kate Winslet." And Bang the camera cuts to the podium and ~shocker~ they are already there! That would easily cut a half hour from the show. There is no less than 30 minutes of walking during the Oscars.
Second: No one is allowed to thank anyone they aren't related to. Thank your wife, mother, kids, uncle who got you the gig, whatever. But if the person's name appears in the credits of your film, you cannot thank them. It is assumed that you are going to thank anyone who worked on your film from the Executive Producer to the Kraft Services Guy. From Key Grip to Best Boy to stand-in Gaffer. If you have something you actually want to say (like Al Gore, the director of West Bank Story, or Alan Arkin) say it, but don't waste our time thanking all of these people we've never heard of and don't care about. (With the following exceptions: Winners in a Best Actor category may thank the following people by title only: "Co-Stars," "Screen Writers," "Director," and (above all) "Editor" because, really, the editor makes or breaks your performance. Winners in a Writing category may thank the following: "People from whom they stole their movie idea," "Movies from which they stole their movie idea," "People who stole their movie idea and did it poorly making their movie idea look better." Everyone may thank the Academy.) The best way to merge into this is to allow "thank yous" to first names only for a year or two and then cutting them out completely. Besides if you thank people by first names (or nicknames) more people will think you are thanking them. "I'd like to thank Steven, Harrison, John, Leo, Bill, Sparky, Duke, Will, and MadDog (there's always a MadDog...) Then once the "thank yous" are removed... ahh... just think of it, the glorious Oscar night where people either had something meaningful to say (whether we agree with it or not (Michael Moore)) or they thank their family, the Academy and walk away! With the first suggestion combined with this one, we are looking at a 2 1/2 hour Oscar night!
Finally, stop playing all five nominated Original Songs. The five Original Scores don't get any stage time. You don't show the fifteen best shorts (live action, animated, and documentary). Why do you waste our time with four losing songs? That should be an added benefit to winning, you get your song played at the Oscars. That cuts out another twenty minutes.
So there you have it, I've cut the Oscars down to just over 2 hours (rather than just over 4) and what have we lost? Women attempting to walk in dresses that were never designed to allow it. An hour of meaningless name dropping and four songs we didn't want to hear anyway.
Now for further musings on the Oscars/Academy:
Jennifer Hudson won best supporting actress. Two years ago she was singing in her home town church choir. Why is it that I applaud the Academy for this gesture and it makes me sick at the same time? I'm amazed that the elitist Academy didn't shun her because she was a nobody and hasn't paid her dues. And yet I look at amazing actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman who only last year finally got his Oscar. Perhaps I'd prefer to have seen the nomination as the gesture of welcome to stardom and seen them hold off on the win for her. Or am I just jealous? Why couldn't I have gotten a break like that? Or any of my friends who are still starving their way through Hollywood/New York/Chicago? (Upon further review, there is an additional reason why Ms Hudson won last night. Her competition was two actress from the same movie who cancel each other out (This always occurs, if there is a category with two nominees from the same movie, they will never win (see Best Song: three Dreamgirls songs, none of which walked away with the Oscar) People who want to vote for that movie will inevitably split their votes between the nominees allowing a third party to win.) Her other competition was a nine year old girl (She can't win yet) and a woman who has won in the past. (Had Cate's performance been absolutely breathtaking, she'd have had a chance, but it wasn't an amazing role. (That's another challenge that the amazing actors face, people begin to expect the fantastic and you have to exceed their expectations to win (Perhaps this is why it took 6 nominations for Martin to win his Award))). So two opponents cancel each other, one's age basically disqualifies her, and a previous winner who didn't shock and awe. That only left Jennifer.
The Best Actor award is no longer about the best actor. It's about the best role and the best accent. Here's a rule that's only been broken twice: White guy + crazy/retarded character = Oscar. (Most recent time it was broken: Sean Penn in Sam I Am but remember, he isn't exactly Hollywood's sweetheart.) We can throw Biopic into that equation as a variable. Look at the people nominated this year: Whitaker (Biopic/accent/African), Gosling (accent/New York), DiCaprio (accent/South African (And a bad one at that. Had he been nominated for the movie he should have been nominated for (The Departed) he might have one, but he didn't have an accent in the Scorese's picture.)) Smith (Biopic/who is still trying to get the Oscar he earned with another Biopic: Ali) and O'Toole (The unofficial life time achievement Oscar (his 7th nod)). It used to be that the Best Actor was the person who best embodied whatever character he was given. (The last time I saw this time of nomination was Kevin Spacey in American Beauty) Now it's who happens to land the best role (other Biopic nods: Pheonix & Witherspoon (Walk the Line), Foxx (Ray Charles), Mirren (The Queen), etc). Look, if an actor lands an "Everyman" role and makes you believe he's that "Everyman" character, he should have a shot at the statue. Because this is no longer true, I want to see the screenwriters go up and accept the Best Actor Award because it's the characters they are writing that are winning the awards, not the people portraying them.
In case anyone was wondering, I got ten categories correct and was kicking myself for changing my selections from four others that actually did win. I correctly predicted:
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Original Score
Best Makeup
Best Documentary Feature
Best Documentary Short
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects
and changed my answer from the winner to a loser in:
Best Costume Design
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Song
Best Live Action Short Film
So there you have it. My thoughts on the 2007 Academy Awards. I'd like to thank my wife for putting up with my blogging, I'd like to thank my readers, I'd like to thank MadDog, and, oh, how could I forget ... It's just my opinion.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Global warming & this winter
Alright, before I incense people who disagree with me into a rage due to my apparent ignorance and stupidity I'd like to say this: the Earth is warmer now than it was 25 years ago. The globe, on the whole, has warmed. The question is: "Is global warming (in its present definition) as severe as we have been lead to believe?"
Let's look at the facts: The average temperature has been climbing over during the last decade. There have been more severe hurricanes hitting our country. This winter has been one of the warmest on record. Connecticut set a record for most days where the high was above the average temperature for the month with 31 days in a row. Clearly, things are warming up.
So, what's the problem? Why this post? One who was marginally familiar with the concept of global warming would certainly point to this comfortable winter and say that this is getting serious. However, most scientists who are cautioning us regarding global warming have said that we should expect more severe winters with bigger blizzards and stronger storms. (Hey, there's an ad campaign for Dairy Queen: "combat global warming, get a blizzard!")
Once again, we have a group of people who want their DQ brownie sundae and want to eat it too! I've heard the same people who've said that global warming is going to cause some of the worst winters we've ever experienced now say that the unseasonably warm winter is due to global warming! Well, which is it? Does global warming cause wicked cold winters or crazy warm ones?
I won't ignore the fact that people who decry global warming like to exclaim through their chattering teeth "How's that global warming workin' out for ya" as their words dislodge the snot-sicles from their noses in the -18 degree wind-chill. These people are no better regarding their knowledge of the situation and should sound just as silly as the people I've mentioned above.
[Side note] I was watching a special on the Discovery Channel about a volcano that was emitting greenhouse gases. This volcano was releasing as much greenhouse gas as the top 7 cities in the US did over the course of 5 years. My point is basically only an idiot would claim that the Earth isn't warming. However, perhaps it is too soon to blame it entirely on humans. (This doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to reduce our contribution to the problem, but it's not exactly doomsday yet.)
In the meantime, I'll continue enjoying my non-global warming winter while I share with everyone that which is just my opinion.
Let's look at the facts: The average temperature has been climbing over during the last decade. There have been more severe hurricanes hitting our country. This winter has been one of the warmest on record. Connecticut set a record for most days where the high was above the average temperature for the month with 31 days in a row. Clearly, things are warming up.
So, what's the problem? Why this post? One who was marginally familiar with the concept of global warming would certainly point to this comfortable winter and say that this is getting serious. However, most scientists who are cautioning us regarding global warming have said that we should expect more severe winters with bigger blizzards and stronger storms. (Hey, there's an ad campaign for Dairy Queen: "combat global warming, get a blizzard!")
Once again, we have a group of people who want their DQ brownie sundae and want to eat it too! I've heard the same people who've said that global warming is going to cause some of the worst winters we've ever experienced now say that the unseasonably warm winter is due to global warming! Well, which is it? Does global warming cause wicked cold winters or crazy warm ones?
I won't ignore the fact that people who decry global warming like to exclaim through their chattering teeth "How's that global warming workin' out for ya" as their words dislodge the snot-sicles from their noses in the -18 degree wind-chill. These people are no better regarding their knowledge of the situation and should sound just as silly as the people I've mentioned above.
[Side note] I was watching a special on the Discovery Channel about a volcano that was emitting greenhouse gases. This volcano was releasing as much greenhouse gas as the top 7 cities in the US did over the course of 5 years. My point is basically only an idiot would claim that the Earth isn't warming. However, perhaps it is too soon to blame it entirely on humans. (This doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to reduce our contribution to the problem, but it's not exactly doomsday yet.)
In the meantime, I'll continue enjoying my non-global warming winter while I share with everyone that which is just my opinion.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Brady vs Manning
The debate is over! There is no longer any doubt which of the two "franchise" quarterbacks is the reigning king of the pigskin passers. (This will come as no surprise to any regular readers of JMO, however, there are statistics and reasons to follow) The winner is:
Tom Brady
How can this be when Peyton has won the last three times these two powerhouse teams have clashed? I'll tell you how. Peyton is 1-3 vs Tom in the playoffs. Scoring only 3 points in one contest and losing by multiple scores in his other two losses. For Manning to remove the crown from Tom's head and earn the right to wear it himself, he had to blow the Patriots out of the water. A performance in which the Colts won by 4 points and only lead for about a minute in the game was not nearly enough for the wannabe leader to overcome the current king.
The Patriots lost the first meeting this season by a score of 27-20. That's a fairly convincing victory. Let's look at a statistic that makes the score seem a bit more interesting: The Patriots had five (5) turnovers in that game! Three interceptions and two fumbles. Two of the interceptions were perfectly thrown passes that were misplayed by Brady's wide receivers and caught by fortunate Indianapolis defensive backs. That makes one interception that Brady could be faulted for (and that one was not converted into points by the Colts.) With such a turnover disparity, a truly amazing QB would have won by a much greater margin than Manning managed.
Manning apologists like to claim that Brady is a "system" quarterback. Meaning that he isn't great on his own, it's Belichick's system that makes him great, along with great receivers like Troy Brown. These people point to Brady's quick passes, underneath routes and passing on third and short. These same people have now pointed to the playoff victory by Peyton as their proof that he is better than Tom. The funny part about this is that Manning won the game on quick passes, underneath routes, and passing on third and short. (Passing on 3rd and short has been one of the strategies that raised Peyton's passer rating this year. He's got a passer rating in the high 50s on 1st and 2nd down, but his 3rd down rating is in the low 100s! Hello passing on third and short.) The biggest difference is Brady's ability to connect down the field. Recall the 3rd and long vs the Chargers, and Brady's 2 passes over 20 yards vs the Colts. Recall Peytons 0 passes that travelled 20+ yards in the air. Yes, there were a few passes that go in the record book as 20+ yards, but all of them were passes for less than 10 yards with a great run after the catch. Recall also the two major drops by Gaffney, one in the end zone and one when he was wide open and would have scored had he caught the stinkin' ball! Had either of those passes been completed we might be seeing a different team in the Big Game.
The biggest test of a quarterback is the post season. Peyton Manning has had 5 games where his passer rating was sub-fifty. Included in those five games were three that were sub-forty! Three of those five games were in the post season: One when the Colts were shut out by the Jets, and two against the Patriots. And even in his most recent victory against the Patriots, Mannings passer rating was lower than Brady's! Peyton was kept out of the end zone by Baltimore and unable to attain a higher passer rating vs New England. The post season is where Brady shines and where Manning disappears.
One final point: Peyton managed to squeeze out a four point victory with a supporting cast consisting of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark. The Patriots carried six receivers this year. Will everyone other than Apu please name two Patriot receivers that have not been mentioned already in this post, and a tight end. How'd you do? Basically, Peyton, along with 3 all Pro players managed to eek out a four point victory over Brady, a 40 year old Troy Brown, and a bunch of journeymen and rookies.
The debate is done. Even in defeat, Brady is clearly the best quarterback in the NFL today!
Is it just my opinion? I believe the facts speak for themselves. (If you'd like more, feel free to visit www.coldhardfootballfacts.com)
How can this be when Peyton has won the last three times these two powerhouse teams have clashed? I'll tell you how. Peyton is 1-3 vs Tom in the playoffs. Scoring only 3 points in one contest and losing by multiple scores in his other two losses. For Manning to remove the crown from Tom's head and earn the right to wear it himself, he had to blow the Patriots out of the water. A performance in which the Colts won by 4 points and only lead for about a minute in the game was not nearly enough for the wannabe leader to overcome the current king.
The Patriots lost the first meeting this season by a score of 27-20. That's a fairly convincing victory. Let's look at a statistic that makes the score seem a bit more interesting: The Patriots had five (5) turnovers in that game! Three interceptions and two fumbles. Two of the interceptions were perfectly thrown passes that were misplayed by Brady's wide receivers and caught by fortunate Indianapolis defensive backs. That makes one interception that Brady could be faulted for (and that one was not converted into points by the Colts.) With such a turnover disparity, a truly amazing QB would have won by a much greater margin than Manning managed.
Manning apologists like to claim that Brady is a "system" quarterback. Meaning that he isn't great on his own, it's Belichick's system that makes him great, along with great receivers like Troy Brown. These people point to Brady's quick passes, underneath routes and passing on third and short. These same people have now pointed to the playoff victory by Peyton as their proof that he is better than Tom. The funny part about this is that Manning won the game on quick passes, underneath routes, and passing on third and short. (Passing on 3rd and short has been one of the strategies that raised Peyton's passer rating this year. He's got a passer rating in the high 50s on 1st and 2nd down, but his 3rd down rating is in the low 100s! Hello passing on third and short.) The biggest difference is Brady's ability to connect down the field. Recall the 3rd and long vs the Chargers, and Brady's 2 passes over 20 yards vs the Colts. Recall Peytons 0 passes that travelled 20+ yards in the air. Yes, there were a few passes that go in the record book as 20+ yards, but all of them were passes for less than 10 yards with a great run after the catch. Recall also the two major drops by Gaffney, one in the end zone and one when he was wide open and would have scored had he caught the stinkin' ball! Had either of those passes been completed we might be seeing a different team in the Big Game.
The biggest test of a quarterback is the post season. Peyton Manning has had 5 games where his passer rating was sub-fifty. Included in those five games were three that were sub-forty! Three of those five games were in the post season: One when the Colts were shut out by the Jets, and two against the Patriots. And even in his most recent victory against the Patriots, Mannings passer rating was lower than Brady's! Peyton was kept out of the end zone by Baltimore and unable to attain a higher passer rating vs New England. The post season is where Brady shines and where Manning disappears.
One final point: Peyton managed to squeeze out a four point victory with a supporting cast consisting of Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark. The Patriots carried six receivers this year. Will everyone other than Apu please name two Patriot receivers that have not been mentioned already in this post, and a tight end. How'd you do? Basically, Peyton, along with 3 all Pro players managed to eek out a four point victory over Brady, a 40 year old Troy Brown, and a bunch of journeymen and rookies.
The debate is done. Even in defeat, Brady is clearly the best quarterback in the NFL today!
Is it just my opinion? I believe the facts speak for themselves. (If you'd like more, feel free to visit www.coldhardfootballfacts.com)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
All four Super Bowl Previews
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)