2006/PG-13/Drama
This movie supposedly chronicles the reactions and emotions that were present in the British government (specifically inside the Prime Minister's office and behind the Royal Family's closed doors) immediately following Princess Diana's death in 1997.
Had I known the plot synopsis prior to ordering this movie, I probably wouldn't have requested it. I, for one, never really understood the Diana worship that permeated both the US and the UK. And, while her death was tragic, it was the "love" of the public that encouraged the paparazzi to hound her which lead directly to her death.
My biggest difficulty with a film such as this as the viewer can be tempted to believe that what they are seeing is exactly what happened. This is the same complaint I have with movies like The Perfect Storm. We simply don't know what happened in the inner chambers of the palace. What we know is what they did and said publicly, the rest is speculation.
Having said that, I didn't particularly believe much of what was portrayed. Prince Charles was a wishy-washy momma's boy who was afraid to express his opinion and supposedly loved Diana very much. He basically spent the whole movie talking about what a great mother she was to her children. Way to be one-dimensional. As I mentioned in my Oscar's post, there is a new equation regarding what gets a little gold statue. While the Queen was a very layered character and mimicked to near perfection, her veiled dislike of the Princess (that translated into a dislike of her subjects who were mourning her passing) that was disguised in the utmost concern for her grandsons was difficult to believe.
The story began very slow. Once the conflict between the Prime Minister, the Queen, and the tabloids was fully established it proved to be too simple to carry the whole movie. The performances of Helen Mirren (Queen Elizabeth) and Michael Sheen (Tony Blair) definitely carried this character driven drama, but were not strong enough to overcome the lack of story.
The Princes were noticeably absent and the Prince Philip was noticeably obnoxious. Overall, the movie had some interesting things to say regarding the disconnect between a Monarch and her subjects, the Monarchy and it's government, and the mindsets of the Royal Family and the modern day governed. This film raises the question "Can a Monarchy survive in the twenty-first century?" and leaves it up to the audience to answer.
2 out of 5 stars
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sports Briefs
No, not athlete's underwear, short comments regarding the wide world of sports from your favorite blogger! (Actually, I'm writing them... but close enough)
Baseball: Bye Bye Barry! The San Francisco Giants are removing any and all references to their "beloved" "home run king" for the start of this season. His image is being removed from the left field wall (they can now bring the wall back to its original size, they had to make it larger to fit Barry's noggin on it), there are no references to "#756" (the home run that "broke" Hank Aaron's intact record), and the #25 (Bond's jersey) is not being displayed anywhere in the park. The team plans to put a plaque where home run 756 landed in the stands. I guess the team has figured they've milked the Bondimonium as much as they dare, what, with his perjury charges pending, and all.
Football: Speaking of Giants Each year, the winner of the Super Bowl opens the following season with a game to test their strength to see if they are the same team they were just six months earlier. Indianapolis faced off against New Orleans, the team that lost in the NFC Championship game to the Bears. When New England won, their first game was against arch rival Indianapolis. New England also had to face Pittsburgh to start a season following a Super Bowl victory. Tampa Bay played Philadelphia, the team that represented the NFC in the big game that year. Who have the football executives decided the New York Giants should face? Which of the NFL's Powerhouse teams must they square off against? Division rival and best-record-in-the-NFC Cowboys? Nope. AFC runner up Chargers? Wrong. Ok, how about NFC runner up: the Favre-less Packers? No. Ready? The dreaded 9-7 Washington Redskins! Third place in their division! At least they managed to steal a playoff spot from the Vikings who couldn't buy a win at the end of the season. The best part about it... the Giants will still lose.
NCAA Basketball: The Final Four (C) Yet another cultural colloquialism that is becoming more of an epitaph. It looks like the terms "March Madness" and "Final Four" have been copyrighted! Just like Super Bowl, Fenway Park, and "You're Fired" (though The Don failed at his bid to copyright the last one) if these terms are to be used in advertising or marketing of any kind, money must change hands. The Bracket that I filled out this year said "Hoops Hysteria" and another website said "Tourney Time." In fact, I have a jar next to my computer for every time I type Super Bowl, Final Four, or March Madness. Whoops, there goes another $75! Right now I'm in first place with the bracket competition at my former place of employment. However, as I foolishly chose Georgetown to win it all and Pitt to be in the Final Four, I think the best I can do is 3rd. (I did get all four of last nights games right, though.) My best shot at winning is for Wisconsin to beat UNC to go to the finals, play a UCLA team that beat Michigan State to get there, and for Wisconsin to win it all. Go Badgers!
Baseball: Bye Bye Barry! The San Francisco Giants are removing any and all references to their "beloved" "home run king" for the start of this season. His image is being removed from the left field wall (they can now bring the wall back to its original size, they had to make it larger to fit Barry's noggin on it), there are no references to "#756" (the home run that "broke" Hank Aaron's intact record), and the #25 (Bond's jersey) is not being displayed anywhere in the park. The team plans to put a plaque where home run 756 landed in the stands. I guess the team has figured they've milked the Bondimonium as much as they dare, what, with his perjury charges pending, and all.
Football: Speaking of Giants Each year, the winner of the Super Bowl opens the following season with a game to test their strength to see if they are the same team they were just six months earlier. Indianapolis faced off against New Orleans, the team that lost in the NFC Championship game to the Bears. When New England won, their first game was against arch rival Indianapolis. New England also had to face Pittsburgh to start a season following a Super Bowl victory. Tampa Bay played Philadelphia, the team that represented the NFC in the big game that year. Who have the football executives decided the New York Giants should face? Which of the NFL's Powerhouse teams must they square off against? Division rival and best-record-in-the-NFC Cowboys? Nope. AFC runner up Chargers? Wrong. Ok, how about NFC runner up: the Favre-less Packers? No. Ready? The dreaded 9-7 Washington Redskins! Third place in their division! At least they managed to steal a playoff spot from the Vikings who couldn't buy a win at the end of the season. The best part about it... the Giants will still lose.
NCAA Basketball: The Final Four (C) Yet another cultural colloquialism that is becoming more of an epitaph. It looks like the terms "March Madness" and "Final Four" have been copyrighted! Just like Super Bowl, Fenway Park, and "You're Fired" (though The Don failed at his bid to copyright the last one) if these terms are to be used in advertising or marketing of any kind, money must change hands. The Bracket that I filled out this year said "Hoops Hysteria" and another website said "Tourney Time." In fact, I have a jar next to my computer for every time I type Super Bowl, Final Four, or March Madness. Whoops, there goes another $75! Right now I'm in first place with the bracket competition at my former place of employment. However, as I foolishly chose Georgetown to win it all and Pitt to be in the Final Four, I think the best I can do is 3rd. (I did get all four of last nights games right, though.) My best shot at winning is for Wisconsin to beat UNC to go to the finals, play a UCLA team that beat Michigan State to get there, and for Wisconsin to win it all. Go Badgers!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Religion in Culture?
There have been a few stories that have cropped up in the news recently where religion has permeated the culture and those who follow the religion have made requests for companies and institutions to alter their policies to suit their belief system.
There have been two instances of note, both regarding female Muslims. The more widely reported situation is regarding the workout facility on Harvard's campus that is providing women-only gym times. They've honored a request from a Muslim student group so that the Muslim women can wear clothing that is more appropriate for working out and not feel uncomfortable due to the apparent immodesty of wearing workout clothes around men.
The second, and lesser known, complaint comes out of Britain. Female Muslim doctors are objecting to a more rigorous hand-washing standard. The new requirement is that they wash their hands and arms up to their elbows to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria. Their view is that this is forcing them to be immodest because they should not be displaying their arms above their wrists. Some women at Birmingham University have said they would change careers rather than comply.
I have two different types of responses to these situations: Specific and broad.
Specific
In regards to the women-only gym time at Harvard, my initial response is to disagree. Even though it's only one gym that has instituted these hours, and even though the times are when the gym is least used, I still don't agree with the decision. It's sexist and there are other solutions. If the women as so concerned with modesty then buy a New Jersey jogging suit and work out with your head covering. Don't like working out with men? Join Curves. If a Christian group was uncomfortable working out with homosexuals, would the gym bend to their wishes? What if a "fat-guy" group wanted a non-women/non-athletic male workout time, would it be granted? What if a Muslim group requested a non-Jewish workout time, where does it end? Truthfully, this isn't really about religious freedom. If your religion requires certain actions that would forbid certain activities, don't try to get the activities changed so you can participate in them. If I'm a devote Catholic and I don't believe in eating meat on Friday, I'm not going to ask them to move the hot dog eating contest to Saturday and I'm not going to ask them to change it to a carrot eating contest. It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs.
The issue in Britain is even worse. Ok, so the guys can workout in another gym or at another time, but these doctors are potentially putting their patients at risk because they don't want to expose their arms. Maybe they should have some women-only arm washing times. However, I fully respect those who have said that they would change professions rather than comply with the regulation. That is the correct course of action. If my work forced me to work Sunday morning, I'd find different work.
Broad
Now, having said all of that, here's the flip side: As a Christian, don't I make similar requests on my culture? Do I really believe that "It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs." I vote Pro-Life, I support films that encourage family values and redemption, I patron establishments that are family friendly. Perhaps the difference is that my actions are all within the bounds of our current culture. I'm not asking culture to change. Rather, I'm changing myself to be counter-cultural (Something we're often encouraging our youth to do. It's no coincidence that our youth group is called "NonCon4mers"). Is it not more radical to for go some of life's "luxuries" because they conflict with your religion than to attempt to force the "luxuries" to cater to your religious convictions? Didn't Chariots of Fire teach us anything?
Well, there's my opinion, what's yours?
There have been two instances of note, both regarding female Muslims. The more widely reported situation is regarding the workout facility on Harvard's campus that is providing women-only gym times. They've honored a request from a Muslim student group so that the Muslim women can wear clothing that is more appropriate for working out and not feel uncomfortable due to the apparent immodesty of wearing workout clothes around men.
The second, and lesser known, complaint comes out of Britain. Female Muslim doctors are objecting to a more rigorous hand-washing standard. The new requirement is that they wash their hands and arms up to their elbows to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria. Their view is that this is forcing them to be immodest because they should not be displaying their arms above their wrists. Some women at Birmingham University have said they would change careers rather than comply.
I have two different types of responses to these situations: Specific and broad.
Specific
In regards to the women-only gym time at Harvard, my initial response is to disagree. Even though it's only one gym that has instituted these hours, and even though the times are when the gym is least used, I still don't agree with the decision. It's sexist and there are other solutions. If the women as so concerned with modesty then buy a New Jersey jogging suit and work out with your head covering. Don't like working out with men? Join Curves. If a Christian group was uncomfortable working out with homosexuals, would the gym bend to their wishes? What if a "fat-guy" group wanted a non-women/non-athletic male workout time, would it be granted? What if a Muslim group requested a non-Jewish workout time, where does it end? Truthfully, this isn't really about religious freedom. If your religion requires certain actions that would forbid certain activities, don't try to get the activities changed so you can participate in them. If I'm a devote Catholic and I don't believe in eating meat on Friday, I'm not going to ask them to move the hot dog eating contest to Saturday and I'm not going to ask them to change it to a carrot eating contest. It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs.
The issue in Britain is even worse. Ok, so the guys can workout in another gym or at another time, but these doctors are potentially putting their patients at risk because they don't want to expose their arms. Maybe they should have some women-only arm washing times. However, I fully respect those who have said that they would change professions rather than comply with the regulation. That is the correct course of action. If my work forced me to work Sunday morning, I'd find different work.
Broad
Now, having said all of that, here's the flip side: As a Christian, don't I make similar requests on my culture? Do I really believe that "It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs." I vote Pro-Life, I support films that encourage family values and redemption, I patron establishments that are family friendly. Perhaps the difference is that my actions are all within the bounds of our current culture. I'm not asking culture to change. Rather, I'm changing myself to be counter-cultural (Something we're often encouraging our youth to do. It's no coincidence that our youth group is called "NonCon4mers"). Is it not more radical to for go some of life's "luxuries" because they conflict with your religion than to attempt to force the "luxuries" to cater to your religious convictions? Didn't Chariots of Fire teach us anything?
Well, there's my opinion, what's yours?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Beijing Boycott
Boycotting the Olympic Games has been a favorite way for countries to express their displeasure with the host nation. The US boycotted the Munich and Moscow games and Communist countries boycotted the LA Olympics in 1984 in retaliation.
Now a cry arises for all countries who believe in human rights to boycott the 2008 Beijing Games. This is due to the escalating violence in Tibet as those who are protesting for their freedom are being mistreated.
Why is an Olympic boycott seen as the solution? Truthfully, I can think of few actions that would be more unfair and less effective than an Olympic boycott. Here are amateur athletes who dedicate four years of their lives training, preparing, and dreaming for a chance to compete against the rest of the world on the biggest stage and their government decides that they can't go because they have a political beef with the host country.
Why not let the athletes decide? If they feel strongly about the situation, they can boycott individually. A better idea might be to find a way to display your feelings during the games. Remember Tommy Smith and John Carlos? The 1968 Olympians who silently lifted their black-gloved fists as a display of solidarity for the civil rights movement? What good would it have done them to have boycotted? How much louder would the athletes who find themselves on the medal podium be holding a "Free Tibet" sign, or displaying the "Free Tibet" emblem, than not competeing at all? I can't think of a better way to show the Chinese government and the world how you feel about the situation in Tibet. "Out of sight out of mind" if we boycott; "Front and center" if we don't.
Thankfully, the United States and the EU have agreed to attend. France showed some of their true colors by saying that it was an economic decision on their part. While that may be true for the other countries, at least they are trying to make it sound like the decision is on behalf of the athletes.
It's the right call. Don't punish the athletes to make a political point. China is punishing Tibet's citizens to make a point, isn't that exactly what we would be trying to stop if we did boycott? There you have it: Just my opinion.
(On a final, mostly off the subject, note: what if Saddam's final act was one of selflessness? Think about it: He kicks out the UN inspectors knowing that the US would invade. If they invade they'd have to rebuild the country. Reports are coming out that the Iraqi economy is much worse than we originally thought. Did Saddam sacrifice himself to trick the US into rebuilding his country? I doubt it, but it's fun to consider.)
Now a cry arises for all countries who believe in human rights to boycott the 2008 Beijing Games. This is due to the escalating violence in Tibet as those who are protesting for their freedom are being mistreated.
Why is an Olympic boycott seen as the solution? Truthfully, I can think of few actions that would be more unfair and less effective than an Olympic boycott. Here are amateur athletes who dedicate four years of their lives training, preparing, and dreaming for a chance to compete against the rest of the world on the biggest stage and their government decides that they can't go because they have a political beef with the host country.
Why not let the athletes decide? If they feel strongly about the situation, they can boycott individually. A better idea might be to find a way to display your feelings during the games. Remember Tommy Smith and John Carlos? The 1968 Olympians who silently lifted their black-gloved fists as a display of solidarity for the civil rights movement? What good would it have done them to have boycotted? How much louder would the athletes who find themselves on the medal podium be holding a "Free Tibet" sign, or displaying the "Free Tibet" emblem, than not competeing at all? I can't think of a better way to show the Chinese government and the world how you feel about the situation in Tibet. "Out of sight out of mind" if we boycott; "Front and center" if we don't.Thankfully, the United States and the EU have agreed to attend. France showed some of their true colors by saying that it was an economic decision on their part. While that may be true for the other countries, at least they are trying to make it sound like the decision is on behalf of the athletes.
It's the right call. Don't punish the athletes to make a political point. China is punishing Tibet's citizens to make a point, isn't that exactly what we would be trying to stop if we did boycott? There you have it: Just my opinion.
(On a final, mostly off the subject, note: what if Saddam's final act was one of selflessness? Think about it: He kicks out the UN inspectors knowing that the US would invade. If they invade they'd have to rebuild the country. Reports are coming out that the Iraqi economy is much worse than we originally thought. Did Saddam sacrifice himself to trick the US into rebuilding his country? I doubt it, but it's fun to consider.)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
2008's 1st baseball post
Baseball is almost in full swing (get it? "full swing?") and already many things are shaping the coming season. Beckett's back, Dice-K's debuting, Crisp could become a Cub...
But the biggest story is one that many of us may have missed. We don't often pay attention to which agents are representing which players. However, when the agent's name is Scott Boras, we sit up and take notice. Yes, one of Boston's fan favorites has switched agents. Manny Ramirez is now under the secretive umbrella of the Boras Bastion (Battalion?).
Why does this matter? Boras is viewed by players as the best agent in the game and viewed by owners as the most annoying to deal with. Which means that Boras equals Bad news for fans. If you think that baseball players make way too much money and that free agents are bought for much more than market value, you have Scott Boras to thank for much of that.
Most agents will inform the teams interested in a certain player what the going rate is. Not Scott, he makes sure that the GMs who want his players are completely in the dark about what other teams are offering. It's against the rules MLB for GMs to communicate regarding such things. Let us suppose both the Angels and the Astros both want Boras' free agent star pitcher. The Angels really want him, so they offer a higher than market value 4 year $20 million deal. Now, if the Astros knew this they could offer 5 years at $22.5 million. It's a longer contract, but less per year. Now the player has a difficult decision. However, because Scott doesn't let the Astros know what's already on the table, if they really want the pitcher they might offer 5 years $30 million because they feel they can't risk someone under bidding them. Sometimes, Scott has been known to swing a high price for a player that only has one team interested, because they just don't know who else might be making a play.
Good business? Yeah, for the player and his agent. For the fan? No. Scott thrives because there is no salary cap in baseball. (And don't try to tell me the luxury tax is prohibitive. If teams want to spend for a player, they'll pay the tax.) This is why teams with superstars that are on their second or third contracts have to charge $60 for bleacher seats, $35 to park, $9 for a beer, and $6.50 for a hotdog. We, as fans, pay the prices that Scott manages to negotiate for his players. We pay his 10%. We are the victims of his "good business."
Not only that, but he acts as a trainer for his players. Even has even been known to go so far as to request that a pitchers regular pitch count be lowered. No doubt, so that when he hits the free agent market, he isn't out there as damaged goods.
How can one man have so much power? Here are just a few of Scott's clients (and what they made as of opening day 2007 in millions of dollars):
A-Rod...................28
Manny Ramirez........17
Barry Bonds.............15
Carlos Beltran..........14
J D Drew................14
Andruw Jones..........14
Adrian Beltre...........13
Johnny Damon.........13
Magglio Ordonez.......13
Carlos Lee..............12
Pudge Rodriguez.......11
Jason Varitek...........11
Derek Lowe.............10
Greg Maddux...........10
Kevin Millwood.........10
Barry Zito...............10
Mark Teixeira..........9
Kenny Rogers...........8
Jarod Wasburn.........8
Jeff Weaver.............8
Daisuke Matsuzaka.....7
Eric Gagne...............6
Matt Holiday.............4
Xavier Nady..............2
Scott has 2 of the 4 highest paid players in the game. He controls 5 of the top 20 and 11 of the top 50.
Scott Boras is probably the most powerful man in baseball. If you want a superstar, chances are very good you'll need to go through him. And with Manny joining the ranks, they just got a little better.
And baseball just got a little worse.
Here is a very good, fairly unbiased article on Mr. Boras
But the biggest story is one that many of us may have missed. We don't often pay attention to which agents are representing which players. However, when the agent's name is Scott Boras, we sit up and take notice. Yes, one of Boston's fan favorites has switched agents. Manny Ramirez is now under the secretive umbrella of the Boras Bastion (Battalion?).
Why does this matter? Boras is viewed by players as the best agent in the game and viewed by owners as the most annoying to deal with. Which means that Boras equals Bad news for fans. If you think that baseball players make way too much money and that free agents are bought for much more than market value, you have Scott Boras to thank for much of that.
Most agents will inform the teams interested in a certain player what the going rate is. Not Scott, he makes sure that the GMs who want his players are completely in the dark about what other teams are offering. It's against the rules MLB for GMs to communicate regarding such things. Let us suppose both the Angels and the Astros both want Boras' free agent star pitcher. The Angels really want him, so they offer a higher than market value 4 year $20 million deal. Now, if the Astros knew this they could offer 5 years at $22.5 million. It's a longer contract, but less per year. Now the player has a difficult decision. However, because Scott doesn't let the Astros know what's already on the table, if they really want the pitcher they might offer 5 years $30 million because they feel they can't risk someone under bidding them. Sometimes, Scott has been known to swing a high price for a player that only has one team interested, because they just don't know who else might be making a play.
Good business? Yeah, for the player and his agent. For the fan? No. Scott thrives because there is no salary cap in baseball. (And don't try to tell me the luxury tax is prohibitive. If teams want to spend for a player, they'll pay the tax.) This is why teams with superstars that are on their second or third contracts have to charge $60 for bleacher seats, $35 to park, $9 for a beer, and $6.50 for a hotdog. We, as fans, pay the prices that Scott manages to negotiate for his players. We pay his 10%. We are the victims of his "good business."
Not only that, but he acts as a trainer for his players. Even has even been known to go so far as to request that a pitchers regular pitch count be lowered. No doubt, so that when he hits the free agent market, he isn't out there as damaged goods.
How can one man have so much power? Here are just a few of Scott's clients (and what they made as of opening day 2007 in millions of dollars):
A-Rod...................28
Manny Ramirez........17
Barry Bonds.............15
Carlos Beltran..........14
J D Drew................14
Andruw Jones..........14
Adrian Beltre...........13
Johnny Damon.........13
Magglio Ordonez.......13
Carlos Lee..............12
Pudge Rodriguez.......11
Jason Varitek...........11
Derek Lowe.............10
Greg Maddux...........10
Kevin Millwood.........10
Barry Zito...............10
Mark Teixeira..........9
Kenny Rogers...........8
Jarod Wasburn.........8
Jeff Weaver.............8
Daisuke Matsuzaka.....7
Eric Gagne...............6
Matt Holiday.............4
Xavier Nady..............2
Scott has 2 of the 4 highest paid players in the game. He controls 5 of the top 20 and 11 of the top 50.
Scott Boras is probably the most powerful man in baseball. If you want a superstar, chances are very good you'll need to go through him. And with Manny joining the ranks, they just got a little better.
And baseball just got a little worse.
Here is a very good, fairly unbiased article on Mr. Boras
Review: Shattered Glass
2003/PG-13/Drama
The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.
This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.
A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.
The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.
Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.
The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.
As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.
Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:
3.5 out of 5 stars.
The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.
This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.
A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.
The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.
Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.
The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.
As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.
Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Review: Shopgirl
2005/R/Romance
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Review: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
2006/Not rated (though would be NC-17 if it were)/Documentary
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Oscar Reactions
Why do I still care? Supposedly, my life aspirations no longer include holding up the golden idol named after a former winner's uncle. I no longer want to answer the question "who are you wearing" (truth be told, when I admitted to wanting to be at least an Oscar nominee, I didn't want to answer that question then either...) So, why do I still care? I don't know, but I do...
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Let's Talk Film
This is quite the momentous announcement! Our good friends in Japan have given us a fantastic Annibirthmas gift: A year of Netflix!
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Voting Booth, Volume III
Ok, so my Oscar reactions are coming shortly but I have to take a few minutes to weigh in on the current election climate; particularly on the Democratic side of the ring.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
35 Seconds
The more I think about it, the more I realize just how close the Patriots came to "perfection." They were in the lead until the last 35 seconds of the 4th quarter. 35 seconds. They were one muffed interception short, one unmade holding call short, one ball on a helmet short of 19-0. 35 seconds! Read this paragraph 2 & 1/2 times. That's about 35 seconds.
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Bears XLI
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
Monday, February 04, 2008
18 - 1
Why, oh why, did they print this book? The cover says that it's for information only, but both Target and Walmart have been carrying it for 2 weeks, now.
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Forget Change!
ATHF: A year ago, we were admonished to
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
200 & Counting!
Though it took me nearly twice as long to reach 200 posts as it did to reach 100, I've finally reached this milestone. (There were six months where I had either 1 or absolutely zero posts!) But, I have attained 200 and, therefore, like any aspect of popular culture (Am I selling myself a bit high there?), here is my second "look back" at the last 100 posts.
When you've had more than one "recap" episode, usually you mention the first one and what a great success it was. You won't want to miss the first 100!
And now, we take a glance at the recurring characters:
Immigration: This has always been a contentious topic. No posts have more comments than the ones were I suggest that we tighten up our boarders and actually obey our own laws. (That comment was probably just edgy enough to warrant a few comments of its own.)
The NFL Power Rankings: I never really figured out if anyone read these with the exception of one reader who was nice enough to let me know that they were important to her. If not for her comment on week 8, I might have stopped them entirely. If you wanna revisit any of the weeks here they are: NFL Preview, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Post Season preview I, Post Season preview II, and Super Bowl previews.
Politics: Next to sports, politics was the second most common character during these past 100 posts. The mid-term and up-coming elections taking the spotlight in this category. With Global Warming, local politics and the Spin Cycle (which could become a regular section) rounding out the top 5.
The Red Sox: There has been a surprising lack of Red Sox talk over the last 100! Some discussion because Ortiz deserved the MVP and didn't get it in '06. Then some brief comments about the fantastic surreal World Series run in '07.
Finally, our most recurring character: Barry Bonds: This really bugs me. Every time I mentioned him I said it was probably, hopefully, most likely the final time. Yeah, Barry appeared eight times during the past 100 posts. Thankfully, as he's "broken" the record and is "headed" to jail. This looks like it may be the last time we hear about him on this blog for quite some time... I hope.
The next portion of a good flashback episode is recounting all of the funny and favorite moments. Here are a few of mine:
From The American Voter
From Here's my free speech:
From: Speaking at Harvard:
(And while we are on the subject of people speaking at universities...) Check out Yup Not In Your Name
From Living in the US is so taxing!:
From Not going anywhere for a while?:
Of course, there are always those posts that are simply impossible to excerpt. The good ones tend to fall in a few categories. Here they are:
In the interest of bettering society, I had two posts that were dedicated to recommendations that made things better:
Sports
The Oscars
Then there are the social posts:
Are we patients or customers?
Should we abstain from abstinence programs?
To Santa or not to Santa...
Finally, the political posts:
Kennedy
Generic
The War
Last but not least, it's time for "amazing moments." As we end our look back we actually have two moments to share from the same post:
I wrote these predictions on January 11th:
Unfortunately, The Patriots were unable to hold the Jaguars to 78 yards. Jacksonville rushed for 80. I was two yards off! And the Patriots won by 11, covering the spread.
This prediction was over shadowed, however, by the one that followed immediately after it:
People called me crazy. They said I didn't know anything about football. What happened? Peyton threw an incomplete pass on 4th and 6 to Dallas Clark on their final drive and lost to the Chargers by a score of 28-24. Whose crazy now?
Well, it took me from April of 2006 to January of 2008 to reach 200. Hopefully, 300 (which was a great movie, by the way) won't take me nearly that long!
Thanks for joining me on this trip back, I hope you'll join me on the journey forward!
When you've had more than one "recap" episode, usually you mention the first one and what a great success it was. You won't want to miss the first 100!
And now, we take a glance at the recurring characters:
Immigration: This has always been a contentious topic. No posts have more comments than the ones were I suggest that we tighten up our boarders and actually obey our own laws. (That comment was probably just edgy enough to warrant a few comments of its own.)
The NFL Power Rankings: I never really figured out if anyone read these with the exception of one reader who was nice enough to let me know that they were important to her. If not for her comment on week 8, I might have stopped them entirely. If you wanna revisit any of the weeks here they are: NFL Preview, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Post Season preview I, Post Season preview II, and Super Bowl previews.
Politics: Next to sports, politics was the second most common character during these past 100 posts. The mid-term and up-coming elections taking the spotlight in this category. With Global Warming, local politics and the Spin Cycle (which could become a regular section) rounding out the top 5.
The Red Sox: There has been a surprising lack of Red Sox talk over the last 100! Some discussion because Ortiz deserved the MVP and didn't get it in '06. Then some brief comments about the fantastic surreal World Series run in '07.
Finally, our most recurring character: Barry Bonds: This really bugs me. Every time I mentioned him I said it was probably, hopefully, most likely the final time. Yeah, Barry appeared eight times during the past 100 posts. Thankfully, as he's "broken" the record and is "headed" to jail. This looks like it may be the last time we hear about him on this blog for quite some time... I hope.
The next portion of a good flashback episode is recounting all of the funny and favorite moments. Here are a few of mine:
From The American Voter
...So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that [issue], have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
From Here's my free speech:
2) What if (God forbid) the student went Virginia Tech on the audience? Would we not be saying, "Why didn't they stop him? Why did they allow him to go over his time limit? Couldn't they see he was losing control?" Aren't way too many people trying to blame VT's decisions of that day for the tragedy? Seems to me the police would be the favorite target if they didn't do anything as well. Sorry people-who-daily-put-their-lives-in-jeopardy-so-that-I-can-feel-safe-while-I-sip-my-$8.57-(not-including-tip)-grande-mocha-latte-complaining-about-the-war-in-another-country-that-I'm-not-really-feeling-the-effects-of-while-I-offer-zero-solutions-to-solve-it, you're wrong no matter what you do.
From: Speaking at Harvard:
The following is a survey for potential speakers at Harvard University.
Please fill out the following questionnaire to determine your suitability for speaking at the prestigious Harvard University:
1) Are you:
A) The leader of the free world?
B) A very successful business man?
C) White
D) The leader of an international terrorist organization?
E) Anyone who strongly disagrees with the current administration?
If your answer is A, B, or C, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you answer was D, please answer the following:
2) Which best describes you:
A) I am a reformed terrorist. I have turned in many of my former comrades in destruction.
B) I support them only with money. I have not attended any training camps.
C) I desire to see the entirety of America in flames
If your answer is A or B, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If your answer to question 1 was E, please answer the following:
3) Which best describes you:
A) I voice my dissent at the voting booth only.
B) I actively campaigned for an opponent of this administration who was not a Libertarian
C) I have been arrested more times than I can count because of my demonstrating against this administration
If your answer is A or B, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you have made it this far, please answer yes or no to the following:
4) Do you know what an IED is?
5) Have you ever strapped one to your body?
6) Do you think Clinton should be able to serve a third term?
7) Do you think Christians should still be fed to lions?
8) Would you consider your political views "Left of the Left?"
If you answered "No" to any of these questions, please stop here, you are not suitable to speak at Harvard.
If you have made it this far, please submit this form to Harvard for further consideration. We will interview you to make sure there is absolutely nothing that appears to be common sense or main stream thought emitting from your mouth. After all, we must be open minded at such a prestigious educational institution. If you are not suitable to speak at Harvard, please go take a flying leap. Maybe Yale will take you. You may enjoy the post below this one regarding the NFL.
Please be aware: If you are the most successful African American Female in US government, you are welcome to speak at Harvard but you will face massive protests and name calling.
Thank you,
The Harvard Board of Directors
(And while we are on the subject of people speaking at universities...) Check out Yup Not In Your Name
From Living in the US is so taxing!:
I wonder if I would care that I was so taxed if I felt like there was something to show for it besides roads that there isn't enough money to repave, schools that are turning out children who can pass a certain standardized test, a boarder patrol that has more holes than OJ's alibi, a judicial branch that likes making laws and a legislative that is afraid to, health care that costs more than me taxes, and money to fund free abortions for minors rather than properly fund our foster care system. But that's probably asking too much.
From Not going anywhere for a while?:
The top ten reasons that I would want to be President:
10) To win a "popular election" because just over 20% of the entire US population actually voted for me. (Another 17% voted for the other guy, and 63% stayed home)
...
6) To hit the entire talk show circuit while campaigning (making sure to get on Oprah twice)
5) To be considered wrong by at least 50% of the US population
...
3) To spend $5,000,000 to get a job that pays $250,000 per year with a $100,000 per year pension once I'm done. All the while I get to age thirty years in the course of eight. Sign me up!
2) To know that at all times there are at least four people plotting my assassination and one Vice President who wishes one of them would succeed.
And the number one reason that I would want to be president:
1) To be impersonated on SNL!
Of course, there are always those posts that are simply impossible to excerpt. The good ones tend to fall in a few categories. Here they are:
In the interest of bettering society, I had two posts that were dedicated to recommendations that made things better:
Sports
The Oscars
Then there are the social posts:
Are we patients or customers?
Should we abstain from abstinence programs?
To Santa or not to Santa...
Finally, the political posts:
Kennedy
Generic
The War
Last but not least, it's time for "amazing moments." As we end our look back we actually have two moments to share from the same post:
I wrote these predictions on January 11th:
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Unfortunately, The Patriots were unable to hold the Jaguars to 78 yards. Jacksonville rushed for 80. I was two yards off! And the Patriots won by 11, covering the spread.
This prediction was over shadowed, however, by the one that followed immediately after it:
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
People called me crazy. They said I didn't know anything about football. What happened? Peyton threw an incomplete pass on 4th and 6 to Dallas Clark on their final drive and lost to the Chargers by a score of 28-24. Whose crazy now?
Well, it took me from April of 2006 to January of 2008 to reach 200. Hopefully, 300 (which was a great movie, by the way) won't take me nearly that long!
Thanks for joining me on this trip back, I hope you'll join me on the journey forward!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Dinner with Democrats
I hope that someday I am fortunate enough to be invited to dinner with Congressional Democrats. And I hope that, after they've supped their full and we've each paid our portion of the bill, the waitress returns saying we've over paid and that the restaurant needs to return some money to us. You see, I will have only ordered water, yet when the refund arrives at our table, I will request that a portion of it go to me even though I did not pay a dime towards the bill. Sound ridiculous? I agree.
Yet Congressional Democrats are threatening not to pass Bush's bill designed to stimulate the economy by giving a little extra money back to each tax payer because there is no provision in it to give money to people who don't make enough to pay taxes. They want to block the refund because it's only being refunded to people who actually paid.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not against helping people who don't even make enough money to pay taxes. I'm all for getting them job training so they can advance in their careers. I agree with helping them put healthy food on their tables. Providing they are law abiding people, let's send their kids to school. But please don't take something that is labeled a "refund" and try to require that to goes to everyone! What if Best Buy had a rebate program and the Dems required that the rebate go to everyone, not just the people who bought the 47in HD Plasma TV? Or if Six Flags had to close due to the weather and offered to provide "rain date" tickets to the people who were there, but the Left demanded they provide the free passes to everyone. Doesn't make much sense, does it? If Six Flags wanted to provide promotional free tickets, I'd say, "go right ahead!" I'd be firmly behind Best Buy mailing out promotional gift cards to anyone and everyone. But don't call it a refund, rebate, or return. If you want to give a handout to people who didn't pay taxes, find another way to do it. Pass a different bill. But don't try to call it something it isn't.
Honestly, I think this is simply an excuse that the (D)s are using to block this attempt to revitalize the economy. The longer it's down, the more likely they'll take the Oval Office in November. It's hard when you are not the party in power. You have to hope that the country does poorly so that you can take over. So the stock market drop is fantastic for them, as is the housing slump, and the last thing they want to do right now is pass any bill that will end the dreaded "r-word" discussion. But they can't look like they are trying to keep the economy down (or that they are hoping our troops fail) ["I don't know, fly casual!"] so they have to find a reason that they hope will disguise their true intentions. I believe it was their hope that asking that money be "returned" to people who never had it in the first place would be sufficient. It is my hope that they are wrong.
And that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Yet Congressional Democrats are threatening not to pass Bush's bill designed to stimulate the economy by giving a little extra money back to each tax payer because there is no provision in it to give money to people who don't make enough to pay taxes. They want to block the refund because it's only being refunded to people who actually paid.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not against helping people who don't even make enough money to pay taxes. I'm all for getting them job training so they can advance in their careers. I agree with helping them put healthy food on their tables. Providing they are law abiding people, let's send their kids to school. But please don't take something that is labeled a "refund" and try to require that to goes to everyone! What if Best Buy had a rebate program and the Dems required that the rebate go to everyone, not just the people who bought the 47in HD Plasma TV? Or if Six Flags had to close due to the weather and offered to provide "rain date" tickets to the people who were there, but the Left demanded they provide the free passes to everyone. Doesn't make much sense, does it? If Six Flags wanted to provide promotional free tickets, I'd say, "go right ahead!" I'd be firmly behind Best Buy mailing out promotional gift cards to anyone and everyone. But don't call it a refund, rebate, or return. If you want to give a handout to people who didn't pay taxes, find another way to do it. Pass a different bill. But don't try to call it something it isn't.
Honestly, I think this is simply an excuse that the (D)s are using to block this attempt to revitalize the economy. The longer it's down, the more likely they'll take the Oval Office in November. It's hard when you are not the party in power. You have to hope that the country does poorly so that you can take over. So the stock market drop is fantastic for them, as is the housing slump, and the last thing they want to do right now is pass any bill that will end the dreaded "r-word" discussion. But they can't look like they are trying to keep the economy down (or that they are hoping our troops fail) ["I don't know, fly casual!"] so they have to find a reason that they hope will disguise their true intentions. I believe it was their hope that asking that money be "returned" to people who never had it in the first place would be sufficient. It is my hope that they are wrong.
And that's just my opinion. What's yours?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
All Four Super Bowl Previews II
What a weekend! Both America's team and America's QB fail to make it to the Conference Games! (Only one of which I was fortunate enough to predict.) While we're on the subject, I just want to point out that I went 3 out of 4 last week and had Dallas been able to eek out a three point win by actually scoring at the end of the game instead of being wrongfully penalized and then tossing a pick, I'd have gone 4 for 4. How's that for predictions, Dr?
So, with the NFL's final four set, I'm going to take a few minutes to preview all four possible Super Bowls. This is one of my favorite posts of the year. (Check out All Four Super Bowl Previews Vol I)
One thing I'd like to point out is that, unlike last year, there isn't really a game that I'm praying doesn't happen. And, wouldn't you know it, last years big game was the very game that we all least desired to watch. Thankfully, we don't have that dilemma this year. All four games should be very competitive.
Alright, so from least interesting Super Bowl to most:
Green Bay vs San Diego
The biggest reason why this is the most boring Super Bowl is there's no real story line here. Sure, one team started out 1-3 and the other 10-0 but there's no interteam plot line. This is a difficult game to call. The teams match up well and near seems as though they'd run away with the game. I suppose I'd have to take into account that if the Chargers are there, they beat the Patriots. But they've got some "minor" (according to the team) injuries to Brees and LT. As I think this game would be close, and I don't see Favre letting this opportunity pass him by, I think the Pack would find a way to win. Final Score: 23-21 Green Bay
New York vs New England
Oh, just what the country needs: Another Brady/Manning rivalry! While I believe this game would be the second worst option for Joe Average-NFL-Fan, with all of the Giants fans that I know, this is probably the game I'd most like to see. Then there's the rematch angle: They didn't win the first time they attempted to thwart the Patriots historic quest, perhaps they can succeed the second time. I have to apologize to my brother-in-law, I don't think the Giants are a very good team. If they manage to over come the Packers, I don't see how they can stop the juggernaut that is the Patriots. (Getting this far in the playoffs is probably one of the worst things that could have happened to the Giants. Now Coughlin won't leave for a few more years!) I've heard people say that the Giants won because you don't beat the same team three times in a year. Well, you can do it twice. Final Score: 38-20 New England
New York vs San Diego
This match up probably has the best story-line for the marketing of the game. Eli Manning was originally drafted by the Chargers but he refused to play for them because they were so bad at the time. The Giants traded draft picks for him. With those picks the Chargers got Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding, three massive keys to their success. So, who made the better deal? If this is the match up for the Super Bowl, here is where we find out. And the answer? Final Score: 28-17 San Diego
Green Bay vs New England
This is the game the networks and NFL exec's want. The up and comer in Brady vs the time tested soldier in Favre. The rematch of Super Bowl XXXI where the Packers defeated the Patriots 35-21 in 1997. This is a tough match up. While the Patriots have proven they can stop the run, Green Bay has some very good cornerbacks who could reek havoc on Brady's passing plans. And let's not forget that New England's pass rush often flushes QB's out of the pocket. While I'm already eating my words regarding Favre's returning this year, he's still no spring chicken. If he has to scramble too much, he may be forced to make a mistake or two, and that's all the Patriots need. It really is a toss-up which game (this one or the NY-NE) I'd prefer. Of the elite eight NFL teams (DAL, NYG, GB, SEA, IND, JAX, SD) the only two the Patriots haven't defeated this year are Green Bay and Seattle. If the Patriots can face off and defeat the Pack, they'd have beaten 9 out of the 11 playoff teams. Missing only Seattle and Tampa Bay (two teams whose playoff ability was questionable at best.) That is an amazing feat. Final Score: 38-24 Patriots
Which ever teams face off in the big dance this year. It's sure to be exciting. Especially if the Patriots are making a bid at history!
So, with the NFL's final four set, I'm going to take a few minutes to preview all four possible Super Bowls. This is one of my favorite posts of the year. (Check out All Four Super Bowl Previews Vol I)
One thing I'd like to point out is that, unlike last year, there isn't really a game that I'm praying doesn't happen. And, wouldn't you know it, last years big game was the very game that we all least desired to watch. Thankfully, we don't have that dilemma this year. All four games should be very competitive.
Alright, so from least interesting Super Bowl to most:
Green Bay vs San Diego
The biggest reason why this is the most boring Super Bowl is there's no real story line here. Sure, one team started out 1-3 and the other 10-0 but there's no interteam plot line. This is a difficult game to call. The teams match up well and near seems as though they'd run away with the game. I suppose I'd have to take into account that if the Chargers are there, they beat the Patriots. But they've got some "minor" (according to the team) injuries to Brees and LT. As I think this game would be close, and I don't see Favre letting this opportunity pass him by, I think the Pack would find a way to win. Final Score: 23-21 Green Bay
New York vs New England
Oh, just what the country needs: Another Brady/Manning rivalry! While I believe this game would be the second worst option for Joe Average-NFL-Fan, with all of the Giants fans that I know, this is probably the game I'd most like to see. Then there's the rematch angle: They didn't win the first time they attempted to thwart the Patriots historic quest, perhaps they can succeed the second time. I have to apologize to my brother-in-law, I don't think the Giants are a very good team. If they manage to over come the Packers, I don't see how they can stop the juggernaut that is the Patriots. (Getting this far in the playoffs is probably one of the worst things that could have happened to the Giants. Now Coughlin won't leave for a few more years!) I've heard people say that the Giants won because you don't beat the same team three times in a year. Well, you can do it twice. Final Score: 38-20 New England
New York vs San Diego
This match up probably has the best story-line for the marketing of the game. Eli Manning was originally drafted by the Chargers but he refused to play for them because they were so bad at the time. The Giants traded draft picks for him. With those picks the Chargers got Rivers, Merriman, and Kaeding, three massive keys to their success. So, who made the better deal? If this is the match up for the Super Bowl, here is where we find out. And the answer? Final Score: 28-17 San Diego
Green Bay vs New England
This is the game the networks and NFL exec's want. The up and comer in Brady vs the time tested soldier in Favre. The rematch of Super Bowl XXXI where the Packers defeated the Patriots 35-21 in 1997. This is a tough match up. While the Patriots have proven they can stop the run, Green Bay has some very good cornerbacks who could reek havoc on Brady's passing plans. And let's not forget that New England's pass rush often flushes QB's out of the pocket. While I'm already eating my words regarding Favre's returning this year, he's still no spring chicken. If he has to scramble too much, he may be forced to make a mistake or two, and that's all the Patriots need. It really is a toss-up which game (this one or the NY-NE) I'd prefer. Of the elite eight NFL teams (DAL, NYG, GB, SEA, IND, JAX, SD) the only two the Patriots haven't defeated this year are Green Bay and Seattle. If the Patriots can face off and defeat the Pack, they'd have beaten 9 out of the 11 playoff teams. Missing only Seattle and Tampa Bay (two teams whose playoff ability was questionable at best.) That is an amazing feat. Final Score: 38-24 Patriots
Which ever teams face off in the big dance this year. It's sure to be exciting. Especially if the Patriots are making a bid at history!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Playoff predictions
I'm sure you are all eagerly awaiting my Divisional round playoff predictions so you can run to Vegas (or Atlantic City, depending on which is closer) and put your life savings on the exact opposite of what I predict. So let's get started:
Saturday 4pm
Seatle at Green Bay (-7)
Somehow I managed to pick both NFC games wrong last week and both AFC games correct. (I wouldn't be crushed if the same happened this week as well...) Seattle's running game is still not what it needs to be to get past Green Bay. Hasselbeck makes too many poor decisions in his throwing game to pass the Seahawks past the Packers, especially with Woodson and Harris covering Seattle's WRs. People talk about playoff experience (Seattle by far outweighs GB in that category) but I'll take GB's talent over Seattle's experience. Green Bay and the points.
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
Sunday 4:30pm
New York Giants at Dallas (-10)
I have bad news for the Giants. Peyton has to play his own game this week and he isn't going to be able to wear his brother's #10 and play in his stead. So Eli will have to play against the Cowboys. This means the Giants will lose. TO played on a broken leg in the Super Bowl, I think he can handle a sprained ankle. Jessica has promised that she won't be at the game so Romo will be his regular self. However, I don't think it will be a blowout. Dallas peaked a few weeks ago, but too many injuries for New York means that Dallas will host the NFC Championship game next week. Dallas wins, New York covers.
Saturday 4pm
Seatle at Green Bay (-7)
Somehow I managed to pick both NFC games wrong last week and both AFC games correct. (I wouldn't be crushed if the same happened this week as well...) Seattle's running game is still not what it needs to be to get past Green Bay. Hasselbeck makes too many poor decisions in his throwing game to pass the Seahawks past the Packers, especially with Woodson and Harris covering Seattle's WRs. People talk about playoff experience (Seattle by far outweighs GB in that category) but I'll take GB's talent over Seattle's experience. Green Bay and the points.
Saturday 8:30pm
Jacksonville at New England (-10)
The Jaguars are the sexy pick this week. Supposedly, their "power running game" will keep Brady off the field the entire game. Here's the problem: The Jaguar's can't hold a lead. They blew 14 and 18 point leads against Pittsburgh, a team that lost 34-13 to New England at home! Even if Jacksonville gets a lead, it better be 20+ or they don't stand a chance. And let's not forget that Belichick somehow always finds a way to take away what you are best at. Watch for the potent double barrelled running game of Jones-Drew and Taylor to amass 78 yards on the ground. Then watch Garrard throw to his favorite targets Samuel, Harrison, and Hobbs. Sorry, Jacksonville, your journey ends in Foxboro. Patriots and the points.
Sunday 1pm
San Diego at Indianapolis (-10)
Originally, I had San Diego going into the Peyton-dome and walking out an easy winner. However, with Gates hurt, that leaves only Chambers for the Indy DBs to really concern themselves with. So, with two men on Chambers, that leaves 9 to tackle LT. However, Indy is still without Harrison and Freeny and Cromartie seemed to bewilder Peyton in their last meeting. This is definitely the hardest game to call. I know that it will be close. In the end, I'm going with my gut and saying that Rivers and company will shock Indy, winning by 4. Peyton will fail to convert on a fourth and mid during his bid for a game winning drive. San Diego outright.
Sunday 4:30pm
New York Giants at Dallas (-10)
I have bad news for the Giants. Peyton has to play his own game this week and he isn't going to be able to wear his brother's #10 and play in his stead. So Eli will have to play against the Cowboys. This means the Giants will lose. TO played on a broken leg in the Super Bowl, I think he can handle a sprained ankle. Jessica has promised that she won't be at the game so Romo will be his regular self. However, I don't think it will be a blowout. Dallas peaked a few weeks ago, but too many injuries for New York means that Dallas will host the NFC Championship game next week. Dallas wins, New York covers.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Local Politics Gone Wrong
This one is really long, but it just goes to show what can happen in politics, even at the local level, if we don't keep a keen eye on things!
Few things annoy me more than politics. Even fewer things annoy me more than dirty politics. And I find local politics to be the dirtiest! These are men and women with political aspirations who know that they will never be going to Washington. They also know that if they milk the system, the worst they'd get is a couple of years. Perhaps they start out meaning well, but many of them see the dollar sign at the end of the political rainbow.
I've railed about an excellent example of this that occurred in Connecticut a few years ago. (The state eventually won, forcing out the homeowners and allowing the land to be developed by a private developer. I'm sure no one's pockets were lined in that fiasco!) Funny thing, I stumble upon yet another perfect example of local politics flexing imaginary muscles. Wouldn't you know it, it's happening in Connecticut! In the small town of Farmington.
Farmington has a "Planning & Zoning" department that makes laws about what you can and cannot do on your own property. Basically, the entire town is a condo association where the citizens don't really have a say regarding the regulations. One of the "laws" they have on the books is one that states that if you have a trailer/recreational vehicle of any kind (travel trailer, motorhome, boat, etc) it must be stored behind the longest rear wall of your home. Mind you, there are people in this town who don't have enough room to store their 30ft trailer so that it is entirely behind the longest rear wall of their home. The town is effectively saying that these people are not allowed to have such a vehicle.
But wait, it gets worse. Not only does the town invade it's citizen's privacy by dictating what they can and can't do on the property they own and pay taxes on, but they have the gaul to engage in selective enforcement regarding who they will and won't force to comply with the zoning regulation! One person faces fines because their boat is parked in their drive way while another doesn't even know the regulation exists because they've never been bothered about the 38ft fifth wheel they've got in their front yard.
This is the foundation of the two stories that I've come across that make me livid. There are at least two Farmington residents who are being forced to comply with these regulations even though they are exempt due to the grandfather clause. People already engaged in an activity that is now forbidden are grandfathered in and are not required to comply. For example, if the driving age were increased to 19 years of age, anyone between the ages of 16 and 19 who already had their licenses would be "grandfathered" in. They would not be forced to return their driver's licenses. Now, this regulation has been around for about 20 years. Which means anyone who's grandfathered has been a Farmington resident for a long, looong time. Which also means these people aren't the youngest residents.
It doesn't end there. The power hungry local government representative has been informing these residents that they need to file an appeal. The problem is, if they file the appeal they waive their grandfather right and place themselves within the bounds of the regulation!
I found two stories regarding a 30 year resident who is an older single mom of two and a 40 year resident who is an 80 year old grandfather. Both of these people have been slammed with fines and citations because of the locations of their trailers that are not subject to the regulation. Both of these people have been purposefully misinformed by the Planning and Zoning department in the hopes that they will comply and unknowingly waive their grandfather rights.
All this from a town that charges so much in property taxes that the elderly are being forced to sell their homes and leave. This from a town who's budget is 83 million dollars this year (71 million from property taxes). There are just over 25,000 people living in this town! That's over $2,840 per person! Not even per household! (Wikipedia estimates there were about 9,000 households in 2005. That'd be nearly $8,000 per household!) Farmington really needs to further harass their elderly? They need to extort more money from them from fines that never should have been issued? They need to deceive them into giving up a grandfather right they have a legal claim to?
Farmington should be ashamed of themselves. And these pitiful power hungry local politicians need to find something better to do with their time and energy.
The CBS affiliate in Connecticut covered one of the stories. Read about it here.
Too bad Farmington just had their elections. The entire town council should be voted out. Not only are they allowing the Planning and Zoning representative to take these underhanded actions, but they couldn't even approve a mill rate freeze for senior citizens. What a joke. What does a town of 25,000 need with $83,000,000 per year?
Oh, one final thing. They only increased the mill rate by 2.4% this year. Somehow this was something that the council deserved a pat on the back for because they didn't raise it any further.
Few things annoy me more than politics. Even fewer things annoy me more than dirty politics. And I find local politics to be the dirtiest! These are men and women with political aspirations who know that they will never be going to Washington. They also know that if they milk the system, the worst they'd get is a couple of years. Perhaps they start out meaning well, but many of them see the dollar sign at the end of the political rainbow.
I've railed about an excellent example of this that occurred in Connecticut a few years ago. (The state eventually won, forcing out the homeowners and allowing the land to be developed by a private developer. I'm sure no one's pockets were lined in that fiasco!) Funny thing, I stumble upon yet another perfect example of local politics flexing imaginary muscles. Wouldn't you know it, it's happening in Connecticut! In the small town of Farmington.
Farmington has a "Planning & Zoning" department that makes laws about what you can and cannot do on your own property. Basically, the entire town is a condo association where the citizens don't really have a say regarding the regulations. One of the "laws" they have on the books is one that states that if you have a trailer/recreational vehicle of any kind (travel trailer, motorhome, boat, etc) it must be stored behind the longest rear wall of your home. Mind you, there are people in this town who don't have enough room to store their 30ft trailer so that it is entirely behind the longest rear wall of their home. The town is effectively saying that these people are not allowed to have such a vehicle.
But wait, it gets worse. Not only does the town invade it's citizen's privacy by dictating what they can and can't do on the property they own and pay taxes on, but they have the gaul to engage in selective enforcement regarding who they will and won't force to comply with the zoning regulation! One person faces fines because their boat is parked in their drive way while another doesn't even know the regulation exists because they've never been bothered about the 38ft fifth wheel they've got in their front yard.
This is the foundation of the two stories that I've come across that make me livid. There are at least two Farmington residents who are being forced to comply with these regulations even though they are exempt due to the grandfather clause. People already engaged in an activity that is now forbidden are grandfathered in and are not required to comply. For example, if the driving age were increased to 19 years of age, anyone between the ages of 16 and 19 who already had their licenses would be "grandfathered" in. They would not be forced to return their driver's licenses. Now, this regulation has been around for about 20 years. Which means anyone who's grandfathered has been a Farmington resident for a long, looong time. Which also means these people aren't the youngest residents.
It doesn't end there. The power hungry local government representative has been informing these residents that they need to file an appeal. The problem is, if they file the appeal they waive their grandfather right and place themselves within the bounds of the regulation!
I found two stories regarding a 30 year resident who is an older single mom of two and a 40 year resident who is an 80 year old grandfather. Both of these people have been slammed with fines and citations because of the locations of their trailers that are not subject to the regulation. Both of these people have been purposefully misinformed by the Planning and Zoning department in the hopes that they will comply and unknowingly waive their grandfather rights.
All this from a town that charges so much in property taxes that the elderly are being forced to sell their homes and leave. This from a town who's budget is 83 million dollars this year (71 million from property taxes). There are just over 25,000 people living in this town! That's over $2,840 per person! Not even per household! (Wikipedia estimates there were about 9,000 households in 2005. That'd be nearly $8,000 per household!) Farmington really needs to further harass their elderly? They need to extort more money from them from fines that never should have been issued? They need to deceive them into giving up a grandfather right they have a legal claim to?
Farmington should be ashamed of themselves. And these pitiful power hungry local politicians need to find something better to do with their time and energy.
The CBS affiliate in Connecticut covered one of the stories. Read about it here.
Too bad Farmington just had their elections. The entire town council should be voted out. Not only are they allowing the Planning and Zoning representative to take these underhanded actions, but they couldn't even approve a mill rate freeze for senior citizens. What a joke. What does a town of 25,000 need with $83,000,000 per year?
Oh, one final thing. They only increased the mill rate by 2.4% this year. Somehow this was something that the council deserved a pat on the back for because they didn't raise it any further.
Friday, January 04, 2008
The American Voter
Today, I had a conversation with the quintesencial American voter.
One of the first things she said after mentioning the Iowa caucuses was that she was voting for Clinton. "We don't want another Republican in office, that's for sure!" She said.
Ok, I'm listening.
You see, she's from Nevada and she proceeded to go on a 7 minute tyraid about how the illegals are destroying her state. They are taking jobs, not paying taxes, taking housing, and using undeserved state programs. "They drive up in their 2007 Cadilacs and get their food stamp cards." She went on to say that there were a whole bunch of them living in the low income housing developement near her neighborhood and that she, and all of her neighbors, had been robbed by the illegals.
Now, was she being racist? Yes. Is it a guarentee that they were robbed by illegals? No. Was she sure that the problem of the illegals was the most important issue for this election? Yes.
As I was at work, I was unable to betray my own leanings. So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that, have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
The American voter casts their ballot based on criteria at which I can't even venture a guess. The issues? There's a novel idea!
I can't help but think of the time of Judges and Kings, when the Lord gave them over to the desires of their hearts! Dear God, no!
One of the first things she said after mentioning the Iowa caucuses was that she was voting for Clinton. "We don't want another Republican in office, that's for sure!" She said.
Ok, I'm listening.
You see, she's from Nevada and she proceeded to go on a 7 minute tyraid about how the illegals are destroying her state. They are taking jobs, not paying taxes, taking housing, and using undeserved state programs. "They drive up in their 2007 Cadilacs and get their food stamp cards." She went on to say that there were a whole bunch of them living in the low income housing developement near her neighborhood and that she, and all of her neighbors, had been robbed by the illegals.
Now, was she being racist? Yes. Is it a guarentee that they were robbed by illegals? No. Was she sure that the problem of the illegals was the most important issue for this election? Yes.
As I was at work, I was unable to betray my own leanings. So I asked a question that seemed only logical. I said, "You seem really concerned about that, have you read up on Hillary's stance on the illegal immigration problem?"
"You know, that's a good idea!" Came her response. "That's a good idea!" Not only had she not done it, it hadn't even crossed her mind!
The American voter casts their ballot based on criteria at which I can't even venture a guess. The issues? There's a novel idea!
I can't help but think of the time of Judges and Kings, when the Lord gave them over to the desires of their hearts! Dear God, no!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)