Judges, Motorcycles, and more Politics

As it always seems to happen when I have a slightly extended absence: here is a multi-topic post. I'll organize from least interesting to most. Feel free to skip around.

Legislating from the Bench: The Connecticut Supreme Court has done the same illegal, cowardly, usurpation that the Mass courts did. Gay "marriage" is now legal in CT. If you live in CT, whether you agree with the ruling or not, you ought to vote Yes for the Constitutional convention so that the judges will learn that they don't actually run the government. They don't have the right to make new laws. And this government of the people by the people for the people is truly going to be that. Here is my biggest beef with Gay "marriage." Marriage is a religious concept. Now, if the church is supposed to keep it's nose out of the state, why isn't the reverse true? Let the state give whatever rights/benefits/tax breaks they want to gay couples. But don't require the church to bestow the title "married" on them.

Motorcycles: I used to see the bumper sticker with an image of a motorcycle that said "Share the road" and think that it was a reminder to motorists to share the road with motorcyclists. Now I realize the truth. It's reminding motorcyclists two things: 1) They don't actually own the road and 2) There are cars on it. I have had several situations where I've nearly taken out a motorcycle because he decided (and the jerks on bikes to tend to be universally men) that the dotted white line on the highway is the motorcycle lane. The reason drivers don't see motorcyclists is because they weave in and out of traffic at 3 times the speed limit. One of my favorite things about CT is that helmets are optional. Talk about social Darwinism. God bless the freedom to be stupid, but don't endanger my family while you're at it! So, hey motorcycles, "share the road, will ya?!"

Spin: My new biggest beef with Obama's "honorable" campaign is his "Tax Break" ad. In it he claims that 101 million American families will not receive a tax break under McCain's economic plan. During this assertion there are two images on the screen, assumedly representing the type of "families" that won't receive any tax break. Both images are families with kids. Whoops. McCain's plan will double the tax credit for children. Golly Gee, Barack, are you being deceitful to the American people again? See, it looks like the people pictured will receive a tax break. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, you certainly aren't in the business of misleading America. Of course, you don't explicitly say that those pictures are representative of those who would be left tax breakless, but we'll just let the American people believe that they won't, right?

Campaign Signs: I've noticed a few trends with the campaign signs that I've been seeing in my neck of the woods. The first thing I've noticed is the incredible lack of campaign signs. Either people don't care as much as they have in the past, this campaign is more contentious than previous ones and people don't want to upset their neighbors, or the candidates are charging too much for the signs and people don't want to buy them. I, personally believe the second to be the least likely. Another observation is that the people supporting the Democrats choice for President appear to be embarrassed by the Vice Presidential selection. Easily seven out of ten signs that I see do not have Biden's name on them. I have news for those who will vote for the D's: You can't have Obama without Biden. I haven't seen the same shying from the running mate with the McCain/Palin signs. Perhaps 2 out of 10 list only McCain. The other thing I've noticed is that there are more "cross-over" voters this year voting for McCain. Remember this is based entirely on campaign signs. I've seen "Democrats for McCain" "Women for McCain" I've even seen one that said "Hilaryocrat for McCain." Obviously these are people who traditionally vote for the Democratic party.

More of the same: While in conversation with a voter she expressed a thought that I found to be poignant and worth sharing. She said, "I would have liked to have seen McCain/Palin just to see if anything would have been different." What does this admission reveal? She expects nothing but more of the same partisanship, deadlock, and disappointment from an Obama Administration as we've gotten from Bush II. What she said in her defeated, resigned comment was in complete agreement with what you've been reading on Just My Opinion: Obama will not bring change. Partisanship is the same be it left or right. True change is someone not beholden to any one party. Someone who's record shows that he or she votes with their conscience, not with the letter by their name. Who might that be? I think I'll just refer to one candidate as Mr 66% and the other as Mr. 97%. You tell me, which would you rather have in office?

So, what's your opinion?

Voting Booth, Volume IX and X

For those of you who have been paying attention, you might have surmised that my blogging absence was due to the birth of my daughter. You'd be right! The Queen of Hearts and I (and our Full House) are pleased to announce the arrival of our little bundle of sleeplessness, I mean joy. Our little Wild Card was born on Friday September 28 at just after noon. She was 7'11" and 19 in long. Happy, healthy and we are thrilled to have her as a new member of our family.

Due to my absence, I have lots to cover, so let's get right to it! In reverse chronological order:

I'm sure you've noticed there have been a few debates that I haven't been able to weigh in on and I'm sure you are wondering what I think. (Why else would you be reading this...) So I'll do my best to make it brief:

Voting Booth, Volume X: The Vice Presidential debate:

I'm going to handle the two debates slightly differently.

Biden began this debate down a few points. This is because he was expected to run away with it. It was anticipated that Palin would look as bad as she did with Couric. So in order for him to win, he had to win convincingly. He didn't. The very fact that the debate appeared to be "close" means that Palin walked out the victor.

I don't mind mentioning that I really like Sarah Palin. I feel like she could have been my neighbor who decided she wanted to make a difference.

So I'm just going to pose a few questions that I found myself asking while watching this debate (Nearly all of them are for Biden):

Who had the power over the last two years to pass anything they wanted in congress while we've been suffering through the "Worst economy ever"?

Who blocked McCain's bill to regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac two years ago?

Yes, small business owners avoid the personal tax increase proposed by Obama for those that make more than $150K. How, exactly, do they avoid the increase in the proposed business tax?

Exactly how have you been supporting "clean coal" for "25 years" when it hasn't been around nearly that long?

If global warming is entirely man-made, as you claimed, why is it that we have proof of the temperature of the Earth increasing prior to the Industrial revolution?

If the "insurgence strategy" won't work in Afghanistan, why did you say, not 2 minutes later, that you'd send more troops there?

What is a Bosniac? Last I checked, they were Bosnians.

If Obama is going to have you present for every important decision, are you really comfortable being the VEEP for a man who needs you to hold his hand as Pres?

Oh, I did have one question for Palin.

I understand that you want people who have foreclosed houses to vote for you... but do you really not blame the people who took mortgages they couldn't afford? Someone can suggest that I purchase a Jaguar, but I know I can't make the payments. So, "Predatory" lenders or not, isn't there some shared blame there?

I'm pretty sure that Biden is glad he only needs to debate Palin once.

Voting Booth, Volume IX: McCain v Obama round 1:

This debate was much closer, so we'll have to break it down more.

Preplanned Lines: Advantage Obama
They both had them and they both said them, but Obama made me believe slightly more that they were off the cuff. Whereas whenever McCain said one, he might as well have been crossing it off the list on his podium as he said it.

Zinger: Advantage McCain
While they both had some poignant things to say, McCain's "The next president will not have to decide whether or not we went into Iraq" was easily the most memorable and the one that takes the cake.

Points: Push
I really feel like both men said what they wanted to say. They laid out some of their plans and attacked some of their opponents. No clear winner here. Although, I do have one question for Obama. It seems his contention is that when Wall Street fails, "Main street" feels it. Yet at the same time he denies the flip side of that same coin. He does not believe that "Main Street" succeeds when Wall street does. How is this possible?

Awkward Moment: Advantage McCain
Giving McCain the advantage means that Obama gave us the most awkward moment. McCain had just told the heartfelt story of a mother who lost a son in Iraq and how she didn't want him to have died in vain. And Obama, like a five year old, basically said, "I have a bracelet too." Nothin' like sounding unoriginal and sounding immature at the same time.

Eloquence: Advantage Obama
But did we really expect anything else? This should come as no surprise to anyone. McCain didn't pull any "Bidenisms" or "Bushisms" or "Quayleisms" so this wasn't a real big issue.

Fact Checking: Push
I'm tempted to give the advantage to McCain because I believe that Obama's "misinformation" was more deceptive than McCain's. But they both stretched and twisted the truth to fit their own agenda's. Obama mentioned McCain's supposed 90% agreement with Bush again. They both mentioned tax breaks for oil companies as though that was the point of the legislation that was voted for or planned. In Obama's situation it was a bill that provided funding for renewable energy and in McCain's plan it is a tax break for all companies, oil companies included.

And so it appears that we are at an impasse. 3 per candidate. However, because there was such a stark contrast in the final category, where it is usually an automatic push, this time it actually becomes a consideration

Conduct: Advantage McCain
There was a moment early in the debate where Obama interrupted McCain. McCain was so taken aback by it that he let it happen. But he never let it happen again even though I counted three more times that Obama attempted to interject while McCain was mid sentence. McCain, however, gave Obama the respect he deserved and allowed him to finish speaking before attempting a rebuttal.

Final: McCain
While I give McCain the marks for "winning" the debate, I don't think that anyone is going to change their vote over this one. It may have swayed an undecided or two, but there really wasn't anything new. McCain missed a few key opportunities that he may be saving for rounds II or III where they may make a bigger difference closer to the election (For example, some of Obama's key financial advisers were high ranking officials for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. You may remember, the failed companies that we are now bailing out? (More on the bail out later.) Why is this not a concern?)

And the loser? The American people. As long as we have a two party system the political problems that we are experiencing will never be fixed in Washington, Boston, Albany, Hartford, or anywhere else in the US. McCain is clearly the most independent of the "two" candidates. If we are experiencing more than one crisis (the war, the economy, healthcare, employment, etc) with a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Executive branch. Maybe we should protest both by voting for another party. Green, anyone? Libertarian? Socialist? There are plenty to choose from. I'm pretty sure you can still "Vote Bob."

Alright, moving right along:

The Bailout.

The more I research this thing the more I think that the Democrats took advantage of a small issue and made it into a huge crisis so that they could come running to the rescue and push through a "bailout" bill packed with liberal agenda addendums (tax breaks for employers to pay for employees' who want to bike to work, 20 million to liberal special interests, etc). Small business owners aren't having problems getting loans. Car buyers, home buyers, etc. The only people who can't get loans are those that aren't qualified. The very people who had their homes foreclosed on in the first place. The very people who should have been rejected originally.

This "bailout" is a joke. And who decides who gets bailed out? My brother-in-law's ice cream shoppe could have used a bailout. So could the Detroit Lions. What about the auto industry? They are truly struggling. Where's their bailout? One more thing:

If the republicans are the party of big business and fat cows, why did they not want to pass this bill "designed to give more money to the rich?"

Well, there you go. My thoughts on all that's happened while we've been busy having a baby! What do you think?

A Memo to Jay Leno:

A memo to Jay Leno:

Greetings Mr. Leno. I have been an avid watcher of your show for as long as you've been hosting. Truth be told, I was a big fan when you were guest hosting in place of Mr. Carson, and I was very happy when you won the position over Mr. Letterman (and even moreso when your ratings proved that you were the right choice). I've even made an appearance on your show.

Having said all of that, I have a question. Why is it that you and your writers believe that ageism is acceptable? Not only acceptable but the anchor that holds your monologue together.

Since Sen. McCain was announced as the Republican nominee you've made no less than three "old" jokes at his expense each and every night. The first ones were funny. But it's gotten quite old. Perhaps even older than Sen. McCain himself. There are only so many ways you can show that someone is very old. You've covered them all.

Furthermore, so few other candidates are the target of your "humorous" jabs. Yes, you point fun at the "gun toting, I-have-no-foreign-policy-experience, working-mother" Sarah Palin. And on a rare occasion you point out a gaffe made by Sen. Biden. However, it seems to me that Sen. Obama is completely off limits. When you have guests who support Sen Obama you allow them to speak openly and freely. When you have guests who support Sen McCain you pose tough questions and force them to defend their position.

Are you simply getting lazy as you head toward retirement? If your obvious lackluster attempts at used comedy continue, I may have to tune into a different show. Truly, you are becoming a hack of yourself, and it's not pretty.

Hopefully, things will change.

~A former faithful viewer

This Week in the NFL

No power rankings, just some observations:

The following NFL teams are undefeated:

Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
New York Giants
Tennessee Titans

However, of the seventeen wins represented there (the Ravens have already had their bye week) seven have been against teams that have yet to win. The Raven's opponents have gone 0-6, the Titan's foes have gone 1-8, and the Giants have faced off against teams that have a combined 2-7 record. The Cowboys are the only team that has handed each of their opponents their only loss of the season thus far. And if we compare the net points of the losing teams, only Dallas and Denver have beaten teams that have net points that aren't negative.

Those stats not impressive? How about this: If we compare the rankings of the teams average points, yards, rush yards and passing yards per game only 2 crack the top 5. Denver averaging a ranking of 3.75 and Dallas at 4.

All this is to say we have four illegitimate "undefeated" teams right now. Not only that, but the Giant's schedule is so soft that it would be a disappointment if they didn't go 6-0. And they should be 6-1 when they face off against the 7-0 Dallas Cowboys. This would be the first of four consecutive losses for New York, dropping them to a more earthly, more representative 6-4. Baltimore's average ranking is 16.75, The Titans are at an average of 14.75 and the Bills average 14.25. Remember, there are 32 teams in the NFL. These "undefeateds" are smack in the middle.

In Other News: (Ok, not news exactly, but in other aspects of the NFL:)

Running up the score: Last year the Patriots were slammed for what some saw as "running up the score." Up by two touchdowns they went for it on fourth and one against Dallas igniting the ire of the Lone Star fans. How interesting, then, this past week when Dallas goes for it on fourth and 1 late in the game deep into Green Bay territory and up by a lot. They failed to convert. But had they converted, shouldn't they be accused of running up the score? There was more time than they would have been able to kneel out. They would have had to get another first down and there wasn't much room to obtain it. So, for the record, the following fans cannot complain about anyone else "running up the score": Dallas (see above). San Diego 48-29 (38-14 at one point, yet they kept scoring). Miami 38-13. Atlanta 38-14. New York Giants 41-13 (wk2). Green Bay 48-25 (wk2). Denver 41-14 (wk1). Buffalo 34-10 (wk1). Philadelphia 38-3 (wk1). Unless, of course, it's true that you shouldn't be required to "stop yourself."

Ok, I can't resist, without explanation, here's a power ranking:

10) Atlanta Falcons
9) Indianapolis Colts
8) Carolina Panthers
7) Minnesota Vikings
6) San Diego Chargers
5) Philadelphia Eagles
4) Denver Broncos
3) Pittsburgh Steelers
2) Green Bay Packers
1) Dallas Cowboys

The AFC is totally up for grabs. Denver looks good but they give up too many points (84 thus far). Pittsburgh can't seem to protect Big Ben. The Titans and Patriots are playing with back up QBs. The Colts and Chargers are whole, but can't seem to close out the wins. It's gonna be a fun year.

There you go. My NFL post for the week.

Exxon Mobile

Frankly, I'm tired of Exxon Mobile trying to improve their public image by these "Look-at-all-the-good-stuff-we-do-for-the-community-while-we-rob-you-blind-at-the-pump" commercials they've been airing. They did it during the Olympics and they've continued even after the games have ended.

How dumb do they think we are? "Oh, gee. Exxon Mobile posted the largest single quarter profit in the history of the world last quarter. Isn't it nice that they are spending some of that money to tell me that they are spending some of that money to provide mosquito nets in Africa? Now I don't feel so bad paying $4+ dollars at the pump."

"Wow, this Exxon Mobile employee is volunteering his time to encourage students in math and science. ... Unless they are paying him to do this... in which case they are again proving that they have too much money."

Truth be told (is there ever anything other than truth told on Just My Opinion?) they have three different "Math and Science" ads and two different "Mosquito Nets" ads. That is a lot of money spent to tell people just how much good they are doing in the world. Imagine if a non-profit spent that much declaring from the rooftops all the good they are doing. The people who donate to them would be livid.

Well, I, apparently, am "donating" to this good by paying too much for gas. Instead of spending the extra money you are receiving, try giving some of it back. Looks to me like the oil companies function more like Democrats than Republicans: "Oh, we have more money than we need. Let's find new ways to spend it, rather than giving it back to the people we took it from."

Because of these ads, I won't buy gas from Exxon Mobile!

... And Nothing But the Truth

As we remember the attacks on our country that took place seven short years ago (can you believe it's been that long?) my thoughts turn to politics.

A recent poll asked people if they were afraid of another attack on the country. Only 30% said yes compared to over 2/3rds of those polled in 2002. Anyone want to take a guess as to why that might be? I have a theory. Our government has been successful at thwarting the plans and the schemes of those that would desire our harm.

This is something that ought to be considered as we contemplate who we will allow to lead our nation for the next four years.

Several times on this blog I've accused Sen. Obama of lying to us.

What do ya know! I found a situation where Barack Obama did not lie to the American public.

He only purposefully mislead us.

After much research, I have learned that Sen. Obama was telling the truth when he said that "Sen. McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time."

This is a true statement. (What is meant by "with President Bush" is with the Republican party.) Since January, John McCain has voted in line with the President's view (hence, the Republican view) 90% of the time.

But if a half truth is a falsehood, then I've found one. In 2005 McCain voted in line with the President only 77% of the time. And in 2001, McCain voted in line with the Republican party a mere 67% of the time.

Let's contrast this with Obama who voted with his party 97% of the time in 2007 and 2005 and 96% of the time in 2006.

To quote one of the most unbiased sources I could find: "So to sum up, McCain has indeed voted to support the unpopular Bush 90 percent of the time most recently, but less so in earlier years. And Obama has voted pretty close to 100 percent in line with fellow Democrats during his brief Senate career."

Where is the promised "change?" A President in the Oval office who tows his party line is not bringing change to Washington! The change that is needed in Washington is not simply a change of party. It is a change of process, practice, and policy.

For as much as McCain voted "With Bush" 90% of the time this year, he still has a track record of being one of the most independent voters in the Senate. Unlike the distinguished freshman Senator from IL.

Hey, when all I've presented are facts, I can't really say that it's just my opinion!

In the interest of fairness, here are other unbiased reports on the "facts" of the convention speeches of Obama and McCain

Were You Not Listening?

Nothing like lying to the American people. And nothing like doing it before you even get elected!

Barack Obama, after the Republican National Convention stated: "Nobody talked about jobs. Nobody talked about health care, Nobody talked about education."

Look, Barack, if you didn't watch the RNC, just admit it. Don't make stupid false statements about it. You sound like a teenager who told his parent he was going to see "Alvin and the Chipmunks" but really went to see "The Hills Have Eyes." "What was the movie about Barack?" "Oh, uh... there were these ... uh... rodents...see, and uh..."

Or if you disagreed with what was said, that's fine. Disagree. But don't act like nothing was said. To use the teenager analogy again. "Barack, I told you to clean your room!" "It doesn't need cleaning!" is different than "Barack, I told you to clean your room!" "No you didn't!"

Personally, I found four portions of McCain's speech exceptional. One was about jobs, one about health care, one about education, and one about compromise.

Or perhaps Senator Obama simply went to the kitchen to get some ice cream. Maybe he had to hit the head. Because here is an uninterrupted segment from Senator McCain's speech: (emphasis added)

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second-highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity.

I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We're going to help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.

We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity. Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm president, they will.

Hmm... Not sure what I was listening too, then. McCain must have accidentally skipped this vital portion of his speech because according to Senator Obama nobody talked about jobs, health care, or education.

Oh... maybe he meant at his own convention!

And, for those of you who are interested, here was my favorite part of his speech. I've boldened the absolute greatest line. If McCain wins and keeps his promises, this line will enter the ranks of "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." This line could potentially change politics as we know it. It's so simple that it's profound and so attainable that it's revolutionary.

The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Sen. Obama does not.

Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it. This amazing country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.

We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.

This man is my choice for President. I hope that isn't just my opinion.

wanna read the whole speech? here it is: McCain's Acceptance

NFL Power Rankings Week 1

with upsets and injuries I simply couldn't resist:

10) New York Giants (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs Washington

Convincing win. Though Manning still looks like a timid kitten in the pocket. If they want climb in the power rankings, he needs to mature. next game at St Louis, should be an easy win.

9) Chicago (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs Indianapolis

Wow. WOW. The mighty Bears D held Indy to 1 touchdown and that was in the second half! Used Orton's strengths rather than trying to force him to do things he doesn't do well. Keep this up and you'll contend. next game at Carolina. Tough game. It'll be close. Probable loss.

8) Carolina (Previous Ranking: off)
Last Week's result: W vs San Diego

Poise, calm, gameplan. Overcame the team some have picked to win it all. Welcome to the list. Next game home vs Chi-town. It'll be close, but you should be able to eek out a win.

7) Green Bay (Previous Ranking: 7)
Last Week's result: W vs Minnesota

Brett who? This is Mr. Rodger's neighborhood. I fully expected a valiant effort in a losing battle. (Of course, I had you ranked above MN and should have listened to myself.) You won when the power ranks said you should. Hence you keep your spot. Next game should be an easy win compared to this one: At Detroit.

6) Indianapolis (Previous Ranking: 4)
Last Week's result: L vs Chicago

It's one thing to have a great defense stymie your offense. It's another to not be able to stop Kyle Orton. Things better change if you want to prevent another free-fall on the list. Next game at MN. If you can stop their run (which I think you can) you should win this game. Though right now I see it as 50/50.

5) New England (Previous Ranking: 1)
Last Week's result: W vs Kansas City

You won the battle of the back up QB's. Brady is out for the season. Moss is still Moss. Vrabel still Vrabel. Belichick is still Belichick. If anyone can find a way to win with Matt Cassel it's Bill. Besides, Cassel hasn't started a game since 1999 when he was in high school. He has something to prove. They can run the Indy passing offense: dink dunk 4 yard here 6 yards there try a huge play every now and then. This takes 2 wins from them, tops. Next game: The Old-timer vs the new comer. Favre vs Cassel. At the Jets. I think New England can pull this one out.

4) San Diego (Previous Ranking: 3)
Last Week's result: L vs Carolina

Your loss was not as egregious as some others (*cough* Indy *cough*) But you didn't look like a playoff bound team. Tighten it up. We don't want the only Bolt we're talking about to be a sprinter from Jamaica! Next game at Denver. Denver showed themselves to be formidable and the new Mile High isn't very forgiving. With reservations I pick you to win.

3) Philadelphia (Previous Ranking: 9)
Last Week's result: W vs St Louis

The New England of 07. Running up the score. Blowing out the other team. I'm not complaining. I think this should only be prevented if the participants are under 14. It's not your job to prevent yourself from scoring. Too bad you next game is at Dallas. But starting the season at .500 isn't terrible.

2) Pittsburgh (Previous Ranking: 6)
Last Week's result: W vs Houston

See notes for the Eagles. Basically the same situation. Exact same point total. But you did it against a slightly better team. Next game another blowout as you march into Cleveland.

1) Dallas (Previous Ranking: 2)
Last Week's result: W vs Cleveland

Sleeping to a 28-10 victory over a team I had high hopes for. With Indy faltering, San Diego fizzling, and New England limping, you are the default #1. Keep Jessica out of the stadium and you might stay there. You face the first test of the season next week when you host Philly. You'll come away with the win, though.

Off) Cleveland, Jacksonville, Minnesota.

Seriously, I don't expect this to be a regular thing (barring enough interest and requests for it to continue), but this week one was so volatile that I had to reorder the teams.

Can't wait till next Sunday!

Seven Political Complaints

When it comes to politics, do I ever do anything else?

Complaint 1: Double Standards

When a hurricane devistates a city, when politicians fail to serve their people, and when disaster strikes: It's the president's fault. However, when a disaster is averted, when an evacuation is successful, and when politicians shine: The credit goes to the local leaders. Hmm... And the latter is not just the national media. The Republicans are congratulating Mayor Nagin and the new (Republican) Governor of Louisiana. Granted it's a back-handed compliment saying "The local leaders did their part this time. They did what they were supposed to do and evacuated the areas most affected." I couldn't agree more. The blame and the kudos should fall squarely on the shoulders of the local officials. I await the apologies of all of those that blamed the president and are congratulating Nagin.

Complaint 2: An Inconvenient Label

A major news website has the headline "Ex-Democrat now backs McCain" to announce that Joe Lieberman would be speaking at the GOP convention. Funny thing is: Lieberman still holds all of this committee positions and the Democrats count him when they discuss their margin over the Republicans in the Senate. So, he's a Democrat when they like what he's doing and he's an "Ex-Democrat" when he's stumping for the other party. Most memorable line from his speech: "Country matters more than party and John McCain is the best choice to lead our country."

Complaint 3: Lying to America

I grow weary of the Democrats strategy to paint McCain as Bush III. Let's be honest: Bush II wasn't even the same as Bush I. How can McCain be a little Bush II clone? I think what bothers me most about this is it is so far off the mark. The only Senator who may be more of a maverick, more of a wild card, than McCain is Lieberman. I hope that those who believe that McCain will be "four more years of failed leadership" (As Hillary put it) will view his voting record and find that the mathematical equation Bush=McCain deserves a big red X through it.

Complaint 4: Stupid Voters

Once before at work I had a customer say something so stupid on the phone that I had to mention it here. It's happened again. A customer said to me today that they were apprehensive when it came to voting for the McCain/Palin ticket because, "What if, God forbid, she should become president? I'd be uncomfortable with her inexperience in the White House." Pardon? Yes, let's all vote for Obama to ensure inexperience in the Oval Office rather than voting for McCain on the outside chance that it might happen. Seriously. There should be a test before you are allowed to vote.

Complaint 5: Inappropriate Bias

On the rerun of House today there was a scene were a doctor is attempting to gain some privacy in a restroom. In the stall, on the wall behind her was a bumper sticker that said "Vote for Change '08." Shameless. I'd be just as upset if it said "Country First '08." I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It seems that the wealthy of Hollywood enjoy paying more in taxes because that why they don't have to feel compelled to donate any more of their money. "Sorry, I gave in my paycheck." Actually, Lieberman said it right, "The real vote for change is a vote for John McCain."

Complaint 6: "The High Road"

I'm incredibly surprised that the Left decided to press the issue of Sarah Palin's daughter's (Bristol) pregnancy. Did they forget that Barack said that he "wouldn't want [his] daughters to be punished [by having a baby] for poor decisions they made"? Seems to me this is exactly the type of thing they'd want to stay way from. Although, I wouldn't put it past Obama to ok the release of this information so that he can "take the high road." "Family is off limits," he can now say. Rather than actually making it off limits. It's the same strategy he used when he encouraged his "former mentor" pastor to continue speaking loud and crazy so that Obama could immediately disagree with him, rather than trying only to disagree with the things he'd said in the past.

Complaint 7: How the Election Process fails me

I've realized why I so prefer the negative "attack" political ads. As I look back over my own voting record I found that I have yet to vote for a candidate for President. Even before I could vote I was campaigning actively for Bush I because I didn't want to see Clinton in the White House (Just ask my High School Art teacher...) The first vote I ever cast was against a Clinton second term (So much against, I had registered Democratic so I could vote for Bradley in the primary in the hopes that Clinton would not get the nomination... and then I voted against Clinton again and consequently Dole received my vote.) I voted against Gore and Kerry. Now, every vote I've ever cast has fallen into the pool of a blue state. So, for those of you who feel like your vote "didn't count" when you voted against Bush II: I know how you feel. I'm so hoping that this vote will be for a candidate and not against one. In that fashion, I'm a bit of an undecided voter. Will I be voting for McCain? Or against Obama? I just don't know.

There you have it, feel free to respond by number. Offer your opinion in response to mine.

2008 NFL Preview

Don't worry, I'm not expecting to do a weekly power ranking this year but I can't avoid doing a preseason prediction post!

Let's get right into it!

Preseason Power Ranking:

10) Cleveland (last ranking last year 9)

Moderate success last year. 1 win from a playoff spot. Can Anderson the wonderboy get you to the post season this year? It'd have to be a wild card place.

9) Philadelphia (off)

As long as you have Westbrook and your D, you're dangerous. Wild Card? Maybe.

8) Minnesota (6)

You don't need a quarterback when you have Adrian and that O-line. I'm expecting a playoff berth this year!

7) Green Bay (2)

No Favre? No problem. (Ok, I only wrote that because it was catchy.) Slight problem, but Aaron Rogers has been under the tutelage of the master for years. Young receivers + young QB = a "We-don't-know-we-shouldn't-win" mentality.

6) Pittsburgh (8)

I think you're feeling the pressure of Cleveland and you'll step it up a notch. But since Big Ben's injury, you're not among the elite.

5) Jacksonville (5)

This team is built to defeat Indy. But they can't seem to. It does make them useful at defeating other teams though.

4) Indianapolis (4)

Manning's injured. 'Nuff said.

3) San Diego (7)

Merriman is hurt, could be out for the season, but the Chargers are always dangerous.

2) Dallas (3)

Romo grows another year wiser. Dallas gets better in the off season. Maybe they'll actually win a post season game this time.

1) New England (1)

If they went 15-1 and lost the Super Bowl they'd be in first. Why would 18-1 and losing the Superbowl be any different? The loss to NY was a blip on the radar. They're still gonna continue their winning ways.

Off) New York Giants (10)

This is not spite. Osi's down, Strahan's out, Coughlin's still coaching, Manning's still throwing. They will not make the playoffs.

So, am I right? Am I wrong? Where's your team? (Sorry Jason, look at the Giant's schedule. You just might agree with me.)

Sound off in the comments!

Voting Booth, Volume VIII

Warning: This is a slam on the Democratic party. Perhaps I should have let some time pass before writing this, but I am too annoyed by what I just watched.

I was going to wait for the GOP to have their convention so I could (most likely) rail on both parties for the practice that has thrust me into anger and rage.

I love the political process. I love two people saying the same thing in different ways and people deciding that one is right and one is wrong just because of the letter by their name. "That ball is red (D)" "That's a red ball (R)" Well, clearly the former is correct because the ball could change colors so right now it's red but the ball is the most important part, not the color. Obviously the latter is correct. It differentiates it from the other balls. That's the red ball. If it gets changed to blue, then we'll talk about the former. It's hysterical.

Sidenote: During Hillary's speech she said that "we need to take back America." From whom? From Bush and Cheney and the Republicans? Funny thing, last time I checked they won the election which means that more Americans voted for them than for the other candidate... which means what you've really said is that we need to take back America from the majority of Americans. Yup, that sounds like the Democratic party. (Oh, and if Hillary really meant what she said in supporting Barack, it means that she'll never be president. You don't run against the incumbent from your party and she'll be in her 60's in eight years which, according to Democrats, is too old to be President) End Sidenote.

That having been said, what I cannot abide is what I have seen every time I've tuned into the DNC (And what I expect to see when I watch portions of the RNC). I apologize, for this post I have to discuss only the Dems because they are the only ones who have spoken nationally on such a stage as their National Convention.

They claim that the Right are fear mongers, and yet all they do is claim that the Republican agenda is the destruction of America! Do they ever say it outright? Practically.

Their speech is reminiscent of war time rhetoric. "The future of our country depends on Barack Obama." "It's for the children." "This is a fight we must win!" Why? Why is this a must win? For either party?

Time and time again, the speaker talks about the things that need to happen in the country: Jobs must be created. The country must be protected. The environment must not be destroyed. Clean energy must be utilized. And Barack Obama is the only candidate who will accomplish this and the Democrats are the only party who will fulfill these goals. That if one were to vote for the other party it would amount to treason.

Here is a direct example. Obama said "Government cannot solve all of our problems. But it should provide us with clean toys, safe water, roads, new technology. It should be for us, not against. Help us, not hurt us. Ensure opportunity not just for those with money and power, but for all. It should protect American jobs and workers." By saying this, he is shamelessly implying that McCain doesn't believe these things and will not do them.

As I type this, Obama is giving his acceptance speech, and I must respond to these statements lest I explode!

Let me first say that I respected Barack before this speech. All of the tactics that I'd been ranting about above had come from other Democrats. Obama had yet to play this game. He talks a lot about "same old politics" and then put on the jersey of the team he claims to oppose. Fear fear fear.

I am livid at all of the strawmen that the speechwriters are setting up. The DNC is not the party of the people as it likes to pretend, it is the party of the strawman. Fear this that the GOP might do, fear that that the Republicans have planned.

Here's an example: Obama said, "I have news for you McCain. We all put our country first." McCain has never implied that Obama doesn't. But now, uninformed people can do nothing but assume that he's made repeated claims to that nature.

Obama mentioned Martin Luther King Junior's "I have a dream" speech and said that the people who gathered in Washington that day could have heard any number of things. Anger. Discord. Disunity. Division from so many dreams differed or destroyed. Funny thing is: That's exactly what I heard from Obama. Discord. Anger. "Eight is enough." Implying that McCain is a Bush mini-me. I'm hoping the irony was not lost on others.

He claimed that when a candidate has "no fresh ideas, the revert to stale tactics to scare voters. They make their opponent out to be someone people should run from." I wonder what Obama meant to do, then when he claimed the following (each quote followed by my response):

"McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time." What does this even mean? Bush doesn't write bills, he doesn't cast a vote. Is he considering Bush's Veto as his vote? Ok, how many bills that Obama voted for has the president veto'd? If voting with Bush means voting the party line, what's Obama's record? 97%? Even when the majority of his party voted with Bush he still stubbornly stood alone as one of the few people who doesn't have to say "I voted for the war before I voted against it." When even his running mate admits "Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued" -Joe Biden

One time Obama voted against the grain of his party was when he voted to hold lobbyists more accountable. Any guesses the name of another Senator who voted for that bill, who co-authored that bill? Oh yeah, John McCain.

"In November, Bush and Cheney will ask this country for a third term." Newsflash: George W Bush is not running for President! And McCain is not a Bush clone as you'd like to paint him. Actually, you said several times that "McCain stands alone..." in his unwillingness to retreat from Iraq, in his stodgy old time political views, his "worn out ideas of politics of the past," etc. Gee, if all of these things are what we need change from and yet McCain stands alone... sounds like he must be the most powerful Senator ever!

To scare us even more, he mentioned the following "failures" of the Bush administration:

The average American salary has "gone down $2000." Of course, he fails to explain this. Not many people have actually taken a pay decrease. But when you compare wages to inflation and the rise in cost of certain expenses this is true. But what's driven this? Well, I'll list a few: Oil cost due to A)Higher global demand and B) Opec lowering supply. But we can't give the American relief by A) drilling offshore, B) releasing some of our own storehouses, or C) temporarily repealing the gas tax. These are all Republican ideas to ease this burden voted down by Democrats. There's been a sharp increase in food costs. Mostly due to the increase in cost to ship it (due to the higher oil costs) but also due to alternative fuels. Ethanol is a component in many alternative fuels. Ethanol is made from corn. This has caused corn to go through the roof. Corn is the primary food for numerous livestock, causing the cost for meat and poultry to increase as well. But we aren't going to mention those things.

"American people can't pay the mortgage," Yes, yes, it's the president's fault that irresponsible people paid more than they could afford for a house because the adjustable interest rate was just too good to pass up and because mortgage companies were too eager to give loans to people who probably couldn't pay them back. Absolutely, let's blame the president for that. Boy Obama, if you win, you better hope that nothing bad happens. It's your own track record to blame the president.

"A President who sits on his hands while an American city is drowning." Hopefully, this is the last time I'll have to mention that the mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana were both Democrats. If my towns school system is failing, do I go to the Governor of CT and ask why? Do I go to my town representative? Or do I go to the Superintendent? Why do the Democrats love to skip over the people who were responsible for such a smaller area and were given the means and the power to protect the people who live there? In the Roman army the Prefect was in charge of the camp. The Centurion was in charge of the Legion. And the Legionnaire was in charge of guarding 16 square feet of ground. If that Legionnaire fails, do you blame the Prefect?

Obama claimed that the policy of the Republicans is that "You are on your own," left to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps to get ahead. (Another strawman) But failed to mention that the policy of the Democrats is that you can't do it without the government. You'll be in a place where you have to rely on it. Of course, he then went on to tell stories about people who did "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and succeeded or allowed their children/grandchildren to succeed. That was just weird.

"unlike McCain I will give tax breaks for companies creating American jobs." Check your facts. McCain tried to bring this about in a bill years ago.

"I'll cut taxes for 95% of working families." Funny, I seem to remember Bush desiring across the board tax cuts. That would be 100% of working families and yet Obama voted against this. Why should I believe that he'll be cutting taxes now? Especially seeing as he wants to pay for everything for everyone:

Obama promises "Change" we cannot afford: He wants to pay for education, pay for people's mortgages, pay for healthcare, pay to create jobs, pay teachers higher salaries, but cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Where will all of the money come from? He promises to "close corporate tax loopholes." And he will go through the "Federal budget eliminating programs that don't work." Brilliant, why didn't anyone else think of that? Who's going to decide what did and didn't work? Why didn't you do this as a Senator? Do you really believe that you are going to be able to increase spending as much as you hope, and decrease taxes as much as you promise, and cover it all up by cutting a few corners in the budget and causing companies to pay more in taxes (that they are just going to pass on to their customers)? As Seth and Amy would say, "Really?"

Obama promised to "give the military the equipment they need" to carry out their missions yet several times voted against funding the war.

"John McCain is fond of saying that he'll follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell but won't even follow him to the cave where he lives." Barack, if you know where Bin Laden is and you've been keeping this from us so you can win an election, that's despicable. If not, how can you possibly make this stupid claim? (Anyone else find it interesting that "Obama and Biden" sounds a lot like "Osama in hiding"? Just wondering)

Misc

"you don't deter Iran by talking tough in Washington." No you do it by talking tough in Iran without requesting anything in return. Honestly...

"that's a debate I'm ready to have." Yes, we all know you've been very specific on what, when and how you will and will not debate John McCain. I know you aren't one, but it strikes of cowardice. Every one says how inspiring he is, but he shys from offer after offer to debate. Why?

In 10 years, Barack promises to "end our dependence on oil from the middle east." He pledged to dedicate $150 billion on renewable energy and that it will create 5 million jobs. Well, it better. Because if we wean ourselves off of oil it's going to end 30 million jobs. Gas station attendants, fuel truckers, oil refineries, oil heat service people, etc. Oh, and what are we supposed to do with the 9 years of oil that we have stored in our reserves? Once everything runs on renewable energy our reserves will be like having every album on cassette just in case.

Here is what Barack said that I can agree with:

"programs can't replace parents, government can't turn off the tv and make them do homework." I'm very glad to hear this. I think this is something that both parties should be focusing on. Programs that keep the government out of my living room and encourage Dad's and Parents to return to their living rooms are how we can turn this country around. You want to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies? Teach Dad's how to love their daughters. You want to have all kids have an opportunity to go to college? Teach parents how to tutor their children instead of solely relying on public education.

He also said that his desire to lead is guided by his understanding of being his "brother's keeper." I get that. But his solution to that call on his life is terribly misguided! There is too much corruption in the government to successfully carry out what he wants to do. And because it is a career, there is too much self preservation for the government to truly desire that people be free of their need of the services they provide. Barack should take his Christian beliefs (which I firmly believe he has) and bring the services he wants to provide before the universal church. Let God be glorified for what he wants to do, not Uncle Sam.

I should have cooled off before writing this, but I didn't. Frankly, I don't expect anyone to actually read this. Afterall, it's all just my current opinion.

Voting Booth, Volume VII

Joe Biden!

Joe Biden is Barack Obama's running mate!

I was so hoping that the Democrats would select Joe Biden! There is so much blog fodder I don't even know where to begin!

Joe Biden is 65 years old! So much for the "He's too old to run for office" that the Dems were attempting to hold against McCain for all it was worth. Hmm. Kinda makes all of the other "he's too old to lead" inferences null and void, too.

Joe Biden is the man who was railed on for saying, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Clearly this is a racist statement and there were many many supporters of Obama saw it the same way. I'm not hearing their outrage right now... are you?

On November 27, 2005, regarding Iraq, Joe also said, “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.” Whoops, it's gonna be hard to defend that one!

This one too: On Hussein’s WMDs Joe Biden said, “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

(Isn't this great? But wait, there's more!)

Joe Biden also said, “The more people learn about them [Obama and Hillary] and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.” But apparently, Biden's support hasn't. I guess when opportunity knocks, it doesn't much matter whose hand it's using!

On December 11, 2007, Biden's campaign said, “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate. But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

Later that night Biden also said, "When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.” I'm gonna doubt they are going to change thier slogan now that Biden's on board. But I've been complaining that this entire campaign has been empty. Biden's addition doesn't change that.

(I saved the best for last)

On August 2, 2005 Joe said, “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Joe Biden also said during his campaign for his party's nomination, "I am not running for Vice President and if I were offered the position, I would refuse it." Nothing like sticking to your principles, right Joe? He has yet to attempt to glaze over this glaring inconsistency with some other substance less statement.

And finally, while running for the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden said, "Barak Obama is not ready to lead because the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Then, on October 30, 2007, Joe Biden said “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.” Sounds to me like Joe Biden would vote for McCain over Obama!

He has attempted to combat these statements by saying, "No one knows better than I do, after the last 18 months, that Barack has met his challenges with judgement and wisdom and steel in his spine. I have watched as he has inspired millions of Americans to this new cause.” No one knows better than Joe? Really? No one? I'll bet Michelle might have something to say about that. (You aren't actually a Senator from Idaho, are you Joe?) And he is so right on: I can't imagine a more important characteristic for a president than "inspiring." I guess Dr. Phil should be president. Maya Angelou as well. Don't forget Depak Chopra... These are all very inspiring people. Oh, and Joe? What challenges has Obama met with a "steel spine" in the past 18 months? The softballs from the national media? The rocketing to the top by the democratic party? The lemming like worship from the left? I'm not seeing any "challenges." Before you go, Joe, one more question: What's the "new cause?" Getting out of Iraq? Old. Nationalized healthcare? Old. Bigger government? Old. Catering to special interests? Old. I'm just not seeing it. I think the only new thing I've heard of is his desire to meet with leaders of countries who hate us with no strings attached. That's new.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that Obama promised that if you signed up to receive the text message announcement of this VP you'd be the first to know. Whoops, the story leaked and news stations were reporting it before the text message went out. Obama's camp scrambled and phones were buzzing all over the east coast at 3 am with the ever important text message. Nothing like breaking an easy promise. (What really cracks me up is the people savvy enough to want the text message probably read it and thought, "Who the heck is Joe Biden?! This must be a joke, he's supposed to pick Hillary.")

Wow. A text message to announce your choice for VP. That's what I want, a hip president. Maybe his state of the union address can be a music video.

And for all of the Biden bashing, we can't forget the infamous words spoken by Barack himself after winning the Senate seat in 2004 when asked why he'd ruled out running nationally. He answered, "I'm a firm believer in knowing what you are doing before applying for a job. If I were to run nationally, I'd have to begin right now before serving even a single day in the Senate. Some people might be comfortable with that. I am not one of those people." What happened to that Barack Obama? I don't know because he certainly isn't running for president!

The Democrats might have thought that Joe Biden would be a shot in the arm for their campaign. Looks more like he's gonna be a shot in the foot!

Oh well, this is all just my opinion anyway.

The Olympic Games

A review of the best and the worst of the games.

The Worst

I've been trying to let it go. I've been telling myself it's all in my head. I've been sure it couldn't have been happening. I've been wrong.

The Beijing Olympics should be more accurately called The Biased Olympics.

I have two beefs with these games, and both revolve around China. (Hey, here's another reason to ban my blog from China)

First of all, there is an Olympic gymnastics rule that states that one must at least turn 16 years of age in the calendar year in which the games are held. Has anyone been looking at some of those Chinese gymnasts? Well, let's just say I'd never hand them the keys to my car! There are two Chinese gymnasts that I'd say are probably 16. One of them, I thought actually looked to be about 18. I saw she was listed as 20 and thought... hmm. well, maybe. Then I learned she'd competed at the Athens games, where she had to be at least 16... Right! I get it now. If she's 18 now, she was illegal then. (Since I first wrote this draft, documents have been uncovered that show all but one of the Chinese gymnasts were underage. An investigation has been initiated.)

Why does this matter? To be honest, it wouldn't if it weren't a rule. Are there 13 year olds that are the best gymnasts from your country? Send them! Is there a rule against it? Don't send them! I think it's amazing that the most talented gymnasts from China just all happen to have been born in the same year and it just happened to be a year where they'd all be 16 in an Olympic year! I feel bad for the 17 year olds who just happened to be born in the wrong year. So, point one: The Chinese are obviously cheating.

Point two: 51 Gold. 21 Silver. 28 Bronze. Never have I seen such a lop-sided medal total. The US had 36 Gold, 38 Silver, and 36 Bronze. Note the consistency. Among other top medal receiving countries: Russia 23, 21, 28; Great Britain 19, 13, 15; Australia 14, 15, 17; and Italy 8, 10, 10. Why such a lopsided Gold count for China? My best guess is that the Chinese government has all of the judge's and referee's passports and is holding them hostage in exchange for undeserved favorable judgements. The Chinese won 64% of the judged gold medals and medaled in 78% of the judged events.

I played it off as accidental the first time, and coincidental the second. I saw a pattern at the third and outrage the fourth. It only escalated from there. Allow me to list them: Women's Team All-Around. Several times there were gymnasts who clearly out performed the Chinese and yet the Chinese had better execution scores. I'm not even talking about the final score. I get the degree of difficulty thing and how it works. That was what peaked my interest. Then I saw that men's individual All-Around. It had been predetermined which Chinese male would win as long as he didn't break himself. Well, it was all gymnastics; maybe it was centralized there.

Then I watched women's springboard diving. In diving, identical dives are often done by different competitors. A Russian woman nailed her dive: Height, position in the air, vertical upon entry... Beautiful. The Chinese "Favorite" dove next and did the same dive: Great take off, less than perfect position in the air, twisted, over-rotated, big splash, better score. Excuse me? The Chinese won 7 of the 8 diving gold medals and the only reason they didn't win all eight was the final dive for the Chinese was terrible and the Aussie nailed it. It would have been far too blatant had they still given the gold to the Chinese. Then I saw that women's individual vault: The Chinese girl who landed on her knees won a bronze over other Olympians who landed their vaults. A Russian guy on rings does something no other Olympian has done and does it perfectly and sticks his landing and doesn't even medal so that two less perfect Chinese performances can be awarded with the hardware. And then the Individual Uneven Bars event. The "no-really-I'm-16" Chinese contestant nearly missed a release, couldn't keep her feet together and couldn't stick the landing. She tied (and subsequently won due to a "tie break") over the contestant who had one perceptible error. They had the exact same degree of difficulty. Only one gave a gold medal performance and she left the arena with silver draped around her neck. Travesty. Tie breaker? Should have been unnecessary. I look at the men's vault where one competitor landed the best vault of the games. Then failed to land his second and did not medal. Note: No Chinese involved. Let's not forget that the Olympic gold for Trampoline also went to a Chinese woman. Even though the Russian out performed her.

Oh, and gymnastics is the only elitist sport that doesn't award two medals to people who tie.

As they awarded the Chinese Olympian the gold medal for the uneven bars, as an act of protest, I muted my TV. I refused to listen to the national anthem of the country that was a) cheating (the "gold medalist" was one of the obviously not-sixteen-year-old competitors) and b) winning undeserved medals.

I was very disappointed. I want the following things to happen in the Olympics:

1)Either declare that golf is not a sport or included it.
2)2012 London: Debut of Olympic Ultimate Frisbee
3)Either fix the judging or have timed (Sprinting)/target (Archery)/distance (Discus)/team point (Volleyball) events only.

The Best

Now that I've complained, allow me to praise the sailing team from Croatia. It was the 14th and final race of the men's 49er sailing competition. Denmark lead second place Spain by 11 points.

The seas were choppy and the winds fierce as the competitors made their way to the starting line. On the way out, the unthinkable happened, Denmark's mast broke in half. Unable to race, they returned to the docks. Croatia was had already been eliminated from the competition. Seeing Denmark's misfortune they offered the Danes the Croatian boat. The Danish sailors Jason Warrer and Martin Kirketerp Ibsen gratefully accepted and raced out to the starting line.

The race had already begun. There is a rule in sailing that you have to cross the starting line at no more than four minutes after the start of the race to avoid disqualification.

At 3 minute 57 seconds the Croatian boat, carrying two Danish hopefuls flew past the starting buoys. They finished the final race dead last. However, two teams failed to finish putting the Danes in 7th place. It was enough for them to hold off the surging Spanish by 3 points and Denmark took Gold.

This is my nominee for "Greatest Sportsmanship Moment of the Olympic Games." (The Spanish have since lost two appeals. The result will stand.)

I love the Olympics!

Three Years and Counting

Today is the third anniversary of the inception of "Just My Opinion." August 15, 2005 seems so very long ago! If you would like to reminisce with me, here is my first post.

And now for the real reason for this post:

55 Words

I recently read a book called "The World's Shortest Stories." They are a compilation of short stories that are only 55 words long. Can a story be told in that amount of time? Can there be setting, characters, plot, and resolution with such limited confines? Consider this: This paragraph is exactly fifty five words long.

I decided to try my hand at this fascinatingly entertaining writing exercise. Below are the five attempts that I've completed at "55 fiction." (Feel free to count, they are all 55 words long.)

A note about the rules: The title does not count in the 55 words but cannot be more than 7 words long. Hyphenated words that, when separated, are individual words are each counted as a word (older-than-dirt = 3 words). Hyphenated words that do not make two different words are one word (re-entry = 1 word). Contractions are one word (He will = 2 words, He'll = 1 word). Numbers when written numerically are one word (143 = 1 word). Numbers when spelled out are each counted as a word (One hundred forty three = 4 words). Initials are words (L.L Bean = 3 words) unless it is an acronym (NASA, AIDS, MGM = 1 word).

"Unrequited Love"

He glances in her direction and quickly looks away. Did she see him? He steals another peek. No, she'd never notice him. The bustle and noise of the street combined with her beauty make him invisible. Sighing, he rises. His coins clink softly on the table. Slowly he saunters past the Ferrari. "Someday," he thinks.

"Operator?"

Toby hated technology. He tolerated the telephone only because it was invented in the 1800s.

The traveling computer salesman whom Toby had rudely disposed of also knew of Toby's aversion.

Obtaining the eccentric millionaire's money was easy. The salesman contently glanced at the cut phone wire as Toby's bloody fingers futilely attempted to dial 911.

"Sacrifice"

The photo crumples as he crushes it to his chest. His breathing labors. He marvels that he failed to realize just how blue the sky was today. Lucy won't have to be faithful anymore. Crouching in the sand next to him, someone is trying to talk to him. On all sides the war rages on.

"Untitled"

Garish music hammered Marek's ears. This lump of metal around his neck weighed as heavy as the lump in his throat. Marek glanced at the smiling man to his left, coveting that stolen place of honor. As the banners raised, Marek marveled that one tenth of a point was the difference between gold and silver.

"The Statesman"

Jeremy bestowed his plan for world peace upon his audience. Hundreds had turned out to hear him. He simply had to convince them the he should be supreme dictator.

Unfortunately for Jeremy, nobody passing him in the park could quite decipher his mutterings and the pigeons to which he was orating weren't paying much attention.

I hope you liked them. Feel free to share your thoughts or your own 55 word stories. This post is also an invitation to join me!

Want to submit a story for consideration in their next publication? Send it to this address:

55 fiction
197 Santa Rosa St
San Louis Obispo CA 93449

(Each submission needs to be on it's own sheet of paper with your name, address, and phone number on every sheet.)

Happy writing!

Voting Booth, Volume VI

I won't vote for that candidate because she's a woman.

I won't vote for this candidate because he's black.

I won't vote for that candidate because he's old.

why is one of these statements acceptable?

Would we not label someone sexist or racist if we ever heard either of the first two statements uttered? Why, then, do we not call someone ageist if we hear the third?

We patterned our government after that of the Greeks. The Romans also patterned their (early) government after the Greeks as well. We get several words from the Romans. One word we got from them is "Authority." It's root word is the Roman word "Auctoritas." in Roman society, "Auctoritas" referred to the respect a person deserved. It was their clout among the people earned due to their age.

Their desire for "Auctoritas" and their respect for it is evident when we compare their artwork with that of a culture that revered youthfulness: The Greeks.

Here is a Greek bust:

Themistocles age 44

And here is a Roman bust:

Marius age 50

As you can see, these men would have been separated by a mere 6 years when these likenesses were carved. But look at the age lines and time-wear etched in Marius' face. Compare that to the ancient "Oil of Olay" advertisement that is Themistocles.

When did we lose this respect for the mature?

This leads me to my title for this campaign season. I have no choice but to call this the "Why?" campaign.

Why?

Whenever I see an Obama bumper-sticker or a McCain lawn sign I can't help but think: "why?" Why do you support this candidate? With all of the sound bytes that we've heard, and all of the "coverage" of these two men I know nothing more about what they stand for than I did four months ago!

Sure I make certain assumptions based on their party, but that's about where it ends.

Here is an exhaustive list of what I know about these candidates platforms:

McCain:
Stay in Iraq until we are done.
Wants to limit punitive damages to bring down health care insurance

Obama:
Wants a "withdrawal horizon" for Iraq
Favors universal government controlled healthcare
Wants to continue and expand GWB "Faith based" initiatives.

That's it. For all the "Change you can believe in," "this is our moment," "McCain Mc-Can!" that I've been hearing this is clearly a substance less race!

Anyone care to share their "Why?" Feel free!

Two reviews and a Dodger

The People have spoken. In this post you will find my review for both Jumper and Gone Baby Gone.

But first, this:

Boston: I just need to do a quick blurb about what the people "in the know" are saying about the Manny trade. Apparently (and this is all unconfirmed reports) Theo met with certain veterans on the team (assumed among them 'Tek, Lowell, Ortiz, Schill, and Wake) to discuss Manny. The word was that he had to go (hence the high cost to relieve themselves of him?). Just before the trade was finalized, it's been reported that Manny, through his agent Scott "I-like-to-think-I-rule-the-world" Boras, let the Red Sox know that he'd like to stay, promising a turn around in his attitude and effort. This just further confirmed for the Sox front office that he had been dogging it and not putting forth 100%. "No Thanks" was their reply and Manny was a Dodger. Now, here's the one piece of evidence that doesn't lay credence to that report. Manny is what's known as a 10/5 guy (Ten years in the league, five years with one team) so he has the right to veto any trade. It's not a no trade clause, but it's similar. If he wanted to stay, he could have stayed. Now on to what you really want to read about:

Review: Jumper 2008/PG-13/Action

I wasn't going to review Jumper. Mostly I didn't feel like it was worth my time to review it. (Does that give a hint as to what I thought about the movie?)

We'll start with the acting. Once again Hayden Christensen gives another "I-talk-funny-and-call-it-acting" performance. Max Thieriot (The Pacifier) actually put forth a better performance as young David than Hayden did as old. Samuel L. Jackson did what he could with a relatively limited character. And Diane Lane made a cameo? What was with that? Actually, more on that later.

The writing of this movie was so blah. The foreshadowing was obvious. The characters were shallow. The plot points predictable. He can teleport? Oh, so he's going to rob a bank. Of course. The villains are religious fanatics and there was no character arch for the hero. Perhaps the most annoying truth of all of this is that Jumper is based on a book about teen angst and escapism. How he can never actually escape from himself. The writers of the movie made a conscious choice to deviate completely from the book. Their product? A completely non-compelling story about a guy with a special power and people trying to kill him. Woo hoo.

Here's what I can say about the movie: The process of "jumping" and the special effects were well thought out and entertaining. The "rip" was a brilliant idea. As was the concept that the things around the jumper would be effected due to the jump. The fight scenes were well choreographed and the jumping during them made them more interesting.

I think what bothered me the most about this sub-par film, was that it was clearly made with a sequel in mind. Any time you tell a story knowing that it is going to continue, you tell an incomplete story. (See Back To The Future II, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Matrix Reloaded). This is why Diane Lane's part was so minimal and secondary. She's slated to have a larger role in the up coming sequels. (The filmmakers are actually planning on turning this into a trilogy! Puh-leez!)

All in all:

1 out of 5 stars

Review: Gone, Baby, Gone 2007/R/Drama

**SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS**

To begin I must be honest: I went into this movie with lower expectations because I knew two things: A)Directorial Debut for Ben Affleck. B)He cast his own brother.

Lucky for Mr Affleck (both of them, really) they got a compelling story for this project that raised enough questions with the plot that we could ignore the questions raised by some of the directorial and acting choices. For example, why was every close up in the movie such that the camera was far from the actor and zoomed in? Too lazy to move the camera? Too inexperienced to know that people can tell when the camera is close vs when the focus is close? Annoying. And Casey: I didn't really believe you when you were bein' all bad. You are built like Dustin Pedroia (5'2" 160lbs) and nobody believes him either. Nice try though. This film was carried, however, by the giants of the screen Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman. Fantastic believable empathetic performances put forth by both of them.

Of course, with a movie like Gone, Baby, Gone people aren't reading my review for my critique of the lighting (which was pretty under-thought, by the way) but rather for my thoughts about the message of the film. Or, perhaps more specifically, the looming question of the film: Should Patrick have allowed the little girl to stay with Jack and his wife? That poor little girl, whose mother was a drug runner and addict. In fact, it'd be hard to call her a mother, she certainly didn't act like one. The little girl was happy, she'd obviously have a much better life.

Patrick did the right thing. Who are we to say who should and shouldn't be a parent? And even if she failed once, does she not deserve a second chance. (this is particularly aimed at those of us who have experienced the ultimate second chance. What if Jesus decided that we were a lost cause?) Kidnapping is kidnapping, regardless of the motive. That girl would grow up knowing something was missing. She'd try to find her mother. What then? Her mother is going to believe her to be dead. "You were kidnapped, they killed you." What does Jack tell her then?

The logical expansion of believing that Patrick should have allowed her to stay is that this becomes a government program with guidelines on who can and cannot have children. This would be the first step into the world of The Handmaiden's Tale. Patrick also took the necessary step when he learned that Amanda's mother wasn't really going to change. He stuck around. It would have been irresponsible for him to choose to return the girl to the situation she was in before without taking some responsibility for her care. At least we know that he will be involved in her life and that gives us hope.

Overall: I never really believed the girl was dead, so they totally missed that key point. Most of the acting was stellar including the performances by the "no-namers" (Titus Welliver and Amy Madigan). The writing was good. The direction was, for the most part, acceptable. Affleck handled the flashbacks well, not spoon feeding his audience. It raised some good questions and caused some good discussion.

3.5 out of 5 stars

It Looks Like Sports

To many of you, all of these subjects may resemble sports posts. While "sports" is an aspect of each topic below, it is far more peripheral than it is central. With this in mind, I'll order the following rants such that sports moves from the minor subject to the major. I'll also be titling each portion with the non-sports topic. Happy reading!

The above was my original intention for this post. But then word came down from on high that the worst possible situation had happened: Manny would now serve under Joe Torre! (Oh, wait. That would have been the worst possible situation had it been last year... but now they're both Dodgers.) So if this doesn't interest you, skip to the second heading.

Manny being a Dodger? : One of Boston's Icons is now dressed in blue. At the midnight hour before the trade deadline, Theo pulled the trigger on a three team deal to send Manny to the Dodgers. There is mixed emotion in Beantown. Some are happy to see Manny "the cancer" go. "He's someone else's problem now," they say. Others are not as thrilled. "It doesn't matter who we get, we aren't going to be able to replace his production in the line=up." Where do I stand? I'm not terribly upset that Manny is gone. I enjoyed his occasional comical slides in left. I'll miss his infectious smile. He was the cause of much seemingly innocuous controversy for the Boston faithful. What I am terribly upset about is the price we paid for Jason Bay. Here is the equation that made sense to Theo Epstein: Manny Ramirez + $7million (to the Dodgers to pay for the rest of his contract for the year) + Craig Hansen + Brandon Moss = Jason Bay. Not only that, but the Dodgers agreed not to take Manny's club option. That means that the Dodgers are paying $0 to their new acquisition, they sent third baseman Andy LaRoche and 1st Round Draft pick pitcher Bryan Morris to the Pittsburgh Pirates and they got Manny Ramirez. Steal! The supposed upside of this is Bay isn't in a contract year. Manny, Teixeira, and Rodriquez are and could fly their respective coops at the end of the year. So, we got Jason Bay for a ton vs Manny walking at the end of the year and we get nothing. (Of course, we tried to waive Manny almost every year [had someone picked him up we wouldn't have gotten anything] so I don't really know what's changed!) Although, when I think back to the last time we traded a "superstar" it was Nomar and that turned out alright. I mean, we did win our first World Series in 86 years and all... I guess trading him was the better way to go rather than letting him walk (possibly to NYY) at the end of the year. (Final thought: Even though we've traded him doesn't mean he won't end up with the NYY... but my prediction is that he signs with the Mets. The Yankees have seen the err of their ways in hiring too many aging A-listers and Omar loves the big names. Manny and Pedro reunited!) Update: Jason Bay hit a two out triple in the bottom of the twelfth and then scored the game winning run when Lowry beat out an in-field hit up the middle. Welcome to Boston, Jason.

Justice: Former NBA Referee Tim Donaghy was recently sentenced to 15 months in jail for betting on games that he officiated. Thus, obviously calling into question the objectivity of his work. While I find his actions to be unfathomable, I find his punishment to be unfitting. Prison? Really? Is this man violent that he needs to be removed from society? Is he a danger to himself or others? No. Was he dishonest? Underhanded? Greedy? Yes. Should we pay to house and feed him for 15 months? No. This is just an example of our justice department always resorting to the same punishment regardless of the crime! His offense was monetary, so should his punishment. Fines. Community service. Banishment from his chosen profession. House arrest without the possibility of ESPN. This man has no business being in jail. I felt the same way about Martha Stewart. Make her sell her stock at some discounted rate. Demand she not appear on TV for so many months. But prison? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If we are going to continue to throw people behind bars haphazardly, we need to hearken back to the days of the Puritans when you had to pay for your own room and board while you were serving your time. Not only is this a deterrent to crime, but it's relief to the already over-taxed American family. We don't need to be paying to remove people from society who've done so very little to require it.

Work Ethic: As always, there is a rumor that Manny may be traded. The team to which he's going always changes but never the player. This was going to be a rant on how if I acted like Manny does where I work, regardless of my performance, I'd be gone, not making millions. Now Manny's gone... I guess I'll just move on.

Socialism: The Los Angeles Angles of Anaheim just acquired 1B Mark Teixeira from the Braves for 1B Casey Kotchman and a minor league prospect. The New York Yankees just traded Kyle "Let 'em on, let 'em score" Farnsworth for Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez from the Tigers. My first act is to balk at the sheer stupidity of these deals by the teams who gave up the superstars. Both "selling" teams got totally ripped off. And the buying teams (logically) practically stole these players from their former teams. Granted, both are in a contract year and would have to be resigned but neither buying team gave much up to acquire these players. Then I look at the Angels and Yankees (and Red Sox) and think I get so annoyed that these teams think they can buy a championship. Baseball needs a salary cap like the NFL. But, what is a salary cap if not a "level playing field?" Does capitalism promote a level playing field? I don't think so! Isn't baseball the very picture of capitalism as represented in sport? Players are traded and signed based on the supply and demand for talent at their position. There is not limit to what a team can spend. (For convenience sake we'll choose to ignore the luxury tax that is charged to those teams that spend over a certain amount and given to the teams that spend the least). But let this also be a lesson to capitalists, he who spends most does not always win (The Yankees, far and away the deepest pockets in MLB haven't been to the series since 2003 and haven't won it since 2000) it's the one who spends smartest! All this is to say that with the Angels and the Yankees potentially standing between the Red Sox and a repeat championship, I'm pretty peeved at the Braves and the Tigers for basically giving away the aforementioned players. Especially now, as I see what the Red Sox paid for Jason Bay!

So, mostly not about sports, and all Just my opinion.

Voting Booth, Volume V

Back to the drawing board

If John McCain wants to have a National League team's chance in the All Star Game of winning the election (The NL has lost the last 11 All Star games) he needs to get someone working on his campaign signs... fast!

Not that his sign is terrible:


Simple. Legible. Boring. Forgettable!

You see, Obama thought outside the box. He didn't go with a run-of-the-mill campaign sign. He obviously hired a graphic designer. He clearly gave them parameters (I want it uber-American. Incorporate the flag if you can. I want it to say "Middle America" and have a sense of hope.) Bulls-eye:
Simple. Memorable. Recognizable. Iconic!

When I juxtapose these two signs I feel like McCain might as well inscribe "I'm really old" on his and Obama "I'm the candidate of the future" on his. This is a huge advantage very early on for the Obama campaign and if McCain wants to keep this close he'd better answer with an image of his own!

I'm not claiming to be an artist, but here is my view of something that might balance the yard sign scales:


Readable. Not Stodgy. Eye Catching. Unexpected!

Just as the "O" from Obama has been singled out as an image for signs and buttons, so the "C" from this sign. Both signs are patriotic, forward thinking, yet respectable and trustworthy.

Feel free to copy any image here posted and display them in support of your candidate. Perhaps if enough people create buttons for my image it will be accepted as the official grass roots image of John McCain.

I wouldn't mind that at all.

The Voting Booth, Volume IV

Durations

I must admit, I was slightly bothered by Barack's recent trip to Iraq. He met with the Prime Minister to discuss a "horizon" for US troop withdrawal. Um, Senator? You're still just a Senator. You are not yet the leader of the free world nor should you be conducting yourself as such.

Of course, this was a political move on both of their parts. The Prime Minister is up for re-election and he needs to look like he's taking steps to usher the Americans out and Barack needs to look like he has some foreign affairs and Commander in Chief experience.

Anyone want to take a stab at how long Barack has been an acting US Senator as of today?
1295 days.
I spent more time in college than he's spent as a US Senator.

Barack: 185 weeks.
College: 194+ weeks.
Which is really begin generous because that's as of today and he's been campaigning now for quite some time. Can we really consider that an acting US Senator?

How about this statistic: Anyone want to guess how long McCain was in the Prisoner of War camp in Hanoi?
1967 Days.
John McCain spent more time as a POW than Barack has spent as a US Senator!
Barack in Congress: 3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days
McCain in Vietnam: 5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days
What's the difference? Just a few days more than my little Full House has been breathing.
2 years 1 month.
I don't know about you, but I'm having difficulty envisioning a freshman Senator who hasn't even served a full term yet who has spent less time in his current position than his opponent did as a POW as a viable Presidential Candidate. I'm also having problems favoring a man who was 21 years old when his opponent was first elected to Congress. Wouldn't this be like a freshman transfer student running for Student Council President?

Yeah, it is.

But, apart from the facts, it's all just my opinion.

World Premiere!

Ladies and Gentleman!

It gives me great pleasure to announce to my readership the commencement of a long awaited arrival!

My beautiful wife has joined the ranks of the bloggers!


It's Called Guilt

That's right, the Queen of Hearts has started a blog! I'd like to preempt your suggestions that this was done under duress or prodding from her husband. Nothing could be further from that truth! In fact, she surprised me with a nearly completed blog one day, asking for just my opinion on it!

So be sure to link it, put it in your favorites, attach it to your facebook, myspace, blogspot, wordpress (McNutt!), blackberry, write it on your forehead, don't miss this blog!

Here it is again just in case you forgot: It's Called Guilt (itscalledguilt.blogspot.com)

Newsflash

This just in:

Newsflash: We do not live in a Democracy! So, please stop complaining that we don't run our government like one. The government that was established by our founding fathers is a Representational Republic. We vote for representatives who vote on our behalf. This is true for the appointing of judges, passing of laws, and electing of Presidents. The "hiatus-ed" lead singer for System of a Down, Serj Tankian, has set up a website calling for the abolition of the electoral college saying that when the popular vote is "overruled" by the electoral college "that's not a Democracy." Well, Mr. Tankian, you are absolutely right. It's not a Democracy. Truth be told: I don't have time to vote on every bill, every law, and every budget. I'm glad we don't live in a Democracy. With just a hint of hyperbole, this is akin to saying "Why do we have a Congress balancing what the President does? That's not a Dictatorship!" So, please write this down: The government of the United States of America is a Representative Republic!

Newsflash: The electoral college was not "a convenient way of reversing the popular votes of earlier immigrant settlers who were in lots of cases indentured servants and laborers" as Mr. Tankian's website claims. Our forefathers reversed the votes of such people by simply making it a law that one had to be a white male land-owner in order to cast a vote. (All non-land-owning white males had the vote by 1850, African Americans legally in 1870 but not without discrimination until 1965, women got the vote in 1920, Native Americans were allowed citizenship and the vote in 1924, and residents of DC were finally allowed to vote in Presidential Elections in 1961.). So when the electoral college was designed only 10%-18% of the US population could vote! The electoral college was instituted to give fair election power to smaller states as well as larger so that Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania (at the time; Texas and California now) didn't pick the President every four years. The hurdles put in place to prevent the immigrants from voting were literacy tests (first put in place by those wonderfully tolerant states of CT and MA in 1855 and 1857 respectively). The electoral college is a useful and brilliant solution to the debate that raged during the construction of the Constitution. Some signers wanted the popular election to decide who resided in the Oval Office (which is an anachronism because there was no Oval Office when they were debating this.) Others wanted only the State Legislatures to cast their vote. How upset would we be if the latter won? This call for the abolition of the electoral college is simply because people feel that their vote didn't count. It doesn't matter what method we use, a large number of voters will feel that they cast their vote to the wind because their candidate didn't win.

This was originally going to be a multi-subject post but after checking Mr. Tankian's website I couldn't let him spew his false information. Thanks for reading!