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!

Review: The Prestige

2006/PG-13/Drama

"Are you watching closely?"

You'll need to when watching this masterpiece. Christopher Nolan has yet again set himself apart when it comes to the new breed of directors. While this film is reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan, it would be an insult to Nolan to compare the two. After exploding on the scene with his time shifting Memento, Nolan proved he wasn't a flash in the pan with Insomnia which earned him the honor of directing everyone's favorite version of the Dark Knight: Batman Begins. While not quite attaining a Hitchcockian or Spielburgian level, Nolan isn't many rungs away on the ladder of directors.

I'm going to do my best to review this film without giving away any spoilers. It is that worth it. In interviews, Nolan claimed this film didn't really have a genre. He couldn't be more wrong [and frankly, it made me a little disappointed that he didn't recognize the bullseye he'd struck when so many other directors miss the target entirely when aiming for this genre (Yours truly included)] The Prestige is a fantastic example of a Film Noir.

Set in turn of the century London, two rival magicians attempt to make each other disappear. So, what makes this a Film Noir? The Anti-Hero is a requirement for a Film Noir. Nolan executed this aspect so perfectly that it's nearly impossible to determine which magician is our hero! Is it the one bent on revenge? Or the one who mistakenly wronged him? Is it the one setting London a-buzz with his impossible new trick? Or the one spending all he has trying to steal it? Is it the one who's dead? Or the one accused of his murder? (Trust me, I've given nothing away that we don't learn in the first 2 minutes of the film). During the course of the film I found it difficult to empathize with either character. Only one other author has told a story where I was unable to root for one side or the other: Shakespeare.

A Film Noir is characterized by plot twists, changes in alliances, and mistaken identity. The Prestige has all of these. Not only that, but the film manages to weave them into the story in such a way that they aren't forced, unbelievable, or contrived. This is the hardest thing to do with these types of plot points.

The Femme Fatale is a staple of the Film Noir. Scarlett Johansson portrays the woman caught between these to masters of illusion. Whose side is she on? With most Film Noirs the Femme Fatale is out for her own interests. No spoilers here.

Nolan is partially forgiven for the "written and directed by" status that he allowed for two reasons: It's an adaptation from a book. Because it is not his original story it isn't a pure "W&DB." Second, he had a co-writer. Two heads are better than one. In actuality, this film had three: The original author, the co-writer, and the director.

Part of the beauty of this film is the changes in time, like most of Nolan's films this story is not told in a linear fashion. However, unlike Nolan's independent movie Following, where the non-linear timeline was pointless and contrived, his use of the technique in The Prestige adds another level of tension, drama, and insight. Don't confuse what I'm praising as flashbacks. There is a difference between non-linear storytelling and inserting a moment from the past in a linear narrative.

One of the major themes of the movie is said very early on:

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man... The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."

There are a few faults in this film. Several times we are asked if we are "watching closely." We are told that we "don't want to find the secret." We are fooled right along with most of the other characters (only three know one "truth," only 2 know the other). The problem is that Nolan, unlike Shyamalyn (Sixth Sense? Figured it out. The Village? Got it from the previews.), does not give enough clues for the audience to decipher what the "Prestige" of the movie is. Truth be told, there were a few hidden elements that were unveiled at the end of the film, but one was the catalyst to the story and that one was not sufficiently revealed throughout the story.

The other difficulty that I had revolved around the specifics of the trick "The Transported Man." I'm not going to go into it because it'll ruin that aspect of the film. Just take my word for it: there wasn't enough thought put in to certain discontinuities, let's call them.

As soon as this movie was over, I wanted to watch it again. With more twists than taffy and fantastic performances by Jackman, Bale, Johansson and Caine, (Even David Bowie put forth a commendable effort) The Prestige ranks right up there with The Usual Suspects and Twelve Monkeys.

The second viewing was lacking, however, because of the sheer lack of nods to the major twist of the movie.

Overall, though:

4.75 out of 5.

A Big Return

Thank you all for your support, you've renewed my fervor. So I shall now return to the blogisphere with some of the things that have been rattling around in my head for the past few days.

Where to begin? I think I'll start with what I am least passionate about and escalate from there.

More about Gloucester: It has supposedly come to light that the girls in Gloucester did not form a pact to get pregnant. They claim that their pregnancies were coincidental and they simply decided to stick together through this life experience. I wonder, then, why the school nurse admitted to administering over one hundred and fifty pregnancy tests to girls who were disappointed when they were negative. These are not girls who were messing around with their boyfriends and are currently in the midst of a "scare." Girls who are afraid they might be pregnant wait a few months in the hopes they are not. Girls who want to be pregnant check whenever a new test would be warranted, if you catch my drift. If there was no pact, why would a girl have allowed a 24 year old homeless guy to father her child? I think the girls simply realized just how stupid it was. Or perhaps (and this may be more likely) they just want to keep it a secret. They have this sisterhood agreement and the last thing they want is for it to come to light. I wonder if they are resenting the interviews and attention from all the news outlets. Granted, a portion of the spike was from students transferring to GHS under the guise of wanting to take advantage of some alternative educational opportunity so that they could actually take advantage of the free day care. I don't really think that "Juno" or "Knocked Up" has played as big of a role as some have claimed. I do have to say this: I'd have much more to rant about if the rate of teen girls having abortions rose as sharply as the rate of pregnant girls have. I think that fact (that so many are keeping the babies) lends itself to the pact "theory" as well.

The End of the World: Look, enough with the Mayan "prediction" that the world is going to end on December 21, 2012. It's not an actual prediction, it is misinterpreted as one. The Mayans had two calendars: a "Calendar Round" for shorter periods of time (the calendar repeats itself every 52 years) and a "Long Count" calendar for longer ones. The long count calendar had 5 spaces in which they would record the number of days that had passed since August 11, 3114 BC. (Much like our calendar has eight spaces (12/34/5678) for recording the date.) When the five spaces are full it is equal to the number of days between August 11, 3114 and December 21, 2012. To add even one more day would require adding another space to the calendar. To assume this is a prediction of the end of the world would be akin to declaring that the modern era is predicting the end of the world to be December 31, 9999 (or 12/31/9999) because to go another day would require another space. It's simply sophomoric and ignorant to make the assertion that the Mayans purposefully predicted the end of the world in this fashion. So, can we agree to stop, please?

Energy: There is a big argument between Obama and McCain as to how we should solve the current energy crisis. McCain wants to drill and open the reserves. Obama's "Yes We Can" campaign slogan says "No We Can't" to both ideas. Obama's reasoning for not drilling off shore or in Alaska won't help the situation for another ten years so we shouldn't start drilling. Funny thing is, ten years ago (which was only 1998) we decided not to drill. Sure would have been helpful if we'd made a different decision then. But let's make sure we make the same mistake now, too. Obama wants to tax the profits of the oil companies. Yeah, because that wouldn't be pushed off onto the consumer in some way. No, no, good thinking, really. Both candidates are pushing for renewable energy. Here's something I don't understand: Renewable energy is renewable. It comes back. Why, then, is it so friggin' expensive? If a commodity is dissipating, why is it less expensive than something that "renews?" And if my understanding is incorrect and the energy itself is actually less expensive, why is the initial cost to get to a point where one could utilize it so prohibitive? Sure, a hybrid uses less fuel, but costs five grand more. Solar panels cut down on the electricity my house uses but costs 25 grand to install. But it'll save me $500 a year in electricity. Let's see, I'll have earned my initial investment back in 50 years!

Bumper Stickers: Truly, I find few things to be more cowardly than bumper stickers. People make their pithy snide comments as they zip past you anonymously in their 1987 Ford Station Wagon. They announce to everyone their opinions on politics, religion, sports, music, etc as though anyone had asked them to do so. (sound like a blog? At least you can tell me where I'm wrong once you've read it.) If these people felt so strongly about these matters, I say we put bumper stickers on our houses. No more anonymity. No more avoiding responsibility for what we've affixed to our property. Suddenly, we are accountable for what we've chosen to display. People can knock on our door, put a letter in our mailbox, or affix an opposing view house sticker on their own home. What has gotten me this fired up? Ignorant bumper stickers. For example, I've seen the following bumper stickers with my own eyes: "You keep prayer out of my schools and I'll keep thinking out of your church." "Impeach Bush, Nixon did less!" (Nixon was not impeached.) "World Champion New York Giants" (OK, so they may have earned that one... somehow...) Anyway. I think that we'd be much more careful with what we say and how we say it if we were suddenly responsible for our comments.

Monogamy: More and more these days I'm hearing people claim that we, as humans, simply weren't made to be with just one person. According to them, monogamy is something that we try to force our our species and that is why we are continually fighting against it. (I was in a crafty-ACMoore-ish store and they had plastic "educational" animals for sale. The little booklet that came with the bald eagle said, "Unlike humans, eagles mate for life." Excuse me?!) Here is the problem that I see with that argument. Even with people that subscribe to that line of thought, when a relationship ends and they prove their theory to be "true" there is still so much pain involved! I've spoken with people who were in an "open" relationship (where both they and their partner have the freedom to mess around with others) who either felt jilted when it ended, or began to become envious because they wanted to be the only one! The happiest people in the world are not the ones who have been married seven times. Nor are they the single swingin' people who are alone in their sixties. The happiest people are the ones who know that they've fought the good fight, stayed the course, battled through thick and thin and have a relationship tough as leather, strong as cinder blocks, and precious & beautiful as gemstones. If nothing else, our desire to explain our tendency towards infidelity as instinct and excuse ourselves from trying to remain faithful because it's unnatural does nothing more than expose and magnify our slavery to sin. It also displays our intrinsic knowledge of it. We're doing something we know is wrong, so we try to explain it away as just the way we are.

So, there's just my opinion, what's yours?

A Few Thoughts

Fatherhood: It is hard to believe that our little Full House is already two years old! Let me tell you: This second year flew by so much faster than the first. I look back at pictures from his first birthday and I am amazed at how much he's grown; both physically and developementally. He already has so many of our cultural norms under his belt. He is so excited about his "baby sistour." I think I understand now when parents say "it went by so fast." It's been two years in the blink of an eye.

Gloucester: It would be difficult for anyone to have missed the story coming out of Gloucester the past few days. With a dramatic spike in teen pregnancies, the principle of GHS decided he was going to get to he bottom of the situation. What he learned was shocking and concerning. Many of the girls had made a pact with each other to get pregnant! No one is quite sure why. Theories range from they wanted to experience pregnancy together to they wanted someone who would love them unconditionally and many in between. While I admire the concept behind the school system providing free child care for high school moms so that they can stay in school, I can't help but think this advantage aided in the girls decision to procreate. While this story by itself is jaw-dropping, I think the response by the medical staff of the high school was even more amazing! The nurse and the advisor to the entire school system suggested that the best solution would be to prescribe more contraceptives. They felt so strongly about this that when the school system (and parents) declined to take this action, they both resigned out of protest. Does this make any sense to anyone? Here are girls making every effort to get pregnant (One so much that she slept with a 24 year old homeless man). These are girls who were disappointed when their school-provided pregnancy tests were negative. Yet your solution to prevention is to prescribe pills that we all know they won't take?! I would hope they were fired for their stupidity! When will we realize that most solutions are only attacking the symptoms?

Sports: If not for 35 seconds in the Super Bowl, Boston would have had the championships in MLB, NFL, and NBA in one year!

Final Thoughts: One more (pitiful) request. With our move out of state and a sharp decline in comments, I feel that the readership of this blog has sharply declined. So, if you are reading this blog, please let me know by dropping a little boring comment on this post. It's been so long because two posts ago I mentioned that our Little Full House broke his leg, and no one said a thing. So even if you just say "reading" it'll mean a lot to me. Thanks.

Be sure to catch my review of The Business of Being Born on the post below!

Review: The Business of Being Born

2008/Not Rated(Probably PG-13)/Documentary

I was slightly apprehensive to view this film as the Queen of Hearts and I are expecting our little Wild Card in September. But, The Business Of Being Born was recommended and I thought it ought to be viewed far from the actual delivery as possible... just in case.

I was pleasantly surprised by the genuine, non-emotional, statistically backed argument put forth by Ricki Lake and the other producers of this piece. It wasn't full of scare tactics like some other documentary film makers (Michael Moore), and it wasn't an emotionally wrenching tug-at-your-heart-strings attempt to get people to change how they give birth. This was a straight forward, well balanced recommendation for home births.

I'm an excellent audience member for this film. Several times the film brought up the realization that, for centuries, women have been giving birth at home but we've only been giving birth hospitals for a few decades. I'm someone who won't take an aspirin because pain medication is so new, so that evidence resonates with me.

However, the flip side of that is that the mortality rate of mothers and children was incredibly high in the middle ages (whereas so few people die of a headache...). I believe that moving birthing into hospitals wasn't simply a "business" move as the film depicts, but was an attempt to lower maternal and infant mortality rates. The trouble with that is two fold: Healthy pregnancies don't need all of the precautions that an at risk pregnancy does. Secondarily, as we become a more litigious society, doctors are moving faster in implementing the interventions, which is causing unnecessary complications for perfectly normal pregnancies.

Personally, I'm not even considering a home birth. My ideal would be what we had for our little Full House. Mid-wives at a birthing center close to a hospital. This way one has the chance for a natural close-to-home birth, but also has the convenience of the hospital nearby if necessary.

One of the most compelling storylines of the film was that of the producer. She was going to have a home birth but had complications and had to go to the hospital. If nothing else, the footage of the cab ride from her apartment to the hospital was enough to dissuade me from having a home birth.

All in all, I felt it was a very compelling argument for midwives verses hospitals. Not only that, but it was a very disturbing and enlightening expose on what we did to women who had hospital births earlier in the century. Some portions were a tad long and unnecessary but they had a great mix of crunchy to average midwives and had a few doctors who shared their opposition or support of the practice of home births. If you are pregnant, thinking about having kids, or have kids and want more, I would recommend checking out this documentary to assist you in the very important decision of how and where to have your child.

3.5 out of 5.

Things Broken

Despicable.

Disturbing.

Detestable.

Wrong.

The officiating in the NBA finals, even more so than the playoffs up to this point, has been the ugliest thing I've seen since Conan gave us a glimpse of what Steve Buschemi and Joan Rivers' child might look like.

And it goes both ways. Game two was just as bad as game three. I'm watching the home team get touched as they begin their two step drive and they head to the line. I see the away team get hammered as they jump to shoot and somehow the foul occurred before they were in the act of shooting.

I've also never seen ref who waited to see if the shot went in before he decided to call a foul. Look, it was either a foul or it wasn't. Oh, did I mention this was only ever done for the home team?

Why is this so bad? Well, the home team is free to play smothering D knowing that nothing is going to be called. The away team is afraid to get anywhere near their opponent because if they breathe on them funny, they're going to the line. Not only that, but the away team starts to get really frustrated. And you can't really blame them. When the away team is 2 for 2 on free throws and the home team is 7 of 12 and it's the first quarter something isn't right!

I'd like to point out to every ref who has work these last three games something that they might have overlooked in the rule book. I know, it's hard to remember all of those rules and when they do and don't actually apply. But this is kinda key: Basketball is a non-contact sport! And that needs to go both ways!

It's been long believed that the NBA (more than any other league) maneuvers game outcomes so that they can land the biggest bucks. Just look at the two huge market teams in the finals. And I'm not the only one saying these things. Check out this court shaking article.

Something simply must be done.

On an entirely unrelated note: our little Full House broke his leg. Well, truth be told... his daddy caused a hairline fracture in his leg.

We were trying a friend's Wii. I was bowling, I brought my knee up and didn't realize that the little man was running toward me. My knee made contact with his head and his head made contact with the floor. We're still not sure how that broke his leg...

He has a little blue cast on. He calls it his boot.

Even as I type this, I cannot even begin to express how terrible I feel for the incident. Thankfully, the little guy has forgiven me, but will probably never let me pick up a Wii-mote again.

Now, as we all know, I can't tell a "what I did today" story without having a point to it. Here it is:

What's wrong with our healthcare system?

The injury occurred at about 7 PM yesterday. We didn't see any evidence of the injury so we thought we'd see how he was doing today. In the morning he still wouldn't put weight on it. So we called his doctor.

Appointment 25 minutes from home: 1:30
Referral to radiology
Travel back 25 minutes to get Daddy
Travel 40 minutes to children's hospital
X-rays: 3:48
results confirmed
Cast on: 4:15
out of the hospital
Back home through city traffic:5 PM

Injury to remedy: 22 hours.
Out of pocket expense: 0 dollars

So I ask again, what is wrong with our healthcare system?

Review: Runner, Eragon, and Wilson's

Due to the length of time that has passed since I viewed Kite Runner and Eragon I feel that a full review would be lacking. Therefore, I'll review them here, along with Charlie Wilson's War.

Review: The Kite Runner: 2007/PG-13/Drama
What I appreciated most about this movie was the cross-cultural universal themes. Bullying, competition, and patriotism are often considered to be primarily American ideals. I often forget that these things occur in other countries. The portrayal of them in Afghanistan was incredibly believable and opened up a new understanding of the people who lived there. Additionally, there was a sense of fidelity and manhood that is missing in our culture that we would do well to emulate.

One of the major reasons I appreciated this film was the consistency that it showed in the character flaw with one of the main characters. In the back story (which was far to lengthy) he is shown as a coward. When he finally shows some courage in living out the fidelity that he was taught he still reverts to his cowardly ways. The moment was so real and believable yet shocking because I was expecting this film to be "Americanized" as so many are.

There is one disturbing scene where the action is suggested rather than shown. Overall:

3 out of 5 stars.

Review: Eragon 2006/PG/Fantasy
Puh-Leez! There was a lot of "trying" in Eragon. Eragon was trying to be a fantasy film. Names and titles are so important in fantasy! Nearly all of the character's name fell short of what was desired (with the possible exception of the Vlern). First, the movie is about dragons and the title character's name is "dragon" with an E and sounds so much like one of the more famous fantasy characters in literature (Aragon from The Lord of the Rings). Not only that, but the antagonist has some unpronounceable name (Galbatorix). I was trying not to laugh as one of the most eloquent speakers in film (Jeremy Irons) shared the screen with a man who has difficulty speaking like the rest of us (no, not Christopher Walken, but John Malkovich)!

The movie was trying to be a classic hero story (unknown beginnings, mentor, prophecy, death of mentor, coming into his own) but it was so cookie-cutter obvious and forced! The villain (Durza) is some type of wizard who was trying really hard to be a wizard villain.

Truthfully, it was almost painful.

1 out of 5 stars.

Review: Charlie Wilson's War 2007/R/Drama
If you liked Thirteen Days you will love Charlie Wilson's War. It's an international drama riddled with intrigue and covert operations that stars Tom Hanks as a down home Texas boy Congressman with a drinking problem. Philip Seymour Hoffman (who seems to never miss) adds an Oscar caliber supporting performance as the somewhat rogue CIA operative who helps Charlie obtain the weapons necessary to run his war.

This film made an interesting point that the original design for our support of the Afghani people was to give them just enough help to force the Soviets to send more and more soldiers to fight in the war, just as we did in Vietnam. It wasn't until Wilson visits a refugee camp in Pakistan that he realizes the urgency of "shooting down the helicopters." While preventing the Soviets from gaining a foothold in that region of the world was important to protect the oil supplies there, it was funded due to the humanitarian concerns of those who controlled the money.

A lesson this movie put forth, that we would do well to listen to, is portrayed at the end. The Soviets have retreated and Charlie is trying to get $1 million to rebuild some schools in Afghanistan. They had just spent over $1 billion to fight the war, yet they wouldn't give him the $1 million he asked for for the schools. We didn't help rebuild their country. The Talaban came in and took over and we then had to go in and dispose them as they fought us with the weapons we provided them. I don't think I need to specify the parallels that currently exist in the world.

Wittily written and masterfully performed, (with the exception of Julia Roberts poor excuse for a Texas accent) Charlie Wilson's War is a movie I recommend not missing.

4.5 out of 5 stars

A few thoughts

Two sports comments and a thought on parenthood. [that'll get a few of you to read all the way through (and a few others to just skip to the bottom...)]

Baseball: So the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are in first place in the American League East. Now, after you've picked yourself up off the floor and gotten back into your chair, I think I know why. Clearly it's divine intervention. "Leave the name 'devil' in the dust and rise out of the ashes of last place," thus saith the Lord. If the Rays and the Marlins both win today it will mark the first time in MLB history that both teams have been in first place in their divisions for more than one day! Go Sea-life!

Basketball: Seriously! In this round of the NBA playoffs 1 team has won a game on the road. The Hawks took the Celtics to seven games because they won all of their games at home! Come on! I've railed about this before, but this is getting out of hand. Here's what I wrote in 2005:

The people who call the game, own the game. Where is my proof? How about this: Basketball. Every hoop in 10 feet high. Every court is identical. Every game is indoors. It's not like baseball where the outfields are different shapes, the infields are different materials, or some games are indoors, some are out. It is uniform. How is it possible, then, that the home team wins more than 65% of the time? The "home court advantage" is not the fans. These players are professionals! Crowd noise isn't going to throw them. It's the thing they can't ignore: the calls! The refs give the home team an advantage.

Never before has there been such a burden of evidence that this is the case! I hope that the NBA takes a look at the huge discrepancy in foul shots attempted between the home and the away team during this post season. It is truly maddening!

Parenthood: Daily our little Full House astonishes us with what he knows. I think he is simply amazing. And this makes me slightly apprehensive about becoming a Daddy again. How can I love anyone as much as I love this little man? When I think back to how I felt when I was an expecting Daddy for the first time, there was no way I could have conceived of the amount of love, joy, giddiness, hilarity, and awe that my little buddy provides me with. Shouldn't I, therefore be anticipating a similar response to our little Wild Card (who, frustratingly enough, remains a Wild Card)? I'm not...

No Walk Through

ESPN.com (along with every sports news outlet in the land) is reporting that the highly anticipated "Matt Walsh Tapes" (or MWTs) provided absolutely no new information to the NFL.

The tapes contained no (I repeat no) walk-through of the St. Louis Rams from the 2002 Super Bowl. No walk-through from the 2003 Super Bowl. No walk-through from the 2005 Super Bowl. In fact, no walk-thoughs. Ever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

All the MWTs did was confirm what the Patriots have already told the commissioner: Occationally, they taped the defensive coordinator. And if you'll refer to my comments when this story broke, I still have no idea how this is adventagious or why it's illegal since you can sit a man in the booth to study him and, as Mike Shanahan (former head coach of the Denver Broncos) said, "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game. With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter." Not only that, but Bill has been saying since day one that it was a misinterpretation of the rule. Now we learn that his "illegal" taping has been uniform. There is no truth to the alleged taping that was rumored to be above and beyond what the Patriot's have already admitted to.

Here is what I think is due (but in now way expect to happen): An apology from the Boston Herald, one from the Senator from PA who is such an Eagles homer that he launched an "independent" investigation to what may or may not have happened before the NE/PHILLY Super Bowl, one from every fan from every other team who has taken the allegations as fact, an apology from anyone who has displayed that "Cheaters" Patriots logo with the camera up to the Flying Elvis' face, and one from anyone who pretends that the Patriots are the only team who was doing this. If there's a rule about it, it's because it's rampant. Otherwise, the Patriots would have simply received a stern talking to. Furthermore, if it were only the Patriots who were engaged in this activity, there'd have been no reason to "make an example" of them by handing out the most severe fines and penalties possible.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the Patriots won 17 games in a row without "cheating." If the Jets really wanted to stick it to the Patriots, they should have blown the whistle on them during week 15, not week 1. Basically, not much has changed since I first responded to "Spygate."

All the Patriots have to worry about is continuing their winning ways. I'm amazed that this season they seem to have landed an easy schedule. Even the Giants could win a few with the opponents New England will be facing. Really anything less than 14-2 would be disappointing. Not only that, but their first 6 games are looking fairly easy. It appears the bar for most consecutive regular season games won is going to be set at about 25! That's quite a feat!