Take It From Me

Just rambling...

2011-05-31T17:33:00.002-05:00

While there really is no rhyme or reason to this post, I have the desire to just speak and here I go...

Oh, fuck, this is going to be one of those "feeling" posts, isn't it? Life has not gone like I want it, but really, who can say it has? Even all the shit you go through that you hate at the time is for a purpose. Not a spiritual one, per-say, but a purpose to get you to the next step in your life. My grades and general apathy got me kicked out of college. After feeling bad for myself for some time, I got a job with my brother-in-law Charles. That blew up around two years later and I found myself growing attached to this girl online. She was only a catalyst, though. I mean, I felt some semblance of love for her. She challenged me without knowing it to advance myself, to start to answer some of the problems I have. And my problems are so minimal when I look at it. I don't have any medical disorder or learning disability. While overweight, I am not physically incapable of doing certain things. But the truth is...I'm just lazy. It's something I battle because it's my default setting.

All of those events, some life-changing and others mildly annoying got me to IM Charlotte up one day. Oh, how are things...you live in town...we should get together...how's tonight? And after a few months of friendship with flirting, we became more. And more. And more. And the result was Abigail, born April 30th.

Am I ready to be a father? No. And there are times when she cries where I think...what the hell did I get myself into? I'll admit that the A-word popped into my head last September when Charlotte took a test and it turned out positive. I am a big proponent of a woman's right to choose. But we didn't get far down that road. The idea of adoption fell soon after. My family was excited. A new baby to add to the brood that was already six large, but the oldest was looking at college and the youngest was getting ready to make the jump to middle school.

And now the question is when we will get married...what will we do about daycare...and can we really make it? We haven't been together two years so this baby was hardly the plan. Everything is complicated now.

Would we do it again? Probably not like this. But those mistakes got us Abigail. And all the stress she brings...she's still so incredible.

.....

.....

I find myself wondering what my former friends are up to. Is that natural? Are they happy with their decisions? Are they significantly different? I don't know if I am.

Blah.

A Bad Design

2007-02-11T01:53:00.000-05:00

In 2000, New Line Cinema released Final Destination, a movie with a premise borrowed some from previous works, most notably an episode of The Twilight Zone. A kid has a vision of his death, alone with his friends and others on an airplane as it explodes in midair. After the vision, his need to get off the plane forces or convinces others to get off the plane before it takes off and then, explodes.

After that, death's original design, which included the deaths of those who escape the plane, comes around to get those it had not accounted for, killing each in the way they would have perished on the plane.

Great idea, huh? Like Scream, this thriller helped jump start the genre because it was not the same old shit we were used to. Even more, this was not someone who could be killed. There would be no final epic fight between the good character and the bad. Death was a soulless killer, but not a killer out of hatred, but a design. It was survival against the elements.

Unfortunately for death, Hollywood's neverending desire to make a buck ruined the legacy of the first flick, a clearly solid piece of work that included the stellar ability of Devon Sawa, Ali Larter, Kerr Smith, and Sean William Scott. Now, a sequel was unevitable, but unlike the first movie, the ultimate storyline was something we were already used to. Yeah, death's a bad mother and it's coming for its lost kids.

The second flick saw a great opening scene that provided for a vision, but even with the return of Larter, the movie could not recapture the ingenuity of the first movie. To make up for this, the film focused more on gore. While the first movie had its share of gorish scenes, Final Destination 2 went that extra level. Remember Scream 2's rules about a sequel? "The death scenes are always much more elaborate, with more blood and gore." FD2 played this up as much as possible. Suffice it to say, they found a way to kill people with a large pane of glass, a ladder, and a piece of PCV pipe.

I have mentioned Scream twice and I will do it again. Like that franchise, Final Destination was now left to an intelligent first movie and a major letdown for a second one. They sent out a third flick. I will definitely say the third Final Destination installment was better than Scream 3, but then, most home videos with toddlers hitting guys in the balls are better than that piece of crap.

FD3 went to the next level in gore and now, found a way to kill someone with a tanning bed, weights, and a car engine. FD3 got back to one person causing others to cheat death through her vision while others were sent to their death. In some ways, the third movie is better than the second one.

However, what hope I did have for the franchise to end on a bang ended with a dud of an ending to the movie.

Hollywood, just leave the smart thrillers at one movie. You will only hurt the legacy of the movie with contrived sequels than use the original plot that was unique and make it a staple of the franchise, thus taking away from the thing that brought fans to the series. Unfortunately, a fourth movie is a possibility. Maybe death will stop giving these kids visions.

A TIFM Review: The State of the Union

2007-01-24T13:01:00.000-05:00

Did you know that President Bush gave a speech last night? It was a pretty big deal being that it was his seventh State of the Union. Also, it was his first in front of a Democratic Congress, ready and willing to fight the President on any number of issues. So, the State of the Union was a chance for Bush to convince the American people he is right. Methinks he really didn't do that.

President Bush tried hard to not make this speech a repeat of his speech a couple of weeks ago in which he said he would increase the troop level in Iraq by about 20,000 solders in hopes to do the "hard work" and win a battle against the "war on terror." So, the first half of his speech was devoted to domestic issues. This is what I will focus on. I'll provide the comments Bush said and then, my awesome commentary.

"First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes."
It is definitely a nice idea, George W. The problem with balancing the federal budget without a tax hike is that the money has to come somewhere. It is on par with taking out a sizeable loan, but not getting a better job to pay it. What gets cut? I support you fully on balancing the budget, but here is why I think you mentioned it. With your support so incredibly low, you wanted to throw out a nice little olive branch to your Republicans. "Look, I'm trying to be a conservative!" You know perfectly well with the US spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq (number will probably rise with more troops) that it will be impossible to balance the budget without raising taxes unless you convince the Democrats to make sizable cuts to Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, and other programs. It's a bluff. Make cuts to programs that voters love to balance the budget which voters think is a good idea...talk about your election suicide. The budget will not be balanced anytime soon.

"In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate — they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk."
Full support. But these are typically the policitian's dream. Throw our something that is retarded on the surface, but never change it.

"We must increase funds for students who struggle — and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children — and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law."
Honestly, the No Child Left Behind Act leaves a lot of children behind. It was modeled after schools in Texas that, to make sure no child was left behind, pushed kids toward G.E.D.'s earlier to bring up the GPA of the school. See the difference between a school doing well and looking like it is doing well? From my own experience, the "accountability" laws that are in place seem to push teachers to prepare students for standarized tests with number two pencils rather than inspiring kids to go out and learn new information. Maybe there is no perfect way, but I have yet to see the "good law" the President speaks of.

"Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents."
George loves a tax break/tax deduction. I am not sure who wrote this and then put these two sentences together. How will this help someone who doesn't have health insurance be able to afford it. They still have to pay for it for the first part, right?

"To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol — and funding new infrastructure and technology."
Awesome. How are you find the people to double the size of the Border Patrol and fund new infrastructure and technology when you are balancing the budget without a tax raise? Hot air.

"We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology ... solar and wind energy ... and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes."
This was the beginning of Bush's latest attempt at throwing the environmental lobby a bone. He has done this seemingly every year, but does anything change? No. Hard to trust a man who, as Jon Stewart put it, pisses oil. If you want to reduce gas consumption by 20%, mean it. Don't just say it. I remember falling for this about four years ago when he started to talk about putting more money into hybrid cars. He did, but it was like throwing a five dollar bill at college. Sure, it's a start, but it won't do much. We need serious change in this area and I am waiting on it.

Well, that's about it on the domestic agenda. I am more and more discouraged.

Random, but truthful remark...

2007-01-20T14:59:00.000-05:00

Scalawag is one of the best words ever.

George W. Bush is a scalawag! It's like calling him a fucknut, but without the Secret Service showing up at your door.

Saddam Hussein was a scalawag! See the subtle difference in verbs? Ah, it's so dynamic!

Use the word in your everyday speech. Call your boss a scalawag. Call your parents scalawags. Tell your unborn child that he or she will become a scalawag!

Keep the change in the sofa...

2007-01-18T22:03:00.000-05:00

It is amazing to me that we are a relatively educated public with a wealth of evidence at our fingertips, but something like Loose Change still gets the masses going. For you two people out there who haven't seen and/or heard of Loose Change, it is the foremost authority on the 9/11 conspiracy belief that the attacks were not orchastrated by a terrorist organization desiring to strike a blow at Americans, but instead a clever inside job organized and performed by highly skilled professionals.

Sounds like a great movie, doesn't? Well, yes, and it was going to be that. When the producer and creator of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, began to research the project, he was hoping to show a group of friends who find out that 9/11 was indeed an inside story. While in the process of doing so, what do you know but he himself became convinced. Is that life immitating art or what?

So, Avery and his friends put together a little film which is free to anyone to watch where they go step-by-step over the many, MANY reasons they believe that 9/11 was not just the darkest day this country has ever faced, but also the biggest lie this government has ever told. You thought JFK was something? Listen to them.

However, between making a movie with a good plot and a "documentary," the producers failed to provide something that I believe even Stephen Colbert could have helped them with. Truthiness, or just straight up truth.

It begins early in their film when while discussing the Pentagon's attack, they conclude that the plane could not have made the maneuvers it did without being a military plane. Their proof came in a quote from Danielle O'Brien, an air trafic controller with Dulles. She said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought ... all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane" This is true. She did say that. She followed with, "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." However, the second quote was not in the film. The answer is of course quite simple. The first quote makes you believe that those watching were convinced what they were witnessing in horror on their radar screens was a military plane. The second quote specifies that they felt that way only because of the way it was flying, not because they felt it _was_ a military plane.

The film goes onto discuss an event that occured involving former President George H.W. Bush's plane. It hit a light pole and crashed. The light pole caused severe damage to the plane. Meanwhile, the 757, as it heads at dangerous speeds at the Pentagon, hits five of them. Loose Change says the light poles caused no damage. They would later say that there was little, if any, wreckage from the crash as part of their reasoning that they were convinced of a missile hitting the Pentagon and not a plane. See any problem? How did they know the light poles did not cause much damage? If you can answer that, you are either pretty smart or as crazy as Dylan Avery and his partners are.

We continue. I don't want to focus entirely on the Pentagon story, but there are so many things that are just too good. The film goes on to state that there was in fact little wreckage of the plane. First, the point about if a plane _had_ hit the Pentagon, a bunch of wreckage would have been everywhere. This is a picture of a C-130 that crashed while it was attempting to land at the Tehran airport.

What plane? That is what the Loose Change producers would want you to think. If you want evidence, I will give you a link but want to specify that if you scroll to almost the bottom, there are pictures of human remains. The page is pretty big so you can avoid it by not scrolling that far down, but I wanted to make that clear. Here is the link. These pictures were pretty easy for me to find. They're pretty easy to find period.

The film (I really struggle to call it that) continues with details about an engine that could not have possibly been the two large jet engines a 757 would carry. While ignoring all the strawman arguments they make, I will move on to the picture they put up as evidence:

Bam. Not an engine, right? Nope. But it is a rotor to an engine. It is not, as they state, an entire engine in tact. I guess that hurts the theory.

But the real fun stuff, if it wasn't so sad, comes up when they discuss the World Trade Center. First, they time the collapse of both towers to ten seconds each. They're off by about seven seconds. Big seven seconds I would say. They also say that the WTC towers and WTC 7 were the first three buildings to collapse because of fire. I just realized why we don't see them when they are telling their story. You can't possibly say that without a straight face. No buildings...in HISTORY...have collapsed because of fire? What now?

They use evidence, if you want to call it that, of a B-52 hitting the Empire State Building in 1945 and amazingly, the Empire State Building still rises above buildings in New York. It's either a miracle or shows that planes didn't bring down the WTC, right? They don't even state in their narration that the building was open the next day. Little nugget of trivia.

First, a B-52 didn't hit the Empire State Building. In fact, the B-52 would not fly for another seven years. Its maiden flight took place on April 15th, 1952. Why tax day? No clue. Now, a B-25 did hit the Empire State Building. A B-52 has eight engines and was designed for long bombing runs across the planet. A B-25 was a World War II 2-engine bomber that could barely bomb Germany and make it back to Franch bases. See the differences?

My favorite part of the entire trainwreck is when, as evidence that it couldn't possibly have been the airplanes, their fuel, and the collissions, we should listen to Willy Rodriguez. The janitor. That's your argument. The janitor?

You can't make this shit up.

This is just some of the interesting stuff the 9/11 conspiracy movement tries to bring up. There is plenty more. I just had to get some of this off my mind as I watch friends try to tell me how great Loose Change is. There are several problems with these theories.

One...George W. Bush was in office for about nine months when this event happened. If you've ever studied government, you know how long it takes to get something done, like increase your department by five. Even if they had all the plans before Bush took office, it would have taken a huge amount of manpower.

Second...how many people are involved here? Let's start with the pilots. You've got the ones on 9/11 and then, the ones who saw these airplanes, or at least claimed they did, while they were flying on 9/11. Then, you have all of the people who planted bombs in the World Trade Center. Let's say...we're up to 50 people, not including the high-up parties. Alright, we have, what, 225 or so on the four planes that are unaccountable for. If they're dead, well, that solves that. If they're alive, we include them in this conspiracy with their families. A good 750 people there and 800 overall. Then, you have all of the intelligence figures involved, politicians, etc. Between 500 and 1500, depending on how many Americans we killed to keep them quiet. Now, say, there is just 500 people involved. How in the hell do 500 people keep quiet about anything, let alone the juciest lie ever told? Answer that one, Dylan Avery.

Third...if these guys are so good, and you have to admit they are because I'm quite skeptical of nearly everything and I do not doubt the official story, they made a lot of amateur mistakes to allow this to occur. Why, for instance, would you not have plane wreckage everywhere near the Pentagon, at least more than was visible? Why, for instance, would you slam the second plane in the WTC tower at an odd angle after hitting the first one straight on? Why, for instance, would you develop this story of a plane crashing in Pennslyvania?

And finally, the fourth reason the 9/11 Conspiracy movement lacks any real teeth is that you have to suspend your complete understanding of the way this country works. This country could not cover up a blow job. You really think they can kill nearly 3,000 people without everyone knowing? Please.

Would have made a great movie, though.

Spreading the Word

2007-01-18T00:58:00.000-05:00

I have recently found myself in a few religious conversations/arguments/whateverthefuckyouwannacallit and I said something that I thought was clever, but maybe it wasn't, but hey it's my blog, so bwah. I hate sentence structure.

That wasn't the thing I said, but that is what I felt needed to be said despite the fact it was pretty clear from my previous paragraph/sentence.

I said, "...if man is God's messengers, man has done a pretty shitty job of getting the message out."

When I said it, we were discussing what God meant to people and the simple act of trying to help others reach God that so many believers partake in. I am inclined to mention all of this, not because of that discussion, but because of a news article that make it more clear of the job men has done to God's message.

Pastor found guilty of molestation

A local pastor was found guilty Thursday of molesting a teenage boy he was formerly tutoring.

The Rev. Kenneth Payne, 70, was charged with taking indecent liberties and sodomizing the 17-year-old.

Payne has preached at New Prospect Baptist Church in the Pleasant View area of Amherst County for the past 14 years.

To many, this is the same sort of story you have grown used to from religion. However, what does bother me is that I knew Rev. Payne for years. I never attended his church as a member, but I was a friend of the family, spent time at his house, and at the church. I never spoke with the man into lengths, but he knew me and I knew him. I was part of his daughter's second wedding.

Men has done a shitty job, it seems. I have always been skeptical of religion and of God. I'm not an athiest, but agnostic. I recognize the possibility of a higher power, but do not feel a need to know him/her/it, nor a need to become closer to the spiritual being.

I've grown up around religion, however, for my entire life. 45 minutes away is Liberty University and the home of Jerry Falwell, who once said that the Jews and gays were responsible for 9/11. Falwell does so much harm for Christians around the world. Here is a man who actively makes you want to not get closer to the religion. Here is a man who makes millions off hatred, fear-mongering, and lies. Jesus Christ was never morbidly obese. Take one look at Falwell, though.

It is bad enough that Falwell is who he is, but his students do their fair share. First, I have known a few Liberty kids who were excellent people so I don't want to paint with this brush too broadly. But there are two groups that interest me. The heavily self-righteous and the hypocrites. The first group can be found at the Mall or any place where they can come up to kids and pretend to be their friends, but then go at them with religion.

Now, this can be split, too. I met quite a few of these types at JMU, but the difference between them and the Liberty kids is the JMU ones knew exactly when not to go over the edge. They knew not to overextend their hand. Not interested in going to their church, cookout, concert, etc., they move on and thank you for your time. And not every Liberty kid who does this goes overboard. But many do.

And then, there is the hypocrites. The type that head across the street to Central Virginia Community College and look up porn because it's banned from their Liberty network. Funny. These great kids need to be kept from looking up porn? Guess they aren't angels.

Again, this is not to pain every Liberty student with the same brush, just painting many of them.

Back to Payne. His church, New Prospect, had several of my former friends as its members so I cannot say it was a terrible place. Again, I hung out there. However, there are certain things I cannot forget when it comes to that place. The Southern Baptists who attended the church had quite a few gossipers among them. The same thing that Paul said was a sin worthy of death. Oh, and there is a Commandment about the very same thing.

This brings us full circle. Why is God's messengers doing Him such a disservice? Everyone sins, I am told. It is what makes us human and weak. However, for a non-believer, watching these people makes it very hard to pay attention to the believers who live a just life worthy of being respected.

The more I see these people, the more I believe a better road is that which pushes you toward philosophy, specifically Plato. An unexamined life is not worth living. Seems to handle everything to me.

No Direction

2007-01-12T20:56:00.000-05:00

This movie came out a few years ago with Sandra Bullock called 28 Days. No rage-infected crazy people in this flick, but instead a woman dealing with her addictions to alcohol and drugs. In one scene in the movie, rehab men and women try to gain the trust of a horse to force the horse to raise his back leg. A horse will not do it just on command.

However, all of those involved could not get the horse to do it and never really attempted different ways at gaining the horse's trust. Sure, they would slightly change the way they pet the horse, but choosing to go in a different direction was not in the future for these people.

I bring this up because the owner of the horse cited the dictionary to explain these people. "Folks," he said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Or something like that. I cannot find his actual quote, but it was damn close. And on Wednesday, we saw someone scream out insanity at 9:00. Unfortunately, it was not some dumbass on American Idol or whatever shitty reality show the networks are shoving down the viewers' throats. No, it was the President of the United States when he looked to get the citizens to buy his new Iraq plan.

From what I heard, it seemed the "new" plan was the "old" plan with a shiny new code of polish. It reminds me of the Madden football series. None of the games are really that different. Most of the bugs go from one version to the next. However, every new version is tweaked slightly. It is definitely easier and safer.

The world asks for serious answers to serious questions, yet the President provided the old joke of an answer. Think of a fire. You throw a lot of wood on the fire, one of two things will happen. The fire will consume it or the fire will not have enough air to burn. I believe this is Bush's thoughts. Throw 20,000 more solders to the Iraq problem and maybe, he will end it. Why not 30,000? 50,000?

Bush, I love stats, too. We spend an estimated 6.4 billion a month on Iraq and have spent $355 billion so far. The winner of a Nobel Prize in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, has put the overall price tag at $1 trillion. And that is his conservative estimate. We have lost 22 Apache helicopters ($45-58 million a pop), 3 F-18 Hornets ($35 million), and 250 Humvees.

But here is the most troubling stat. 3,018 American soldiers have been killed as of January 9th. Over three-thousand of America's best will not be returning to their families and friends. We are approaching our fourth year since the war began. All of this comes despite great advancements in body armor and soldier placement that have been the death-to-casuality (or anyone who has been hit) to a much lower degree than Vietnam. That does not even get into the Iraqi body count which can not accurately been found, but estimated. A study in July found the number around 650,000. Yeah, the amount of zeros is correct.

The facts are pretty clear. The talking points are worthless. This war is unwinnable. Why? Because I'm not so sure what we're fighting for. Do we want Iraq to be democratic or do we want to stop terrorism because we cannot possibly have it both ways. Know what would work against terrorism? A heavy-handed dictator who puts down any terrorist violence. Shit, I think we let them kill that guy.

Everything bad that happens in Iraq will be blamed in the country on America whether we actually did it or not and I do not blame them for that. We have destroyed their villages, bombed their families, and Iraqi healthcare is worse now than it ever was under Saddam according to Joseph Chamie, former director of the U.N. Population Division and an Iraq specialist. They were amongst the top in medical care in 1990. Now, they are a third world country. Sally Struthers and that guy with the beard would be there if they were not afraid of catching a bomb with their heads. But no worries. Sooner or later, no one will be there to receive sub-standard health care as 100,000 Iraqis leave every month, mostly to Jordan and Syria.

And at the same time, we are increasing terrorism.

But the answer is more troops? Look up the definition of insanity, President. You might want to check yourself into a happy place.

From the school of..."huh?"

2007-01-08T11:39:00.000-05:00

I am sorting through my music to come up with a list that will cut down my total music in roughly a third of what I will actually listen to on a regular basis and came upon a song by a band called The Flys. I believe they were on the Disturbing Behavior movie soundtrack. If you want to see a sultry Katie Holmes, watch that flick. Also on that soundtrack was "Flagpole Sita," a great little one-hitter by Harvey Danger.

Anyway, I really got into "Got You (Where I Want You)" when the song came out. Makes me remember high school and all that jazz. But they had a little part that I never knew until now.

See, I have EvilLyrics, a plug-in that goes well with my winamp, and automatically searches for the lyrics to the song that is being played. Well, the part in question went like this.

Suffer, Suffer,
You know you get no rubber,
Gone with a pretty girl
Changing me like no other.

Suffer, Suffer,
You don’t get no rubber,
Would you like a minute to
Put that thing on your lover?

...really changes your outlook on a song.

File Organization

2007-01-07T22:15:00.000-05:00

I am not a neat person by nature. My room is typically a mess, the only time I make my bed is if I know for a fact someone will come over, and I am rather fine with a clutter of beer bottles and Dr. Pepper cans around my monitor. I am messy.

But when it comes to my computer and mp3s, I am fairly OCD about it. I hate when a file name for a band is slightly different. Example "Alice in Chains" vs. "Alice In Chains." Or "Beatles" vs. "The Beatles." It bothers me. For the longest time, I told myself to sit down and organize my mp3 collection. I put it off, put it off, put it off, until finally, this morning and today, I decided to get the things done I have wanted to do, but never felt the need. Like the one White Stripes song that was missing "The" (which is front of all of the other songs by said band). Or the fact when I picked up the Garden State CD, I did not organize the files by band name, but by the title of the soundtrack. So I had two Cary Brothers songs under that name, but one sitting off in God Knows Where, away from its brothers.

It was aggravating. So was the fact that I could not explain it, but I had, in my collection, three or four Avril Lavinge songs. I nearly castrated myself.

But I am better now. And as my winamp builds the media library back up after new folders for some bands, a split in my major music folder, and a crapload of new Beatles songs (thank you goes to Mother's CD collection), I am set for the future.

Now, if I can just organize that damn porn folder.

I mean...um...look, Adolf Hitler!

*poof*

Wikipedia love

2007-01-07T03:44:00.000-05:00

I was one of those kids who fell in love with reading about the same thing for a month or so. Whether it be the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Civil War, or whatever, I would take books from the library to satisfy my curiosity.

Never before I was given such an easy outlet to my mini-addiction. Wikipedia, created in 2001, is always there for me. If I want to read about serial killers, I can find an entire category. School shootings, the carrier program, Beatles singles, TV show information...it is all rather neat and tidy.

I'd love to know I'm not the only crazy bastard who does this. Let me know.

What Do Sports Mean To Me?

2007-01-06T23:42:00.000-05:00

In October 2005, the Atlanta Braves and Houston Astros met in Game Four of the National League Division Series. The Astros were up two-game-to-one in the best-of-five so the Braves needed a victory to force a fifth game and one more game in Atlanta. They failed to secure a lead and headed to extra innings; nine of them, to be exact. My heart felt like it could not handle it as the Braves failed to take advantage of runners they had been able to get on base. Ultimately, they lost on a Chris Burke 18th inning homerun, ending their season.

Flash back to February of 2002 and the greatest basketball game I have ever watched. Notre Dame headed to Georgetown for a Big East battle. What they got was a marathon quadruple overtime game that, at least at the time, was the highest scoring and longest game in Big East history before finally, the Irish pulled away when Matt Carroll scored seven of his 30 points in the final period as the Irish won 116-111.

Same school, different sport, and flashing back to a game more recently. In late September of 2006, the Fighting Irish headed to Spartan Stadium for a football game with Michigan State. What they got was a sure upset turned into an improbable comeback. The Irish, coming off a weak effort to Michigan, were looking to bounce back and look like national contenders again. Instead, they were down 17 at halftime and 16 at the end of the third quarter. What transpired in that fourth quarter was incredible. The Irish scored 19 in the final quarter, including the game-winning TD by cornerback Terrail Lambert's return off an interception. I was not capable of screaming out loud because I was the only one in the house awake, but I was definitely screaming out inside.

Why do I mention these things? Because two of those events are some of the happiest moments of my life and the other is one of the saddest. Add another sad event as the Dallas Cowboys lost to the Seattle Seahawks minutes ago on a mishandled snap on what would have been a chip shot field goal that would have put the Cowboys up with a minute or so remaining and a visit to the second round of the playoffs.

It was an easy play, done flawlessly a million times. Snap the ball, QB Tony Romo grabs the ball, puts it down, keeps it steady by holding the top of the ball with the tips of his fingers, and bam, the kicker pounds it through.

It was the last gasp of life by a Dallas Cowboys team full of more controversy than performance.

Right before the play, I stood in my living room (I could not sit at this moment) holding my shirt over my nose, almost afraid to watch. I would like to say I saw the events coming so that I sound smarter, but you can not see this happening. I was afraid Martin Grammatica, the kicker, would shank it. Or maybe the snap would be bad. Maybe the Seahawks would bring pressure up the middle and block it. Maybe the Cowboys hold and there is a 10 yard penalty. Maybe...

But it was the easiest part. Romo just had the ball slip out of his hands. He clamored to his feet and tried to run it in, but was stopped at the one and a half. Much like Jason Witten, who was stopped on the previous play setting up the fourth and inches and the need to kick a field goal.

I write this because I truly feel I failed or had been presented bad news on my personal life. Is it natural for sports to feel this way? Hell no. Sports shouldn't feel this way. I have no impact on it, but God help me, I am as depressed now as I was when I stopped seeing my last girlfriend. Sports are an escape from reality. After 9/11, it was sports that made me realize things could be okay again. It was Mike Piazza killing my team that gave New York hope. Sports give and give and ask so very little.

It's an addiction. I can't get enough of it.

And now, I wish I had never watched. I wish I could just remove ESPN and the like from my world.

But I won't. I'll be wondering who the Cowboys can get in the upcoming off season before you know it. For the moment, though, I hate football with a passion.

Um...been awhile

2007-01-05T00:13:00.000-05:00

Yeah, that is an understatement. Going to give it the old college try again. What the hell is the college try? If it's like my college tries, then you will see me get drunk and play Counter-Strike.

Note to self: update the computer so you can play more CS.

Either way, one of my goals this year is to update my blog more often. I'll talk about movies, music, politics, sports, whatever. Don't expect much personal stuff for I have a livejournal (that I never update) for that.

Gerald Ford was laid to rest recently and it made me start to think about Jimmy Carter, the man who beat him in 1976. Much like Ford, Carter's term in office is not looked back very fondly. Carter did not pardon a disgraced leader, but he did find himself in bad situations he could not get himself out of.

First, the terrorist incident in Iran. Well, this is not very fair. America had allowed the Shah into our country which basically took sides with the Iranian Revolution occurred. They took the 52 hostages and held them until 1980 when they were released in a very fishy set of circumstances. Carter failed at getting them back with force, but his freezing of Iranian money eventually led to the hostages being released. The fact that Iran eventually took the same deal Carter had put on the table for the hostages makes me believe they just did not want to release the hostages with Carter in office.

Of course, there is also the "October Surprise" conspiracy that Reagan and his people acted with Iran to keep the hostages in captivity until Reagan took over. I doubt this occurred, but do believe Iran wanted to play a power role and get Carter out of office.

The other event that always comes up when it comes to Carter is the Energy Crisis, or Oil Crisis, of 1979. There is some real beef here. Carter seemed to not be prepared to keep this event from happening, though there was much effort. And to give Carter justice, he proposed several deregulation efforts that were not all put into play until 1981, the year Reagan took office.

My biggest praise of Carter comes from how much he cares about people whether they be white, black, poor, rich, American, non-American...it does not matter to him and it is what separates him from every President I have ever really studied. He ended containment and pushed human rights to the forefront. Every President before and since is willing to look past human rights violations, but not Carter. I just love that about the man. The Carter Center has been focused at these exact things and name another President who has been out there for Habitat for Humanity.

Here's hoping people remember what the man actually did and not what he did/could not.

2005-02-23T15:48:00.000-05:00

It has been awhile since I last felt the need to write an article. The last discussed Armstrong Williams getting paid off by the Department of Education. As expected, not that big of a story, it’s over and done. Well, kids, here is another one for you.

News broke via the blogs (especially AmericaBlog) that a White House reporter from right-wing “news” site Talon News was not really all he said he was. Well, for one, a right-wing pundit asking simpleass questions of the right-wing administration…well, that’s not so bad. You come to expect it from the territory. His cushy questions and strong consideration of the Democrats play to the administration’s message and gives them a chance to take a moment and have their way with the media.

However, that, my friends, is not all. Apparently, he also was using an alias. “Jeff Gannon” is actually James Guckert. Okay, that also does not have that much pizzazz.

Oh, wait, there is more. Guckert owns or is part of several gay and gay prostitute websites, goes by the name “Bulldog,” and apparently, is 8+ inches cut. Well…wow.

Not about the penis size, though kudos, James. What bothers me, and what bothers most people out there, is that this kind of thing SHOULD have been on CNN, our “liberal” news. Or MSNBC. Hell, I know FOX wouldn’t say anything, but CBS should have. I’ve been told they are quite the liberal commies.

However, the story had to be broken by the blogs. Yes, ladies and gents, the blogs are the only ones who actually try to investigate the news. This is what the current climate has produced. Three 24 hour news networks, who would rather talk about the same thing than actually really report on the news, and there is nowhere else for those who want truth in this world to find it than on the internet.

It amazes me why anyone even watches TV news anymore. You are given a choice between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News. All three are owned by huge multi-national corporations. AOL Time/Warner has an incredible amount of media locked up (along with syndication rights to Sex and the City apparently) while MSNBC is owned ultimately by GE with connections to Microsoft. FOX News is of course headed by Rupert Murdoch, an Aussie right-winger who also owned the Dodgers at one point. By the way, CBS is owned by Viacom. The CEO of Viacom is Sumner Redstone and six weeks before the 2004 election, he endorsed George W. Bush on behalf of Viacom. Yet, whenever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or anyone on these forums I often visit start complaining about the media, CBS takes center stage.

So, this is the nature of the news? We are given nothing but corporate sponsored drivel or Murdoch’s ideology. Thank God for the bloggers, a new way of getting the news. Granted, it is not all great. Blogs generally have problems with sources, with credibility, and with fact checking. It is like the regular news, just a bit more problematic. But at least they are willing to report on things that need to be reported on.

I was told that the World Wide Web would get me closer to the Knowledge Store than ever before. No longer would I have to go to the library or read the newspaper or watch TV. I could find out literally anything with a search. I could wade through long articles with a Find tool. I could find formulas and research methods to help me.

I did not know, however, that I would need to rely on the “internets” for the real news. We have become a nation controlled by corporations. They’ve decided what we will hear, what we will find interesting, and what we will follow. We are now no longer independent of the news because the news is no longer independent of the government. For the longest time, it was like that, too, helped by Presidents cracking down on freedom (even Democrat Woodrow Wilson). It helped build a prestige of the great man who was the President. A better man. A Godly man. But the JFK assassination, struggle for civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and so on helped to tear down that image. We finally were able to see our government officials as they really were. Men and women doing a job and because we are hiring them, we damn sure should be able to check up on their job.

But as Bush and Co. reminds us about everything, 9/11 changed a lot. Not just that, but the 2000 election when the media became bubbling buffoons before our eyes. For nine months, George W. Bush was as useless as a Herbert Hoover. He did nothing, helped nothing, and made no decisions. His stem cell research decision in August of ’01 was that of a man without the backbone to actually take a stance. If you don’t understand that, look at the vast majority of current Democrats.

And then, 9/11. Suddenly, despite a good number of people wanting to ask the President how he could let something like 9/11 happened, the media became lapdogs. When Bush said Afghanistan, the media said when and sought the encyclopedia to learn a bit about our new enemies. When Bush said Iraq, even then, the media seemed to take a back seat, afraid of asking anything remotely close to a tough question. Instead, let’s go to war. It’ll be cool. We’ll shoot footage so close you can hear the children crying.

Even as Iraq began to turn, most in the media stayed in the background, willing to let the administration’s talking points dictate the news. I can’t hate on Talon News so much because they literally still do that. They got their cue from the way the “real” news was reporting.

Now…maybe, finally, the news can grow a set and actually do something about this administration than can get away with anything. But their lack of political courage brought on a need for the blog. We needed Atrios, Kos, AmericaBlog, and so forth. We needed them like the conservatives needed talk radio. So for once, the questions that liberals needed answered would finally get asked. Why were we lied to? Who’s next? And is there any real hope out there in this world?

Bush and Co. were stupid. They didn’t need to pay off the media or find the little homo for their White House reporting. The current media would have gladly done it for free.

Questions of Integrity

2005-01-08T00:52:00.000-05:00

Is there something fundamentally wrong with a Presidential administration paying for positive news coverage with taxpayers’ money? I think the answer is pretty clear, but maybe that is just because I am a liberal and the Presidential administration in question is the Bush administration.

The Bush administration had struggled to really get their platform across to black voters and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy was a potential problem for them. I understand the desire to show voters why your plan is better than the opposition, but what boils down to actual media propaganda is From the USA Today, the Bush administration paid Armstrong Williams, a strong black pundit, $240,000 “to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts.” He was also required to interview Education Secretary, Rod Paige, for TV and radio spots. In addition, he persuaded other black media members, including Steve Harvey, to promote the NCLB and, in Harvey’s case, have Paige on his show. Twice.

Boring Education Secretary jokes aside, I am struggling very hard to find where this is okay. First, it is obviously some of the worst propaganda possible. When you consider the fact that government is basically paying for its own news coverage - that is grounds to really question the integrity of the administration. Last year, they used tax payer’s money to make reports that looked like actual news reports in which their Medicare prescription drug reform was made to look like a great thing. The General Accountability Office referred to that incident as illegal use of taxpayer’s dollars. Now, this event, which also includes similar TV spots the GAO was against, and I am curious how anyone can defend this administration.

Armstrong Williams said that while he could see how some would call this unethical, he really felt like the NCLB was the right program for the country. Well, fine. Several conservative pundits believe that. But most aren’t prostituting themselves out to the government for money. At least, that is the hope. Again, how can this administration be defended?

But people will because it’s their guy. Instead of coming down on him, the comments will be, “Well, this Democrat did this.” And in the end, Bush has a very real chance to escape without as much as a hit in the favorability by most conservatives.

To his credit, Williams now says that he would not have done this again and criticism is “legitimate.”

This truly is a bad precedent. Imagine if Bill Clinton HAD done this. Pick a liberal commentator…say, Keith Olbermann…and had Clinton paid him a quarter of a million dollars to make Clinton’s controversial agenda on health care seem like the greatest thing. Maybe even make fake TV news ads where it’s not clear that it is fake TV news. With taxpayer money, no less. He would have been crucified. Wait, what’s worse than that because he was already crucified during his term?

It worries me. Greatly, even. Last year, the Medicare TV ads were almost swept under the rug and did not make it as a big news story. Now, this. Two propaganda-laced events like those do more than just call into question the integrity of the whole administration. It makes you wonder how deep this is. Optimistically, you hope these are isolated incidents because Bush _has_ been in office for four years now. If there are more problems like this out there…well, this could lead to some extreme times for Bush. Not that he will be impeached, but his approval rating has dropped to 49%. Not only would that fall, but it would be hard to see the Bush agenda passing easily, even WITH a Republican dominated Congress because Bush would be viewed as a sinking ship and Congressmen and women are also looking at re-election. Getting dragged down with Bush would not be the best of ideas.

But maybe this news story won’t stay in the circulation for long either. After all, the liberal media just isn’t much for what could be even illegal acts done by a Republican President.

Sorry...

2004-12-04T12:24:00.000-05:00

I do this thing where I made a site...and soon after, don't update for awhile if ever again.

----

I know it's not very political, but Barry Bonds admits to using sterioids. But...he didn't know they were steroids. He just applied cream and injested stuff cause his trainer told him to do it. This is absolutely retarded. When you're at a party, you're not supposed to take drinks people just hand to you. When you do and you get drugged, you're retarded for not knowing where the drink came from. Likewise, in Bonds's case, you should know what you're taking, especially when you have denied steroid use because you have a newfound care for your body and that's what has made you a better player.

In all honesty, I doubt very seriously he DIDN'T know they were steroids. And he should get the book thrown at him.

----

Did you know that Congo and Rwanda might be fighting right now? Well, it's true. But here's the reason. Rwanda is hunting down Hutu rebels, the ones who took part in the genocide in 1994.

I mention this because I come off as a huge Clinton supporter. And...I am. If they would change the Constitution to let him run again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. In fact, I agree with Bill Maher that if we pass an amendment to allow foreigners to run for President (currently being discussed with 20 years as a US citizen being needed to run), we should also pass an amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which put the term limit at two.

But...one of the things I have been strongly critical of Clinton of is his handling of Rwanda. Even Clinton himself, during a 12 day tour through Africa in 1998, made a point to admit the pass wrongs that the US has been part of. "It is well not to dwell too much on the past, but I think it is worth pointing out that the United States has not always done the right thing by Africa." Indeed, President. He also spoke against the Cold War strategy of supporting anti-Soviet dictatorships.

His failure to act militarily in Rwanda to stop the mass genocide is one thing I can never look past, though. Genocide is an act of madness and should always be fought against, no matter who is President. Hence why I grow more and more angry with the Bush administration as Sudan continues down that road.

In my Marx class, we talked about Hitler and Stalin from time-to-time, especially the latter. Stalin's killing was, with the exception of the Republic of Georgia, more his own paranoia and his desire to squash even minimal dissent. Hitler's killing of the Jews is a little different. And FDR and Churchill and so forth could be considered failures for how long it took to get to the concentration camps.

How can we still not learn from all of this senseless killing?

By the way, if Rwanda soldiers have crossed the border into Congo afte these rebels, Congo has declared that to be an act of war.

Africa...blowing up as we speak. Sally Struthers isn't going to be able to do much here.

----

Speaking of Clinton problems and Africa, Somalia remains one of the saddest places in the world. Remember Black Hawk Down? Yeah, good movie. Josh Hartnett and Orlando Bloom and all those other guys who make the front cover of some teen magazine...yeah, that was actually a real story. But, really, forgotten because it's not that interesting is we pulled out of Somalia soon after. Clinton bowed to Washington pressure and pulled out the soldiers. The same Republicans strongly in support of going into Iraq were questioning why we were in Somalia. Hmm....funny.

Well, anyway, Somalia is still a pretty fucked up place if you haven't been watching the news. Actually, had you been watching the news, you wouldn't know either. At cnn.com, the story is not front page material. Fox News can't even find Somalia on the map. And MSNBC is too busy not wanting to appear too liberal or too conservative.

But people are still dying, either by starvation or violence. The U.N. JUST went in there on a high-level visit. The last ten years, there have been zero high-level visits. Because of Sudan, it appears Somalia is ignored. Somaliland, an unrecognized country, houses 500,000 refugees, mostly in small huts with little resources. The President of Somaliland complains about being forgotten by the world.

He has a point. I'm sure some people saw Black Hawk Down and spent a few hours googling history on the event. But it's 2004...almost 2005. There are quite a few other things to question here.

Somalia itself has a new government, but the people of Somaliland do not support it and will not join with the country its refugees have come from.

Seriously, any help in Africa...would be nice. But what can I expect from an administration that, in one of their first acts, declared that birth control and condoms would not go to African countries that legalized abortions. They have since went against that. I guess that's a good flip flop.

----

We are spending $100 million more on abstinence programs than we did before. That's actually a $100 million less than Bush wanted. But...why? What does abstinence training really get us? Telling teenagers not to have sex is about as useless as me telling a Christian evolution is more sensible. It's pretty hilarious...Wade Horn, assistant secretary of HHS, said...and I most definitely quote..."We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease." Ya know what...on the STD part, he's wrong. You don't need to be having sex to get a STD. That's pretty sad that he doesn't know that.

Even more pressing is...uh...pregnancy rates have beend declining. On the flipside, STD rates among young people 15-24 is about half of all new STDs in the US. What does this mean?

Does it, as Horn suggest, mean we need more money to teach kids that are having sex that they shouldn't have sex?

If you believe this, you really don't have much of a grasp of reality.

Or does it mean we need to teach them that simply having a condom won't excuse them from disease. It helps. It's needed. No doubt. But condoms can only prevent so much. Oral sex, for example, has consequences. It's possible to contract an STD and still be a virgin. Not a lot of people are aware of the consequences. After hep and AIDS, all the other STD's are forgotten for most people. So teaching them how to prevent all STD's might be a better idea than the outdated belief that if you don't talk about it or know about it, they aren't having sex. We had a thing in the 60's called a Sexual Revolution. You can't go backwards. Just not going to work.

Horn says abstinence education is "something that parents and children want." Besides the fact that it's arguible if he's right, his use of the word "children" gets at a problem. The "children" aren't the ones you have to worry about. It's the young adults, suddenly getting used to their new bodies and ready to explore...they are the ones you gotta worry about. And pretending they won't be getting down is just not logical. We're a society that watches Sex and the City and Real World, while listening to music that at times might make Madonna blush. Am I really supposed to believe abstinence-only programs will be helpful?

I don't oppose saying the most protective way to avoid disease and pregnancy is to be abstinent. But to believe that teaching that as the main focus of sexual education...well, it screams of stupidity. And if there's one thing I'm not used to hearing from the Bush administration is something stupid.

A few more things...

2004-11-10T12:41:00.000-05:00

John Ashcroft resigned. I was strongly against him in 2000 and this is almost a win. Four years too late. What's Ashcroft's legacy? Is it the Patriot Act? The new airline restrictions? No. It's that he was the guy who wanted a piece of cloth to be placed over the nude justice statue. That's what I will always remember from the neoconservative who was beat by a dead guy for Senator in 2000.

The person who might replace him...Alberto Gonzales, who would become the first Hispanic to be Attorney General. Do I like him? Well....

On one hand, I doubt Bush will make him Attorney General if he has plans on making him a Supreme Court candidate, which has been discussed.

Gonzales, who currently serves as First Counsel, is a Bush favorite. He was the guy who wrote a memo to Bush and after Karl Rove read it to Bush, the basic understanding was clear. The Geniva Convention rules on prisoners should not apply to all Taliban and al-queda members. Do I find a lot of fault with this? Not really. But just the same, while it does not apply to all of them, it's not like we should have free reign to do whatever we want, including disrobing them and taking pictures. For fun!

What I really don't like from this memo is that he admits to problems like "widespread condemnation among our allies." Yeah, that's bad. And going against the U.S. military culture that demands the highest standards of conduct. At the same time, he likes the option of "flexibility." Hmmm...

For the record, Gonzales's former law firm had a big client that could have used him during Bush's administration. Enron.

When you actually think about it, Gonzales's actions are partly responsible for the worldwide resentment we felt despite a supported invasion of Afghanistan. When we started sending all of our P.O.W.'s to Guantanamo Bay, we looked like asses, not caring about the rules we call others to support. Granted, technically, and legally, there is some grounds. At the same time, this is an administration that ripped Kerry for his complex views on Iraq and the economy. For the record, Kerry wasn't a flip flopper. He was just really complex. Gonzales would understand.

This is rather upsetting. But if Ashcroft gained 58 votes in 2000 (which is a narrow win for White House cabinet positions), Gonzales will surely gain the votes needed and the Dems are unlikely to fillibuster. Sad. Just sad.

Don't Blame Us

2004-11-10T12:34:00.000-05:00

Young adults voted 54% for John Kerry compared to 44% for George W. Bush. Yet, it's us who have to deal with his legacy the longest.

A few political notes

2004-11-09T12:23:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean, Mr. Yell, is considering running for DNC Chairman, a move that would eliminate him for the 2008 race. I mention the last part because obviously, there is consideration for him running for the Presidential ticket under the Democratic Party in 2008. One, tis a bad idea. We've tried liberals from the Northeast. Two, if there is some actual consideration, is Dean's new show on CNBC (?) really that much of noticable effect on helping his perception after the primaries?

Second, in Washington, Senator Lincoln Chafee has decided to stay with the Republicans. This was a secret weapon the Dems might have gained in the wake of a Kerry defeat. Chafee said, and get this, Bush is taking the party too far to the right. The compassionate conservative? No...

John McCain is talking about reforming the Federal Election Commission in the wake of independant organizations like Swift Boat Vets for Truth and Moveon.org and how they tried to impact the 2004 election. I love McCain. The Repubs would never let him run, but he'd win in a landslide. Who's going to be that Dem that criticizes McCain? I doubt it will be a winner for the Dems.

Finally, the notion is that the Dems are not in touch with traditonal family values. It really isn't that. The truth is...a lot of Dems just don't share them as traditional family values. A lot of Dems have different ideas of what is a traditional family value. Like open-mindness, for one. I would hope my kids, if I have ever them, would be open-minded. I don't think they should fear or hate gay people or people who don't look just like them. But ya know...I'm just a liberal. With my own morals.

First time...

2004-11-09T11:36:00.000-05:00

Um, yeah, this is my new blog. It'll be pretty much strictly political. Yeah. So...when that need to make a political post comes, be ready. And stuff.