When Not To Be a Smart Aleck

At church? At school? With a loved one's family? With a pastor? With the president? With strangers? I must say, in all of these scenarios, I have laid down smart aleck remarks, and for the most part, received praise and laughter. Okay, so I haven't done so with the president, but it sounds like fun to me, especially with our current one. He'd be looking around, with a confused grin on his face, wondering what I meant with a particular statement and wanting to ask his father for the answer. For the most part, teachers have enjoyed it. I even laid a couple down with the most serious teacher I've ever had in my life and she got a kick out of them. One pastor I was smart aleck with took it all in stride, laughed, and laid one on me. That was a fun experience. Another pastor laughed, but posed that Bush-esque face I imagine after the president would hear a smart aleck line. So, did he understand what had been said? I can't say with great certainty that he did, but he laughed. So, I usually don't shy away from sarcasm, regardless of who I'm with or where I'm at. It tends to lighten the mood a bit.

But, I have now discovered the time when it is not the brightest idea to be a wise crack. When is this time? When you're with a person (guy or gal- yes, males go through this too) who is going through that time in a very heavy and harsh manner. You know the time. "That time of the month" it's so eloquently phrased. A couple nights ago, I was playing cards with my mom and talking to a friend on the phone. Someone mentioned the word "hands," and I came back with "I've got big hands and you know what that means?" My mom responded with, "Yeah, big gloves." Right after she said this, my friend on the phone asked, "Big butt?" My smart aleck alarm went off and I said, "Wow, yeah, that's the first time I've heard it used like that. Big hands = big gloves. That's quite an interesting glove, I must say. For the victory in the spelling bee tournament, spell gloves. Gloves. B-U-T-T. Gloves. I'm sorry ma'am, but that's incorrect." My mom and I giggled, but my friend, who typically would take such comments in stride and lay a remark back at me, seemed very hurt and threatened to hang up. I found out two days later why this was. She admitted that it was "That time of the month" and it was harsher than usual this time. So, I kindly asked her to forewarn me if she was having an extra-sensitive day, so I knew not to be sarcastic. She agreed, but we'll see how well that works. That goes for everyone out there. If you're in an extra-sensitive mood and comments or wise cracks are going to bother you that typically wouldn't, please forewarn those around you, so they don't say anything to touch on those sensitivities. We'd really appreciate it.

Which brings me to an idea I've had for a while. If and when I ever get married, which is unlikely, I'm going to set up a "period room" for my wife. This room is set and decorated all for her while she goes through "That time" on a monthly basis. She can have all she wants: Chocolates, romantic comedies, Heath Ledger photographs, sappy music, romance novels, and whenever she needs me to do something, she'll have a buzzer or alarm of some kind to let me know that my service is requested. That way, she can have everything she wants, be happy (hopefully), and we can prevent ourselves from getting into unnecessary spats. I'll just have to make sure to keep a close eye on the calendar, so that I know she doesn't go overboard and stay in the room for too long. Having a room to herself with everything she wants and having me as a servant for a week would probably be heaven to her. I'll just have to make sure I keep a close eye on things, so I'm not going overtime with my duties.

Sympathy Blogs

Ever know two people who have a continuous argument with one another through blogs? Most likely, these two people are in a relationship or just getting out of one. The male will write his version of the story on his blog, as the female will do on her's. Then, they will read the other's blog and respond with a blog of their own. The drama can be a bit interesting and even amusing at times, but what's the point? Wouldn't it be better for the two people to actually talk things out? To speak to one another about the issues they raise in their blogs, as opposed to doing just that, and blogging about them? Are they written to gain sympathy from their readers? Is it cathartic? What if a reader takes the time to read both the male and female's blogs? Then, that person may be a bit confused on certain parts and may want to actually talk to the two people involved and ask them questions. But, what would that even do? Talk to the guy, he'll probably give his take on it and he's the innocent party. Talk to the gal, and she'll probably do likewise.

This is why I don't go into my personal life with these blogs. Why share all that and then, in the end, the relationship will probably not work out, so then what? Does the guy or the gal shut their blog down so the other can't read it anymore? Or shut it down, because they feel no motivation to blog anymore? Or, do they set a blog up on another site and not inform the other, so they can still blog, but the other can't read it? But, what if only one of the two parties does this? Is that fair? One party can still write their own happy little blog and read the other's, but that other party can write theirs, knowing the other can still read it, yet, can't read the other's blog. Is that a new rule of break-ups? Step 3 is to shut down your blog so the other party who was involved can't read it anymore?

What if the couple breaks-up and are discussing what step they should take next, and one party says they can't talk anymore, can't read their blogs anymore, can't have any contact whatsoever for, oh, let's say two to four weeks. But, here's the catch, after the two to four weeks are done, they'll send the other party their new blog site address, so they can read and catch up on the blogs they'd written in that timespan, and through that, find out how much they truly care about that other person. Wow, now, isn't that a thought? Let's see here, I couldn't show or tell you how much I cared for you recently or now. I won't even let you read my blogs anymore, so I shut down the one site and moved over to another. But, I will be so kind to let you read these blogs of mine in two to four weeks just so you know how much I care about you. Isn't that special? No, not exactly.

Maybe it's the latest thing to go around in the dating and love world. No longer are flowers, chocolates, poems, candlelight dinners, picnics, and spending quality time with a person considered romantic and worthwhile ways to show a person how much you care about them. In the future, it'll go like this. Keep in mind, the two characters depicted in this dialogue have been together for seven years.

Debra: "Hey honey, how are you today? I have a surprise for you later on! You're going to love it!"
Red: "I'm doing just fantastic. Oh, you have a surprise for me do you? I can't wait! I love surprises. So long as we're on the subject, I have a surprise for you as well, my sweet DebM1429763."
Debra: "Really? Really? Okay, I can't take it anymore. What's your surprise? You know how I can't handle not knowing!"
Red: "Allright, well, I'm writing you a special blog honey. You're going to love it!"
Debra: "No way! You're kidding me! That's my surprise for you! Gosh, you know what they say about great minds!"
Red: "Yes I do sweetie. I can't wait to read it! Well, I'm off to work. Have a great day and check on your blog in a few hours. It should be up by then!"

And they lived happily ever after. Awww, wasn't that sweet. I bumped into a genie last night and for my first wish, I wished to start a very special relationship in the not-too-distant future where my girlfriend and I would speak to each other through blogs. We'll see if the genie was genuine or a fake. A guy can dream, can't he?

A Quarter of a Century

That's right, in less than two days, I will be turning 25. Which brings me to my question, why's it such a big deal? When I turned 24 last year, nothing was said then. It's not like I received birthday cards saying, "Just one more year and you'll be a quarter of a century old." It's not as if on my 21st birthday, people were buying me shots and saying, "Enjoy it while it lasts Craig. In just four years, you'll be hitting that big number and turning a quarter of a century old." No, that didn't happen.

It sounds so old when they say that, just the mere mention of the word "century" has that effect. When someone says the number 25 by itself, then, big deal, right? But, a quarter of a century? Dang! That's old! Perhaps family just waits for this day, because after someone turns 21, there's really a four year gap until anything even semi-interesting happens. What happens when one turns 22, 23, and 24? Not much. But, 25? Oh, now we can have some fun! Quarter of a century! ha ha ha!

The really funny part is the fact that most people who tell me this are over half a century old. So, whenever I think about that, I just turn around, smile, and laugh. Yeah, I'm 25 now. I'd need to double my age and add a few years to equal where they're at. When I put things into perspective like that, I still feel young and that "century" phrase doesn't do anything to me. I'm just contemplating if I should use those comebacks against them on my birthday or not. It may depend on how frequently they use it. If they say the phrase once or twice, then it's no big deal. But if they say it continuously throughout the day and the evening, then I may have to come back with a line of my own.

My Daily Dose of Religion

Why is it that everyone seems to have the answer and they claim that no one else does? Christians claim the answers reside in the Bible. Muslims claim the answers reside in the Koran. Mormons say the answers reside in the Book of Mormon. Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith. Follow one of their paths and you will see the lights of heaven shine down on you, but if you choose the wrong path to follow, then, you'll be condemned for all eternity! I just listed four paths. Who knows how many others there are. So, what, we have a 1 in a countless numbered chance of being right on the path we follow? Is it basically a lottery? Luckily, I'm from Nebraska, and some guys from Lincoln just won the $365 million jackpot, so, maybe we're lucky here. But, that was a 1 in a countless numbered chance too, so maybe that was our one moment in the sun and we'll be SOL the rest of the way. Hmm, maybe I should move.

If I live in the western world, am not Christian, and do not follow the path of Jesus, then bam! I'm zapped by the evil curse of the Devil and condemned for eternity. If I live in the Middle East, the same can be said about me if I was not Muslim. If I wasn't Hindu or Buddhist in other parts of Asia, the same could be said. This seems just a bit bizarre to me. I mean, I was born in the United States and the majority here follow the Christian faith and many claim it is the one, true, and only way. What if we had been born in India? Or Iraq? Do you honestly think we'd still be Christian? I highly doubt it. So, does our eternal fate solely depend on where we were born from a geographical standpoint? For some reason, I find this very hard to believe. Born in the western world, oh yeah, I'm saved. Born elsewhere, I'm condemned forever! Uh huh.

It feels like a childish argument in order to show one's macho side, well their attempt to anyway. Remember when you were a child and you got into those little arguments with friends or foes that went something like this?
"My dad could beat your dad up!"
"Nuh-uh! My dad is stronger than your dad!"
or
"My house is taller than your house!"
"No way! I've seen your house and mine is way bigger!"
"I didn't say bigger! I said taller!"
"Whatever. It doesn't matter what you said! My house is bigger and taller!"

It sounds like two guys comparing their you know whats. So yeah, my God is better than your God. Or my God's prophet is better than your God's prophet. Does this ever end? Can't we ever grow up? If history repeats itself in this area, as it so often has, then the answer to that question would be a resounding no, because then one part of the world will start insulting the other's faith and we start a war over it. Isn't that special. That feels like a 6-year old starting a world war over the argument on whose father was stronger or whose house was larger. Give me a break.

I bring this all up because I heard someone today tell me a story after she got back from church. She brought up this story about Catholics and basically claimed that Catholics are not Christian. I was going to ask many questions and thought about getting into a debate, but if there's one thing I won't talk to this woman about, it's religion. Like I wrote about a few days ago, religion makes some go blind and this is another example of that. Why is it that one's church always does it the right way and some other church or denomination is a cult or going against what that religion truly stands for? Why is that? I'll tell you why there are so many different denominations, the fact that scriptures can be interpreted countless numbers of ways, so not everyone is going to agree with one another in regards to what the messages were. Some churches are nothing but cults anymore. They just speak poorly of other cults and say, "Hey, if you know anyone that go to cults #1, 2, or 3, then bring them on over to our cult!" It drives me crazy! Can't we all just tolerate one another's beliefs and get along? I know that's way too much to ask, because we're the ones that are always right on this sort of thing!

Look at the similarities in major religions. If one follows the path of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or whoever, they're likely to follow similar paths. These religions have very similar bases and foundations: Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery, respect elders and children, basically, be a good and moral person. It's not like Christianity says not to kill and another major religion says, "Yes, kill them all!" No, sorry, it's not like that. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, amongst other religions, basically state to be a good and moral person. They all believe in a God. Yes, in the Koran, he/she/it's referred to as "Allah," but Allah is just Arabic for God. Look at the prophet names. Mohammed in the Middle East. Jesus in Judaism and then Christianity. Buddha in Buddhism. Any of them really surprising? It's not like the name Mohammed would be studied and followed over in Hindu and Buddhist country, while Buddha was studied and followed in English-speaking country.

The only question I have regarding names is the name Joseph Smith. Couldn't they have come up with something better than Joe Smith? Smith is one of the most common last names in this country and Joe is probably one of the more common first names for males in this country. It'd be like Bob Johnson or Bill Jones. Another question I have in regards to names are the terms "God" and "Devil." How lame is that? Add one more "o" to God and you have good, so that makes for a perfect phrase, such as, "God is so good." Wow, that was easy! Then, with Devil, the word evil resides in that word, so, "The Devil is evil." Wow, isn't that clever? I mean, why isn't "God's" name something funky like Xerxes Benjamin Velveeta? And the Devil's name is something like Mickey Rafael Empire? Why is it just "God" and "Devil?" Sounds like a brainwashing technique to me and a way to make easy money through sayings, advertisements, and marketing.

So, to all those out there, wherever you may place on a religious spectrum, is there any possible way we could stop finger pointing and comparing our father's strength or house size to others'? As long as another's beliefs aren't hurting themselves or others in any way, can't we try to at least tolerate those beliefs, if not, accept them? The person today who said that Catholics weren't Christian, I don't think she's ever stepped foot in a Catholic church. She just goes by what her "cult" tells her. So, please, can't we open our minds for once, and perhaps, get along? Just for me? Thank you very much. As Springer used to say, "Take care of yourselves and each other."

"It was like...Oh my gosh!"

Just a few nights ago, my folks and I went out to eat. The meal was going well, until the very end. As we were waiting for dessert, these two young ladies sat down in the booth next to ours. They were around 20-21 years old, I think.

The lady who was facing away from our booth hardly muttered a word. I almost felt bad for the girl. The gal facing toward our booth couldn't shut her mouth. That wasn't even the annoying part. The part that really aggravated me was what she said. Ever hear of the "Valley Girl?" She was this "Valley Girl" times about twenty-three. Every other word that came out of her mouth was "like."

"And like, oh my gosh, there was like this guy and like I like totally thought like he like liked me and like, he totally came onto me that night and like we like exchanged phone numbers and like we're I think like going to like go out tomorrow night or something like that." Oh, let me count the "likes." Fourteen right there and that would've been said in about a minute. We had to listen to her talk like this for approximately ten minutes. It seemed like an eternity. After only a couple minutes, my dad jokingly said, "Okay, and that makes thirty-one," tallying the number of times she said "like."

The scary part was the fact that she ordered wine, said she was a senior in college, so that'd make her what, 21 probably? So, she's probably already taken a public speaking or speech course. I can only imagine how much cringing took place during her speeches. The words "umm," "uhh," and "like" are the three words said not to be used. They're called space fillers and for some reason or another, some feel that as long as they keep their mouths moving, they'll sound more intelligent. Sometimes, that old saying "less is more" rings true. It's sad that she had already taken public speaking courses and still speaks like that.

Why do some people talk like that? Do they think that the other gender finds it attractive? Do females feel that guys dig the ditsy valley girl routine? Do males feel they'll be better able to communicate with the gals who put on the valley girl routine if they do it themselves? I don't get it, I tell you. I'm not going to try and figure it out, either, because listening to one minute of that routine gives me a headache.

Religion Makes Some Go Blind

Ever know a person who would openly discuss things with you, regardless of the topic, but if and when you got to the topic of religion, that all changed?

I know some people like this and just heard a story from a friend of mine last night that illustrates it. She, we'll call her Lucy, was raised Catholic and he, Adam, is Jewish. All throughout the relationship, Adam said he had to marry a Jewish woman. Lucy, because she cared about him so much, showed an interest and was willing to convert. All throughout the relationship, Adam made it known that he was the ever omniscient one when it came to the topic of religion. He read in one book that a person felt Catholics believed that Jesus was God, so he told Lucy about this and Lucy came back with, "No, we believe he's the son of God." Adam argued and said, "You should do some reading and studying on your own religion before you come talk to me about it." There it was, a conversation closer, because he didn't know how to respond. So, throughout the nine months they were together, he questioned the Christian faith. Lucy was open to the questioning and attempted to answer whatever questions Adam had. But, in recent days, Lucy questioned Judaism and in turn, Adam called her an "anti-Semite"! He believed that by solely questioning the religion, you were being disrespectful towards it.

I kind of laughed when I heard this, because Mr. Adam writes a column in a school paper and consistently questions the U.S. Government and their decision-making. I joked with Lucy about this and said, "Oh, so since he questions the government, that means he's being disrespectful and is Anti-American, right?" Same kind of logic, different topics, and completely different results.

It sounds to me like Mr. Adam just wanted a yes man, or woman in this case. He just wanted someone to nod and smile as he ranted about all other religions, and yet, couldn't take any questioning about his own.

But, what is the harm in questioning? Doesn't one need to question in order to learn and come to a concise conclusion about something? Without questioning, we'd all be a bunch of brainwashed robots, unable to think for ourselves. Just press a button and off we go to obey the every command with no second thoughts.

I like to go by the transitive inference philosophy when it comes to religion. Organized religion was created by man. Man is imperfect. Therefore, organized religion is imperfect. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. So, since human beings are not perfect and we can question them constantly, what's the harm in questioning religion? Who knows, if we question enough to our liking and we still believe what we thought we believed in the first place, our faith should be much greater than it was initially, when it was blind.

What is "normal"?

An individual I spoke to tonight claimed that we always need a textbook definition of the word "normal," so that we know how weird we or other individuals are. But, what exactly is that definition? Is there one? Well, according to Webster, there are eight definitions:

1. Perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency.
2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.
3. Occurring naturally.
4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.
5. Having concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter; containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen; not associated; having a straight-chain structure.
6. Having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element.
7. Relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution.
8. Having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix.

I'm going to concentrate on definitions 2 and 4:

2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.

and

4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.

Allright, so, conforming to norms that society imposes upon its citizens is basically what definition number two is stating. Okay, so, does every culture and civilization have their own definition of "normal?" Since they all have different norms? Or, is it a timeless universal phenomenon? If we still walked around like cavemen, then I could say it was timeless, but I don't know too many folk that do unless it's on Halloween. And even then, they are few and far between. Is it universal? Are all countries and their people the same? Believe the same? Think the same? No, okay, so it's not universal.

But, aren't norms constantly changing? How long ago was it "normal" to ask another, "Hey Buck, are you feeling gay today?" and when saying that, meant, "Are you feeling happy?" If you asked that today, it'd take on a completely different meaning and reaction from Buck. Clothing trends change by the day it seems. The norms in sports and in the entertainment world are ever-changing. So, what is normal? Is there such a thing? Do we base it upon a real-life person or a fictional character? If it's based on a real-life person, why did we pick he or she? And, since he or she has a unique gene make-up they can call their own, no one will be identical to them, so they will be the only "normal" specimen in the world. If we base it off a fictional character, then the only "normal" person to exist won't truly exist at all. They'll just be a myth or a parable story for bosses and managers to tell their workers and players. So, why do we even have the word "normal," since, at the very most, one person in this world is, in fact, "normal"?

Is it to make the so-called outsiders feel awkward, and make them feel more at one by conforming to these ever-changing norms? Is it to take away from an individual's talents, gifts, and beauties and mold them into who the leaders and authorities want them to be? Is it to be used as a label, so that people who consider themselves "normal" have others to point at and laugh about to make themselves feel more secure? Is it to be used as a way to make individuals feel insecure about themselves, some to the point of needing anti-depressants or other medications? Yes, there is a textbook definition, but there are eight of them, perhaps more. These definitions are vague, not telling a whole lot. Who is "normal?" Maybe gumby, Mickey Mouse, or Mario, but no real-life person, and we should all be proud of that. What would be fun about being "normal" anyway? Everyone walking the same way, talking the same way, using the same jokes, writing the same blogs, looking the same... It makes me yawn just thinking about it. Every individual is different, so we all have our different viewpoints of what's normal and what is not. Who's some fictional character to tell us what's normal? We can decide that for ourselves through our own experiences, thank you.

As for definition number four, define "mental disorder" for me. There are how many illnesses and disorders out there? Nobody is perfect, so again, nobody is "normal." I don't care what the definition(s) is (are). The "average intelligence" differs for different people (everybody) and what exact "intelligence" are we talking about when we just say "average intelligence?" Science? Math? Reading/Comprehension? Vocabulary? History? Music? Literature? Geography? Street smarts? Book smarts? The textbook definition doesn't say. It just says "average intelligence" and "free from mental disorder." Well, I'm proud to say I have my own set of norms, have well-above "average intelligence," and have epilepsy. So, there you go, I'm way out there according to the textbook definitions and you know what? That's allright with me.

Battle Over Gay Couples' Adoption Rights

I just read an article that there are sixteen states battling over gay couples' adoption rights. A conservative group in Ohio said something along the lines of, "Now that we have defined marriage, we need to make sure that children grow up in these environments."

Eleven states banned gay marriage in the '04 election year. It's amazing what outlandish things some conservatives will say regarding gays. They'll go down the slippery slope of informal fallacies and say things such as, "What's next? After gays marry, pets will be next!" Come on, do they really believe that? Give me a break.

So, I'm going to head down a slippery slope of my own that some conservative groups are taking gays down. Allright, so no marriage. No adoption rights. What's next? No rights whatsoever? Up next, gays can't go to college? Can't have health insurance? Can't make more than $50,000 a year?

How can we define marriage and define family? Especially family? All families differ. Some groups will say that growing up with gay parents will create for a gay child. Well, sorry to disappoint those of you who agree with this statement, but studies have already been done to check the accuracy of such statements and they're false. What, do people thing heterosexual parents only raise heterosexuals? All the gays I know grew up in that "perfect" family that some conservative groups see as the only family- one man and one woman.

There are so many kids who need to be adopted and have a family. Single parents have made a family work. Women who couldn't conceive have done likewise. Divorced parents and couples have done similar things. Why not gay couples? What about that "perfect" family, with one man, one woman, the white picket fence, and...oh yeah, abuse! There are some individuals or couples in this so-called "perfect" family that don't deserve to be parents and there are other people out there, who may live a "different" lifestyle than the majority, who deserve an opportunity to raise these children.

Good news from what I saw in the poll results, though. After 12,000 votes were in, 70% said that they were in favor of gay couples adopting children and 64% said that the issue would be a major reason for them to head to the polls on election day. I hope those numbers stand up at the polls.

What Will One Do For Love?

Sacrifice and compromise are two words that immediately come to mind when asking that question, what will one do for love?

We all need to make sacrifices in order for a relationship to work. Whether it be to give up smoking, because the person one is with suffers from asthma or missing a critical episode of "CSI" one has been waiting to see all week, because their boyfriend or girlfriend has had a dreadful day and needs some company.

Compromise is a key word when it comes to relationships, because if two people aren't willing to come to a middle area where they can both be somewhat satisfied, then it's going to create for many fights and arguments. If the gal is in the mood for a romance and the guy is in the mood for an action flick, perhaps they can come to a compromise on a comedy. If one wants to go out to eat on a nice spring afternoon and the other wants to head to a park for a walk, perhaps they can compromise and have a picnic.

But how far will one go with these sacrifices and compromises in order to feel love? Would a person go so far as to change the entire complexion of who they were when they started the relationship? Unfortunately, I've seen this up close and in person, so I'll have to answer yes to that question.

Right after the first couple dates, I noticed that a gal and I weren't very compatible. We were too different and yes, the old saying goes, "Opposites attract," and this is true to an extent, but what'll happen once those opposites are finished exploring the other's differences? What'll they fall back on? There usually has to be some kind of common ground there for things to work out in the long-term. So, yes, I was attracted to her, but deep down in my gut, I knew that things weren't going to work out for very long, so I told her this. She was devastated and told me to give her a chance, that she'd been very sheltered, and would be willing to expand her horizons, so, unfortunately, I went against my gut. Over the next few weeks, she completely transformed from the person she was to the person she thought I wanted her to be. Did I ask for this? No. I even told her, "I think it's really cool that you're willing to explore new things and expand your horizons, but if I expose you to something that you're not into, please don't pretend to be into it just because I am. Also, if you want to help me explore my horizons, that'd be great. I'm all up for that." But, over the next few weeks, as she learned more about me, she just molded into the person she thought I'd want her to be. It was amazing to see the change and apparent differences from date 1 to date 10. But, there was a catch for me, as I discovered. She molded into the person she thought I wanted her to be and in return, I had to sacrifice all my time, energy, and effort for her, except for when I was at class or asleep.

At the time, were we truly cognizant of the heavy load of sacrifices we were making? Probably not. But, we made them for a period of time, just because we wanted to feel love.

I've seen similar things happen in many other relationships as well. Many often times, the sacrifices are only made by one person, but no matter how determined and dedicated that individual is, they can hold things up for only so long. If a person is giving 90% on a consistently compared to the other's 10%, the one giving 90% on a daily basis will get worn out down the line and regardless of how much they don't want to believe what's happening, it'll hit them right in the face as they begin to feel that fatigue. Maybe the one giving 10% isn't giving so little intentionally, who knows. Perhaps they've become so used to the other party giving everything and them not giving much in return, that it becomes almost habitual. But, either way, they're using that other person, whether it be intentional or unintentional.

Connecting with a person, finding similarities, differences, expanding one's horizons, trying new things and discovering more about oneself in the process, are all very fun, exciting, and healthy sides to a relationship. Making sacrifices and compromises, especially one's time, energy, and effort, are all essentials to making a relationship work and grow, but it has to be mutual. If one individual is giving themself up as a person in order to please the other, is a feeling of love truly worth losing one's identity and what makes them the unique individual that they are? If two people truly care about one another, shouldn't they love each other for the person that they are? Compromises and sacrifices should be and have to be made, but there is such a thing as sacrificing too much, and unfortunately, it's those that have done the sacrificing who are hurt most when the relationship comes to an end.

"Date Movie" Review

I don't expect much from comedies. All I want from a comedy is some laughter. If there are a few good chuckles and one laugh-out-loud moment, then I'm pretty satisfied. I don't expect it to be the best acted or directed. It's not like Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard would direct a film like this. You won't be seeing actors like Tom Hanks or Denzel Washington in these kinds of films either. So, all I ask for is some laughter. There are only a couple comedies I've seen where I didn't receive that laughter: "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "Gone Fishin'." This looked so stupid, it had to make for some dumb laughs, right? No. Add this one to that short list of "comedies" that don't make for too many laughs. I had maybe three chuckles throughout the whole film. If you're easily amused and you'll laugh at a mosquito flying around, then you may get a kick out of this one. But, if you expect a little more out of your comedies than that, then I'd stay far far away. It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Grade (for a comedy): 3/10
Grade (Overall): 1.5/10

A First Date Top Ten List

Top Ten Things Guys Don't Want to Hear On a First Date

10. "Don't be freaked out, but I stalked a guy once! It wasn't a big deal or anything, but, well, I guess he put a restraining order against me. This happened 2 weeks ago."

9. "I have an idea. Let's go to dinner and then go to my parents' place, so you can meet them. They're going to love you!"

8. "I've never dated a straight guy before."

7. "I went to this party last night and saw this guy that was so hot! I mean, you have no idea! It's not like you'd know or anything, right? Anyway, about this guy..."

6. "You look like a celebrity. I can't think of his name. Oh yeah, Lyle Lovett!"

5. "Have you found Jesus?"

4. "What do you want to name our kids?"

3. "So, when we get married..."

2. "You remind me so much of my mother."

1. (drum roll) "I love you!"

How To Lose Weight and Fast!

Craig's dieting plan is scientifically proven to work, but don't let science tell you what the facts are. Let the people themselves tell you about Craig's dieting plan.

"Yo Adrian, I did it!"- Sylvester Stallone from "Rocky"
"Do it! Do it! Do it!"- Ben Stiller from "Starsky and Hutch"
"You can do it!"- Rob Schneider from "Waterboy"
"They all did it!"- Michael McKeon (Mr. Green) from "Clue"

There you have it folks, the people have spoken! All you have to do is fork your money over by calling this number and receiving your very own Craig's dieting plan video! The number to call is 1-800-RIPPOFF. That's 1-800-RIPPOFF. The video is available for $19.95 for a limited time only. Call within the next 19 minutes and 95 seconds and it can be yours for that price, $19.95!

In the video, we let all the short cuts, cheap tricks, and secrets be known to trimming down and staying trim! No need to waste your time working out! You don't need to run, jog, skip, gallop, or even walk! You can just sit on the couch, watch television and lose weight with my plan! All you need is to drink diet soda, eat low-fat foods, low-fat junk food, low-sugar sugar cookies, and watch my video to find out what else you can do to look the way you've always dreamt! Lose a pound per day for as long as you use my plan, guaranteed, or nothing back! Who wants to work out, eat healthy, and drink only water? With Craig's dieting plan, no sacrifices need to be made on your part! Eat a whole bag of Oreos while watching "Survivor" and feel your body lose fat and gain muscle! You've never seen or felt anything like it! Call now for a special time limited offer of Craig's dieting video for $19.95! The number is 1-800-RIPOFF! Call now!

The No-Win Gun Debate

I've heard both sides, the far right and the far left. Honestly, I don't think either side can truly prove they're right (as in correct).

I read an article not too long ago stating that gun control makes things easier on thieves and rapists. I've also read that gun control is just a way to strip us of our rights, so the government can take total control.

On the far right, it seems they believe if everyone owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because we'd all be able to protect ourselves. On the far left, it appears they believe if no one owned a gun, we'd all be safer, because there'd be no threat of a gun.

Both sides have a point, but there's no way to truly identify a clear winner in this debate. One reason is the fact that not everyone has a gun, to counter the right's side. Another reason is the fact that even if guns were made illegal (like alcohol had been), guns would still be traveling along the underground and find its way on the streets, to counter the left's argument.

It also depends upon who has a gun to "protect" themselves. If a person was being robbed and they had a gun, then perhaps the right is on to something. However, if the robber has a gun, then it'd be the person they were robbing who would be a potential victim of gun violence, and in this case, the left would be on to something.

Now, if I had a choice between every human being having a gun or no one having the opportunity to own a gun, I'd feel safer with no guns, but that'd be me just being naive, because as I mentioned, no matter how much gun control we have, there is no way to completely prevent guns from being manufactured and sold.

So, for now, I think the compromise is what is termed gun control. Some politicians may try to go too far with this, and in these cases, the conservatives might be accurate in stating that some people are attempting to take away our rights, because, as it states in the 2nd amendment, we have the right to bare arms. But, some gun control laws make sense to me. If an individual has a record of driving recklessly, DUI's, amongst other traffic-related incidents, he or she may lose their right to drive their automobile for a certain period of time. If an individual has a history of gun violence and crime, shouldn't that person lose their right to own a gun? So, background checks make sense. Waiting a certain amount of time before selling a gun to the buyer makes sense. Certain violent crimes happen in the moment, so waiting a period of time before selling the weapon may allow the buyer some time to cool down and put things into perspective, before doing something they'll forever regret.

This is a no win debate. Both sides present decent points that may be accurate in certain instances, but not in others. So, for now, I think certain gun control laws are the compromise, until someone comes up with a better idea.

Bloggers Are Terrorists? What?

Yeah, the title might sound silly to many (including myself), but as a recent article points out, President Bush "Tags Bloggers As Terrorists."

So, why in the world would he see bloggers as terrorists? Under what circumstances? What would need to be typed for Bush to see them as a terrorist?

In this February 13th article by the Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, it reads, “Participants confirmed parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events.”

In other words, if a blogger is critical of or dissents against the Bush Administration, he or she may be considered a "terrorist."

As it elaborates in the article:

"(1) In what may have been a precursor to US bloggers, the US military and government apparently were not offended (at least did not take any publicly disclosed action to free the blogger) when an Iraqi blogger was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned for the crime of reading comments on another blogger’s website at a public café:
“Then finally I understood why I was there, after few hours. Security guards at the university had printed out all the websites I was reading while I was online there. They were accusing me of “reading terrorism sites” and “having communications with foreign terrorists”.“Do you know what these pages are?”
I looked at them and figured out they were the comment section of Raed (sic) in the Middle!!
I opened the comments section while browsing in the university, read some comments, and didn’t even post anything. But these people don’t seem to know what the internet is, and they don’t speak English, so I was a major suspect of being an assistant of al Zarqawi maybe! Or that I have a terrorist group of my own, with foreign connections!
I was accused of terrorism, and sent to jail after they decided that I’m not helping myself because I am not helping them!!!

(2) US plans to data mine blogs for stated purpose of finding terrorist information to connect the dots to prevent a terrorist attack:
“The U.S. government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity.”

(3) “The CIA is quietly funding federal research into surveillance of Internet chat rooms as part of an effort to identify possible terrorists, newly released documents reveal.”

(4) American Internet providers have assisted foreign countries to jail bloggers for substantive content posted on their blogs:
“Last December, Microsoft shut down the Web site of a dissident Chinese blogger. A few months earlier, Yahoo gave Beijing the name of a dissident Chinese journalist. He got ten years in jail for his Web postings. Ironically, Google's Chinese kowtow comes as the company is resisting efforts by the U.S. government for access to its records.”

(5) Indymedia was a subject of a secret, international terrorism investigation in which US government seized its hard drives. A Texas Internet company turned over hard drives pursuant to a court order under an international treaty governing crimes of terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.

(6) The MSM has shown its willingness to paint bloggers and any lefty journalists as the domestic evil axis of treasonists so that the American people will understand the need to arrest bloggers to make this country safe from terrorists.

(7) The CIA now has its own bloggers and a government website that are part of a revised CIA office for monitoring, translating and analyzing publicly available information. It is good news that the CIA is evaluating publicly available information in the fight against terrorism. The problem is we now know that when our government says “monitoring,” it’s not just al-Qaeda.

(8) The Bush administration refused to turn over control of the Internet to an international body, preferring to maintain unilateral control over the Internet. The fear is that “policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.”
It should be noted that some of these indicators on their face are equivocal, but perhaps should be considered in the context of actions and policies of this administration. In this context, the Bush wagons are circling bloggers. And, once the perception is created that bloggers are a danger to national security, that perception is hard to unravel. The danger is that the American people will continue to follow Bush’s lead like sheep frightened by the terrorist wolf."

Why does Bush claim intented on spreading freedom and democracy overseas when it seems he doesn't want freedom and democracy at home? Why does he claim to believe in freedom and democracy at all? Why does he give brave U.S Soldiers the illusion that they are protecting America's freedoms and democracy when he doesn't believe in those freedoms and that democracy he claims they're protecting? As American Journalist Edward R. Murrow stated, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Just following the disaster that was 9/11, Bush and his administration had more control than they could possibly have ever imagined. Because of the fear that was implanted in the minds and hearts of Americans, Bush and company got away with sacrificing citizens' liberties and freedoms for what they claimed was greater security. But, as time has lapsed since the attacks, and no other major terrorist attacks have occurred on American soil, the American people have become more cognizant of what it was they were truly sacrificing. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Bush and his administration attempted using false dilemmas to slyly persuade the public to agree with them. "You're either with us or against us. You're either with us or with the terrorists." That was said right at the onset of what is termed the "war on terrorism." But, as time has gone on, more critics and skeptics of the administration and the war have appeared. Whether one talks about it to a friend, writes a blog, or writes a letter to a senator showing a voice of dissent against a decision made by the president, that does not make them a "terrorist." It is very ironic how Bush claims he believes in democracy and that the "enemy" fears our freedoms, yet, at the same time, it's obvious that he fears those very freedoms, because he will not deal with any criticism or dissent from anyone. Bush is for free speech, so long as the opinions expressed coincide with his and show no discontent toward anything he has said or done in the past. Dissent is what made America the place it is. America did not get to where it is by allowing one voice to speak and decide. But, that's the America Bush wants. Only he and his followers can openly express their thoughts and opinions. Anyone else, is not a true loyal American. But, I'm sorry George, as usual, you're wrong (that's what the W stands for). I think the before-mentioned Edward R. Murrow summed it up beautifully, when he said, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it."

You can read this and label me anything you want to George. All I and many others are doing is standing up for our rights that you so claim to fight for. Are we bloggers "terrorists?" No, we're Americans loyal to the Constitution, making the most of our freedoms. Check your approval rating buddy. It's at 39%. Does that make 61% of the country "terrorists?" No. Get over it, before that number dips even further.

Link
http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/bush_tags_bloggers_as_terrorists.htm

Who Invented Hallmark (Valentine's) Day?

"Man, my wife is ticked at me. She claims I'm not around enough and she's always wanting me to buy her flowers. She loves chocolate and says I don't compliment her. I'm sick of it. Why does she always have to complain? I mean, I do my job. I bring money home to pay the bills and put food on the table. Isn't that a compliment in and of itself?", said Bubba.

"My wife is the same exact way. It's never enough. I'll even take her to Dairy Queen once in a while and that still isn't good enough for her. What can we do, you know? We work until six, come home, want dinner, and just want to relax.", Jordan replied.

"Hey guys," Lance chimed in, "I know of a way to get your wives to stop complaining and believe me, along with that, all your wildest dreams and fantasies will come true."

Bubba and Jordan simultaneously said, "What? How?"

"Okay," Lance started in on his advice, "This is how you do it. Just pick a day, one day in the year, and make that the special day she's been wanting. If she wanted flowers, get her flowers. If she wanted chocolates, get her chocolates. If she wants compliments, buy her a sappy Hallmark card. If you want to get cute, get a teddy bear, and take her out to dinner. When she receives all this, she'll be all yours, guys! There won't be any complaints! Love will fill the air the rest of the night and for the rest of the week, maybe month, if your wife is really thankful. Trust me guys. It'll work!"

Bubba curiously asked, "Wait. So, what day do you pick? I mean, I can't just look at a calendar and pick out a random day. Her birthday is August 14th."

"Allright, well, make the day six months from then, so you can spread out the celebrations. How about February 14th? It'll hold you over for six months and then you can give her a similar day on August 14th for her birthday. How's that sound?", Lance replied.

Jordan looked deep in thought, scratching his head, and said, "You know Lance, that's a great idea. I think I'm going to do that. February 14th is a great day for it! My wife's birthday is in September, so February is spread out pretty well. We should just make a holiday out of this and spread word around to the males out there. What should we call it?"

Lance responded, "Well, the day is all about buying gifts to try and show our love in order to receive love in return. So, it all revolves around love, in one way or another. Love Day doesn't sound right though."

"Neither do Chocolate Day, Flower Day, or Card Day.", commented Bubba.

"Wait, I got it. I got it. Hallmark Day!", exclaimed Jordan enthusiastically (Hallmark Day, as it was originally called, would later be changed to Valentine's Day).

So, from that day forward, Bubba, Jordan, and Lance were on a mission for all males. They spread word around through gossip, through mail, through fliers, and on February 14th, all would forever be changed. They each got their wives a dozen roses, Russell Stover chocolates, and Hallmark cards that looked sappy. When they and other males arrived home with their gifts, the wives were ecstatic. Some were in absolute shock. The majority cried. All had a smile on their face and what Lance guaranteed to his buddies came true. But, the longer this day became celebrated, the more that was expected.

"What did Lance get you yesterday for Valentine's Day?," asked Chloe', Bubba's wife.

"The same old, same old. He got me a dozen roses, some Russell Stover's chocolates, and some Hallmark card. What'd Bubba and Jordan get the two of you?", responded Julie, Lance's wife.

"Bubba bought me some tickets to the musical, a beautiful bouquet of flowers, and a diamond ring.", Chloe' stated, as she showed off her new ring to her friends.

"Gosh, you are so lucky Chloe'. I only got this cheap necklace and these dull earrings. Nothing much really.", Jordan's wife, Theresa responded.

From that point on, Valentine's Day became nothing more than a bragging party and competition for the ladies and as it always had been, a fallback or reminder day for the males. The day that was to celebrate love became a day to celebrate the love of material things. The holiday became nothing but obligatory buying by the husbands and expecting by the wives.

But, there was one couple that never needed Valentine's Day. Gregory and Lisa had the concept of love down pat without needing any reminders.

"So, what'd you get your wife for Valentine's Day, man?", asked Jerry.

"Nothing really. I made her a card, wrote her a poem, and left work early to have a candlelight dinner ready for her by the time she got home.", responded Gregory.

"Really man? What's wrong with you? My wife would've flipped if I did that. I mean, how much money did you spend on her?", inquired Jerry.

"Well, I bought the food a few days ago. So, if you're just asking what did I buy for her and only her on Valentine's Day and how much money did I spend doing it? Nothing.", Gregory said.

"Geez, what, are you cheap or something? Are you having financial problems?", asked Jerry.

"No, why? Well, anyway, my wife really enjoyed the gifts and we had a splendid evening together.", Greg said, smiling.

"Man, I don't know about you. It's like a given you have to at least buy your wife flowers on Valentine's Day. That's in a rulebook somewhere. I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's there.", retorted Jerry.

"I bought her flowers a couple months ago. I could tell she was having a really bad day and I thought it'd be the perfect time to go out and buy something to cheer her up and let her know I was thinking about her. So, what'd you get for your wife?", asked Gregory.

"Well, I screwed up bad just a couple weeks ago. I didn't follow through with some things I had promised and she was not pleased. We weren't on very good speaking terms, so I had to go out and spoil her. I went out and bought about every greeting card, chocolate, candy, and flower you could imagine.", Jerry replied.

"That was very nice of you. I hope all the gifts were able to cheer her up and get you two talking again.", replied Gregory sincerely.

"Yeah, well, she seemed very happy when I gave her all the gifts, but I have to be honest, our communication still isn't where it should be or where it was.", Jerry stated.

"Go and surprise her sometime. Write her a poem. Do something where you're truly expressing your feelings to her. I mean, those flowers will only last so long, as will those chocolates. The cards are sweet, but those words aren't totally genuine. They're written for you and not by you. Try surprising her sometime in the next couple weeks by opening up to her and truly making her feel that you understand why she's been feeling the way she has, that you'll make up for what you did, and that you love her. Do it. I promise, she'll be ecstatic.", Gregory said confidently.

Two weeks later, on March 1st, Jerry finally took Gregory up on his advice. He came home from work early on a Wednesday afternoon and set everything up. Romantic music was playing. The fireplace was lit. Jerry dimmed the lights down all throughout the house, placed and lit candles all over, and cooked Debbie's favorite meal. When Debbie came home, she was in tears, unsure of what to say, but Gregory knew exactly what to say. He was open and honest with his wife, apologized for his mistakes, asked for forgiveness, said he'd make up for his wrong-doings, and told her how much he loves her. From that point forward, she was all smiles. His previous mistakes were all but forgotten and their love blossomed to a level they never thought possible, similar to that of Gregory and Lisa.

Blind Spoken Ironies

Two friends are chatting about random topics one evening. Brad starts going into detail about smoking and its negative, harmful effects. Jeff listens on, as Brad starts pointing out statistics and sources where he found these numbers. "You shouldn't smoke. There's a direct link between that and several forms of cancer, lung in particular.", is what Brad finishes his tangent with. All the while, he is smoking.

Ever know someone like Brad? They can talk your ear off and even give you lectures on the rights and wrongs of this world and yet, at that very same time, they are committing those same acts they lecture on being wrong?

I admit, I've spoken these blind ironies before. I think most everyone has. People would come to me with their relationship problems and I'd give them advice on what was transpiring and what they should do about it. Then, six months later, when I got involved with someone, I'd fall into the same traps and seem clueless as to what was happening, even though I'd given advice about that same predicament six months earlier. My only excuse or reason for situations like that is the fact that it's much easier to be on the outside looking in on a situation and having a non-biased, realistic perspective. When we're in the situation for ourselves, that vision can very easily be narrowed.

When events are spread out like that, I can understand how people can speak in blind ironies. But, what makes me really laugh and shake my head is when these events occur simultaneously, like the before-mentioned story about Brad and Jeff. I've heard these statements regarding numerous topics: Relationships, friendships, lifestyles, habits, just about anything and everything.

Perhaps it's very difficult for one to look in the mirror when they're giving advice to another. Deep down, maybe they're thinking to themselves, "Gosh, I've got to work on that," but they want the focus and attention to stay on course. Perhaps some people go on these tangents at times to remind themselves of certain things they need to work on. I don't know. I don't have the answers.

What I do know is whenever I hear these statements, all I can do is smirk, sigh, and shake my head. It's humorous, in an odd way, to listen to the Brads give long, in-depth, insightful speeches regarding topics such as the damages of smoking, all while huffing and puffing away on a cigarette.

Pigskin Withdrawal Starts Now

Well, that's it. The regular season came to a close. The playoffs ended last Sunday with the Super Bowl. Today was the last football game for the next six plus months. The NFL All-Star Game, known as the Pro Bowl, ended at approximately 8:55 pm central standard time, with the NFC defeating the AFC 23-17.

Six plus months without talking: Rivalry matchups in college, Heisman hoopla, BCS possibilities, historic upsets, records being broken, streaks, coaches on the hot seat, bowl games, SEC battles, The Red River Shootout, Lee Corso wearing his head gear each week to go along with his prediction, goalline stands, hail mary's, Chad Johnson doing touchdown dances, Terrell Owens making a team the soap opera of the NFL, Michael Vick dancing around defenders trying to sack him, rookies making their presence felt at the next level, Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football, Peyton Manning calling audibles and gesturing more than a politician on speed, the playoffs, Super Bowl, the Super Bowl commercials, and the parties that happen Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays.

Here's a toast ::raises my glass:: to all the football nuts out there for another great season and hoping that these next six months go by rather quickly. Cheers!

About My Movie Grading System

I received a comment not long ago in regards to a grade I gave some movies, claiming the movies were far superior than what I graded them as.

So, I thought I'd elaborate a bit on how and why I grade the movies in the manner I do. There are rarely times after I view a film, where I just say to myself, "That was a complete waste of 90 minutes right there" or "That had to of been one of the worst movies ever." Most every film I see, I find something to like about it. There are some exceptions, such as "Gone Fishin'," "Dude, Where's My Car?," and "Next Stop Wonderland," but, even in those films, I attempted to enjoy them as much as I could. So, rarely will you ever see me give a grade of 0 to 2 out of a possible 10. But, I also rarely watch a movie and see it as a masterpiece, one that shook me up so much, I had lingering thoughts regarding the film for an entire week after viewing it. So, only on very rare occasions will I grade a film anywhere from 9 to 10 out of a possible 10. There are only two films I've seen that I will award with a grade of 10: "Songs From the Second Floor" (Swedish) and "American Beauty." They moved and stayed with me far more than any other film I've seen.

So, the majority of my grades will be anywhere from 2.5 to 8.5, heck, 3 to 8. If I grade a film anywhere from 7 on up, then I hold that film in high regards. If it's in the 6's, I see the film as pretty solid, but not quite in the must-watch class. If the film is in the 5's, it's decent and watchable, but probably nothing I'd want to see again. If I grade a film below 5, then that's usually when you can assume I didn't care much for the picture, but only then. If I grade a movie anywhere from 5 to 10, that means, from my point-of-view, the film was watchable and enjoyable to an extent.

So, please, no one be alarmed or offended if I grade a film you love in the 7's or 8's. That's a very good rating in my book. If my grade for the film is below a 5, then you can start wondering why in the heck I didn't care for the movie. But, I'm usually easily pleased, so there aren't too many films that I grade below a 5.

"Munich" Review

I just saw the Steven Spielberg film, "Munich," today. It's a film based on the 1972 terrorist attacks on the Israeli athletic team in Munich, Germany. The film also explores the after-effects of these attacks.

The film is 2 hours and 44 minutes long, so I won't go into too many details. It'd take me a few days to summarize it thoroughly. But, the movie is intense, well-acted, well-directed (of course), and thought-provoking. It gives a very real and different look at terrorism, which may be looked at as controversial by some, but with Spielberg and controversial come praise and appreciation.

Following the terrorist attacks, a group of men are sent to kill the eleven men who were responsible for the attacks and killings of eleven Israeli's. These men appear to have no conscience from the outset, whole-heartedly believing in their mission and having no qualms about the assassinations. This group gets off to an efficient start, but the mission is sidetracked on a couple occasions and the longer the mission transpires, the more questions and doubts are raised.

"Munich" is a very riveting and emotional film that attempts to dig deep into the minds and conscience of the assassins. The film may be 164 minutes long, but it moves along pretty quickly. There aren't any slow down times where the viewer may be tempted to space off or fall asleep. Some may see the film as controversial, but what controversy can pose many times (in art) are the tough, critical questions that most are too tentative to raise. "Munich" does just that, and although, all the questions may not get answered, sometimes the question is more important than the answer, for there is no answer without the question. Anyone is welcome to their own interpretations and conclusions following the film, but two points I think the film made are: 1) Every group of people has blood on their hands and regardless of how we view another mass of people, the mass we associate ourselves with is probably far more similar to that group of people than we'd like to admit and 2) Violence does not solve problems. It only makes matters worse. I still give the edge to best picture of the year to "Brokeback Mountain," but "Munich," along with "Syriana" and "Crash," are solid runners-up. I recommend this film to any and everyone who is not bothered by the time-length of the picture.

Overall Grade: 8.5/10

Another Date Story

I can't say I'm proud of these date stories, but the more I look back at them, the more I shake my head and laugh at how ridiculous and funny they were. Sometimes, they're even difficult for me to believe. I already shared the two about "Figure skating girl" and "Mother Theresa," as they'll be forever remembered by me. I have one other story. This one occurred during my first year of college, so six plus years ago. In the story, I'll refer to this gal by the name of Karen.

In my first year of college, I took a creative writing course. It was a tiny class with only ten students and about half showed up on a daily basis. The nice thing about that small class was the fact that the students got to know one another better than they would have in a class of fifty or sixty. After a while, two guys in the class, John and Jeff, claimed they knew a gal that would be a great match for me. I was very tentative at first, but they wouldn't stop talking about her.

"She's so hot man." "You've got to meet her." "She models." "She's top in her class." "She's into rock music like you are." "We guarantee you'll like her."

After hearing this for a while, I shrugged my shoulders and thought, eh, what the heck. So, they set us up and we decided to meet at a park to walk and talk. It was a beautiful spring afternoon, so we thought it was a good idea to enjoy it. It'd give us the opportunity to get some exercise and get to know one another. Five minutes into the walk-and-talk session, I wanted to head back to my car.

Keep in mind, this was the first time we met. One of the first things she says to me was, "Gosh Craig, don't I look hot? Doesn't this outfit look great on me? I was putting it on, saw myself in the mirror and said, 'Dang girl, you've got it going on!'" I kid thee not. That's what she said. I can only imagine my facial expression when I heard that. One of the next things she said was, "I went to this party last night and so many guys wanted me. I got so many of their phone numbers, but I don't want any of them, because I have you." Again, this was the first time we met. Rule #1- Don't make a statement about commitment to a guy on the first date, especially if it's the first time the two have met. She then went on and on about her modeling, how she owned over 100 pairs of shoes, about how hot she was. ::yawns:: It got old very fast. I like confidence. It's very nice to be around a person who believes in themselves, but she was going overboard, and that's an understatement.

At first glance, I admit, she was fairly attractive, but the more I talked to her or I should say, listened to her, the less attractive she appeared. I also noticed some odd odors in the air. One of those happened to be body odor. Right when I smelled that, I panicked, and when she looked elsewhere, I did a quick check to make sure it wasn't me and I'm happy to say, it wasn't. But, unfortunately, I'm not happy to say, it was her! She also tried covering that smell up by globbing I don't know how many bottles of perfume on herself. I don't mind a little bit, but too much makes my sinuses go crazy. It was a sneezing fit just waiting to happen. Unfortunately, even these two odors weren't the worst that she possessed. After a little while, I noticed the odor of a skunk, after spraying. I was about to say something, but my gut told me not to and thank God for that! As I soon realized, the stench grew stronger whenever her face turned towards mine. That's right, it was her breath! I about gagged. I actually did a couple times. She asked if I was allright and of course, I said, "Oh, yes, of course."

It was perfect, this "Oh so hot genius model" liked to play the role of the airhead, broke rule #1 in the dater's manual, sounded conceited like I'd never heard, and she reeked to high heaven. The walk-in-talk seemed to last for days. When it finally ended, I walked her to her car and she wanted to kiss. I can only imagine the look on my face there, but I played it nice with a simple cop out, "I don't kiss on first dates." She claimed to respect that and we then went our separate ways.

I had a few words with John and Jeff that next week in class. The first words that came out of their mouths were, "So, how'd the date go? We told you she's hot, huh?" I then broke the news about all that happened and how sensitive my sense of smell is. They apologized and that was the end of my time with Karen or "Skunk girl," as she may also be known by.

To Blog or Not To Blog

That is the question. What even is a blog? What are they supposed to be about? Anything in particular? A play-by-play of one's life? A venting session about certain things? A cathartic release? A time to keep friends and family updated on life? An opportunity to write about situations and ask for advice? What really is the point in writing a blog?

I ask all these questions, because, in all honesty, I have no idea what the answers are. I just started blogging in December and it seems I hold a different philosophy of blogometry than others I've read through. The majority I've read through are the x's and o's of one's life, the play-by-play. It could be referred to as "The (name of the blogger) Daily News." It's nice to read about an exciting event in one's life: A trip that one took, a first date that went well, a graduation, a new job opportunity, amongst other things. But, sometimes, I think people go a bit too far. I'll give an exaggerated example:

"At 6:43 am, I woke up, groggy, not wanting to start the day. At 7:01, I found the strength to shower and get ready. I used tone soap and head & shoulders shampoo. I finished my shower at approximately 7:20. In a hurry to get to work by 8:00, I put deodorant on, cleaned my ears with q-tips, got dressed, did my hair, brushed my teeth with aquafresh whitening toothpaste, made some toast, and was out the door at 7:43. I made it to work just in time, at 7:59..."

Okay, I'm sure you get the idea. I love hearing great news or funny stories, but do we need to know everything? Even when talking about a special date, are there some things that people really want millions of strangers to have the opportunity to read? Surprisingly, some people don't mind. I also read love letters from one person to another. Can't that be done in private? Does there really have to be a blog posted about it? "Oh honey, I love you so much. I miss you. You only left 3 minutes and 22 seconds ago, but who's counting? Who am I kidding? I am. I can't wait for you to get home and give me a call. I will always love you. I really look forward to our date this upcoming weekend." Ahh, yes, isn't that shpeshal (special)?

I don't get it. When I started blogging, I thought to myself, "Why in the world would any stranger want to read about my daily life? I'm going to try and write about topics that the majority can relate to, discuss, or debate. It'd be nice to add some humor as well. A good laugh can never hurt." So, I've done Late Show-like Top Ten Lists, written random comments about holidays and celebrities, done movie reviews, written about political issues, and covered other topics. When I got personal, I shared some humorous date stories from my past, just because, well, they've gotten plenty of laughs from when I shared them previously. But, the more I browse bloggerworld, the more day-to-day personal news stories I read.

Is there an official blogger's manual one can read? I'm a newbie with this sort of thing, so, I'd like to catch up on all the secrets I'm obviously behind on. "To blog or not to blog" isn't even the question anymore. The rest of the questions I opened this up with are.

A Saying I'm Sick Of...

Have you ever been talking to someone about a problem in your life and all they come back with is, "Well, you know, everything happens for a reason." They'll say that or, "You know, God has a plan for you."

It reminds me of what a fortune cookie might read or what one's horoscope might say on a particular day. It's like a cop out line in any conversation where a problem appears. Someone could be watching "The Young and the Restless" while listening to this problem and when their friend stops talking, even without hearing 86% of what was said, they can come back with, "Well, you know, everything happens for a reason" or "God has a plan for you."

Now, I'll be honest, I used to think this quote was truthful, that everything did in fact happen for a reason. I also think it's probably a healthy way to look at things. If someone can just look at everything in life and say to themselves, "Well, I don't know why it happened, but I know it happened for a reason and the good Lord is looking out for me," it'll be a lot easier than someone deeply contemplating if it did happen for any good reason and if so, what that reason is. It's healthier to accept what happened and move forward, as opposed to dwelling on the past.

But, as time has gone on, I've had a harder and harder time believing in these sayings. It's usually only stated before the fact and after the fact, if something positive occurred. If something negative happened, I usually don't hear, "Oh, well, God has a plan for you." After my brain surgery was successful, I don't know how many times I heard the saying, "Craig, God has a plan for you." If the surgery had been unsuccessful and something bad came from it, I doubt I'd be hearing those same lines, "Everything happens for a reason."

In most circumstances, I can see the reason, but there are some scenarios where I can't. What are some examples? The Holocaust. Abuse on any level: physical, verbal, sexual, mental, emotional, psychological. Hate crimes. Some handicaps and mental disorders. Innocents killed by the death penalty. Rape victims. Homicide victims. Genocides. Victims of drunk driver accidents. What was the reason for the Holocaust? What's the reason for a child to be born with AIDS? What's the reason for an innocent man to be executed by the state? What's the reason for a child being abused? I can't find a reason to any of these scenarios. We can make up some to make us feel better, but in actuality, there was no rhyme or reason to what happened to these people. Because of this, I've altered these sayings just a bit to fit my liking. It's now, "Most things happen for a reason" and "God had a plan. He gave humans free will."

Eh, Cops

What is the job of cops? To protect the people, right? Or am I way off base here? That's what I've always tried associating cops with. But, as I've gotten older (an elderly 24, I know), it's becoming more and more difficult for me to fully associate them with protecting the people.

My brother's car got broken into last night. This is nothing new where he lives. In their neighborhood, cars have been broken into several times over the course of the past couple weeks. The cops have been called numerous times and my brother called this morning when he found out his car had been broken into. They made it sound like it was no big deal. All that was taken was the stereo system and the subwoofer. It could've been worse. It's like when my mom's purse got stolen last year. They didn't think that was a big deal either, "Oh, it's just a purse."

Yet, I see cops all the time with their radar guns, trying to catch people speeding, so they can pull them over. Ah, yes, let's go and pull people going five to ten miles over the speed limit. That'll keep people far safer than catching thieves and robbers! A purse? Whatever. A car? Big deal. Someone doing fifty in a forty-five? Now, that's serious! I know someone who got pulled over for doing fifty-six in a fifty-five. I was ticketed for doing a fifty-eight in a fifty-five. I also know a person who was ticketed for doing the speed limit, because it was slowing down traffic. Give me a break! Is this all they do with their time? Sit on their butts, eat jelly-filled donuts, and have their radar guns handy? Is that it? I was pulled over in my driveway not too long ago for turning my headlights off right as I pulled in. I was trying to be courteous. Sue me. The guy threatened me with, "Well, if I see you do that again, I'm going to ticket you for driving without your headlights." Uh-huh. Allright, so, let me back up here. Someone being courteous and pulling into their own driveway without their headlights on for two feet is of more concern to police than a car being broken into or of a purse being stolen. Someone doing at least one mile over the speed limit is more of a menace to those around him or her than a thief or a robber. Right. And politicians are honest.

It's too bad that old show "Cops" didn't depict what I and others in my area see police officers do with their time. If they showed that, though, the program wouldn't last two weeks. They'd have to change the lyrics to the song as well, which were, "Bad boys, bad boys. Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?" Instead of that, it'd have to be, "Bored boys, bored boys. Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they follow you?" The answer to that. There's not much you can do. If they pick you, you're screwed.

Why Are Some Doctors Paid So Much?

I've had a history of health problems, had successful brain surgery a couple years ago, so I have a great deal of respect for many doctors. But, have you ever had one who just didn't seem to have a clue as to what they were doing?

I ran into this predicament just a couple nights ago. I didn't know what was happening. My body felt numb. I felt pins and needles at my fingertips. I was tired, weak, nauseated. My senses of taste, smell, and sound seemed off. I've had a history of seizures, so I got rather nervous. A nurse I called suggested I get someone to take me to the hospital, so I did that. I wrote down all the symptoms I had and all the medications I was taking.

I don't know how many times they asked me what the symptoms were. I kept giving them the list I wrote. After I don't know how many people asked me what was wrong, the doctor finally came in and one of the first things he asked me was, "So, what do you think it could be?" I got this very confused look on my face and said, "Well, I don't know. I was kind of hoping to find that out here." After he left, my dad said, "I can't believe he asked you 'What do you think it could be?' What, does he think you're a doctor? What does he think you came here for?" My family and I laughed.

Before I was taken to the hospital, my family and I thought it could be one of five things: 1) A side effect to an anti-seizure medication I'm on, 2) A side effect to a cold medication I was taking, 3) A side effect to a mixture between two of the medications, 4) The flu, or 5) Something seizure-related. When the doctor took his final journey into our room, his words were said something like this, "Well, I don't have any answers for you. It could be a side effect to a medication, or even to those cold medications. Who knows, it could be the flu. All we can say is you should drink lots of liquids and get plenty of rest." I was there for two and a half hours and that's all they could muster up. My family and I were just as accurate and had more ideas than the professional. That's sad. I wonder where they find doctors like him. It's like he was just picked up off the street, given a few bucks, and told to act and speak as professionally as possible. Well, if that was the case, I hope he wasn't given too much money, because I'd give him a C grade (at best) when it comes to his acting and speaking in a professional manner.

The Commercials

This year's commercials were better than last year's, but that's not saying a whole lot. The Clydesdale one was...cute. The Diet Pepsi Diddy commercial was a bit out there for me, but I found the one with Jackie Chan slightly amusing. I thought it was clever to ask for a stunt double, for that double to be a Diet Coke can, and for it to get stomped. The hidden beers one was allright. Same with the monkeys and jacka** one. The Ameristar commercials were pretty funny I thought, especially the one on the airplane. "Don't Judge Things Too Quickly." The Michelob commercial where that guy levels the woman during a casual football game and then she does likewise to him in the bar was rather humorous. The streaking goat one was a personal favorite of mine. The Sprint cell phone commercial was pretty funny too. "My phone's a crime deterrent. Pretend you're going to steal my wallet from my back pocket." ::throws phone at the guy's head:: Other guy- "I'm going to file a suit on you man!" ::phone hits him in the head again::

The one commercial that stands out the most to me, though? The hummer commercial. You know what one I'm talking about? Yeah, the monster and the robot mating, and giving birth to a hummer. I'm sorry, but what? That had to of been the weirdest commercial I've seen in my life! The monster and robot are tightly knit, walking through the city. They hold hands. The monster gets pregnant (thank God they left out details to that event). They give birth to their hummer and then kiss one another. Aww...how...I can't even think of the word. Bizarre is the best I can do right now! I sure hope I never have to see that one again. Yikes!

But, all-in-all, the commercials were decent this year. Outside of that hummer commercial, there weren't any others where I gagged while watching.

Super Bowl XL

Well, it's done and over with. Congrats to Head Coach Bill Cowher, tailback Jerome Bettis, and the rest of the Pittsburgh Steelers on their 21-10 win over Seattle.

I wasn't too far off on the scoreboard, as I predicted a 21-17 Pittsburgh victory, but I was very off on how they'd win the game.

Pittsburgh didn't win by winning the turnover battle, by winning the special teams duel, or getting the better overall performance out of their quarterback. They won it with the big play and making the most of the opportunities they were given. That was anything but the case with Seattle.

If one was to look at the statistics of the first half, they'd probably conclude that Seattle had at least a one score, if not a two score lead going into halftime. But, that was anything but the case. The Seahawks appeared to go up 6-0 on a touchdown pass from quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to wideout Darryl Jackson, when a flag was thrown. This would be a trend that Seahawk fans would have to witness throughout the game. Jackson was called for offensive pass interference and Seattle ended up settling for a field goal and a 3-0 lead. Pitt answered to go up 7-3 on a questionable touchdown run by quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. It was initially called a touchdown, so there had to be "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call and there wasn't any, but again, the call went against Seattle. Head Coach Mike Holmgren ran into some problems calling plays on the Seahawks' final drive of the first half. Tailback Shaun Alexander ran the ball on a questionable play call and Hasselbeck called an audible. When all was said and done, Pittsburgh ended up calling a timeout with 13 seconds left on the game clock and 5 left on the play clock. In other words, Seattle let way too much time tick off the clock. They ended up attempting a very long field goal and Josh Brown just missed it to the right. Seattle lead in pretty much every statistical category going into the half, yet trailed 7-3. The clock management going into the half was awful, to be kind and the calls were not going Seattle's way.

Pitt's offense got the big play they needed to start the second half, as running back Willie Parker busted through a hole and was off to the races for a Super Bowl record-setting 75-yard touchdown run to put Pitt up 14-3. This game was odd from the outset. Right when a team looked to be firmly in control of the game, something would happen instantly to change the total complexion of the ball game. The Steelers were driving, facing a 3rd and 3 from inside the Seattle four-yard line, Roethlisberger threw a wobbly duck that was picked off by Seattle corner Herndon, who ran it back a Super Bowl-record setting amount of yardage and gave the Seahawks new life inside the Pittsburgh 25-yard line. Hasselbeck then hit tight end Jeremy Stevens for a touchdown to close the gap to 14-10. That seems like the only catch Stevens made all game. Last I heard, he had dropped three. The Steelers punted it on their next drive and Seattle had a chance to take the lead. Hasselbeck hit Stevens inside the 2-yard line to set up a 1st and goal, but wait a second. There's a flag thrown for a hold on the Seahawks! Now, the offensive pass interference call on Darryl Jackson, I saw that penalty. But, this holding call seemed rather phantom to me, like it wasn't there. Another call goes against Seattle! Two plays later, Hasselbeck gets picked off and that drive goes for no points. That was the biggest play of the game, as on their next possession, Cowher pulled out one of his gadget plays, ran the reverse pass with Antwaan Randle-El and he hit receiver Hines Ward in stride for a touchdown. To be perfectly honest, Randle-El's one pass to Ward was better than any pass of Roethlisberger's all game long! That put the Steelers ahead 21-10. Seattle couldn't do anything after that. The Steelers drained clock on their last possession. There were six plus minutes when the drive started and Seattle had all three timeouts left. When the drive ended, there was a minute and a half left and Seattle had no timeouts remaining. Fittingly, Seattle drove the ball in the closing seconds, but had horrible clock management to end the game just as they had to end the first half and Roethlisberger took one knee to drain the two seconds that were left on the clock for Pittsburgh's 21-10 victory.

Why did Pittsburgh win? They got the big play. Roethlisberger had a very average game. Parker had one huge run, which was good for six. Randel-El's gadget play was good for another long touchdown. On their first touchdown drive, Pitt faced a 3rd and 28, and Roethlisberger threw a long wobbler to Hines Ward at the 3-yard line for a first and goal. Big Ben then scored on 3rd down. Pitt also got all the breaks and calls. The only call or break that Seattle got was toward the end when Hasselbeck was clearly touched by a Pittsburgh player as he went down to the ground, fumbling the ball when he went down. It was initially called a fumble, but upon further review, the refs got it right and said Matt had been touched as he was going down, so it was to be a first and ten for Seattle. Other than that, though, Seattle got no big breaks. The Roethlisberger touchdown could've gone either way. It was one of those gray-area plays, where it'll go whichever way it was called on the field, because there's not enough video evidence to overturn the call, whichever way it went. If the refs had initially called it short of the goalline, I can guarantee you that the call would not have been overturned and it would've been a 4th and goal decision for Cowher and company. The offensive pass interference call was pretty valid I thought. The holding call in the 3rd quarter was not valid from what I saw, though. Refs can call holding on any play if they want. Why they wanted to call it on that very play, I have no idea. Seahawk receivers didn't help Hasselbeck any either. Darryl Jackson had a huge first quarter, tying a Super Bowl record with five receptions in the opening fifteen minutes, but he was virtually silent in the final three quarters. Tight end Jeremy Stevens caught the only touchdown of the game for Seattle, but he dropped three other balls, very catchable ones at that. Shaun Alexander was not Mr. Touchdown. He was all but shutdown by the Pitt defense. With Seattle's lack of a running game, dropped balls, missed kicks, and poor execution to end the halves, did they deserve to win? No, I can't say they did. But, I don't think they deserved to get hosed on that holding call either. From the first possession onward, the refs seemed as if they wanted to be the stars on the field as opposed to the players. Especially in the final game of the year, let the players play. Pittsburgh probably deserved to win, but shouldn't have received so many breaks. Perhaps they, Seattle, and football fans everywhere can just say that in Super Bowl XL, the Football Gods were wearing black and gold.

Politicians' Manipulation

Manipulation is nothing new to politicians. I don't care what party one is talking about: Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals. They've all used manipulation and in great quantities. But, I can't remember an administration using it to the extent that Bush and company have.

Right after 9/11, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft resorted to informal fallacies, the false dilemma in particular, to manipulate the majority into agreeing with them. The false dilemma is where a person makes it sound like there are only two options to a certain predicament, when, in fact, there are more. In this case, Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft made statements such as, "You're either with us or against us" and "You're either with us or with the terrorists." This divided the nation and brainwashed many into believing that those who spoke out against the war or against a decision made by Bush were Anti-American and terrorist sympathizers. This is anything but the case. Just because a person does not agree with the reasoning (or supposed reasoning) behind a war, that does not mean they are an advocate of terrorism. But, these fallacies were very effective in the early portions of the "War on Terror." Bush's approval rating was the highest in history. The mainstream media became his cheerleaders. Anyone who dared question Bush or any decision that he made were labeled Anti-American and told that they should leave the country.

Then came the ever-changing reasons for invading Iraq. Republicans loved to label Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry as a flip-flopper, yet George W. Bush has done plenty of flip-flopping during his presidency. Bush started with linking Saddam Hussein and Iraq to Al-Qaeda. This was later proven to be false, and yet, still a percentage of Americans believe that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bush then declared that Iraq had WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction). As was shown with the Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, this was also proven to be false. Then it was said that Iraq had the materials to make weapons of mass destruction. The wording changed ever so slightly each time. After all that was proven to be false, the intention finally dawned upon Bush and company, to spread freedom and democracy. This was another clever attempt by the Bush administration to make the situation appear to be an us vs. them (good vs. evil) duel. For those that didn't support the reasoning, Bush and his followers could speak out by saying, "You don't support freedom? You don't support democracy? What kind of American are you?" It won the Democrats over, but not the common citizens.

In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, Bush tried to remove the heat that had been put on him in recent weeks by changing the terminology and definition entirely of what has been referred to as "domestic spying." How did he coin the term on Tuesday night? "Terrorist surveillance programs." This was another sly move by the Bush administration, which will probably ease some of the pressure off Bush. It'll sway some people to believe that the "domestic spying" spoken of in recent weeks and "terrorist surveillance programs" are completely different and they may be more persuaded when simply hearing the new terminology, "terrorist surveillance programs."

Even though the Bush Administration will deny it on all counts, they have used 9/11, the color-coded terror alert system, and Bin Laden tapes at critical times as scare tactics. Bush's approval rating was approximately 90% just after the 9/11 attacks. So, for a while there, the mere mention of 9/11, the terror alert being upgraded one level, or the mention of Bin Laden immediately brought back memories of that dreadful day. In these type of situations, it's common for people to long for security from that same authority figure who led the way during a tragedy. For a time, Bush's approval ratings jumped within a few days of the terror-alert being upgraded or a Bin Laden tape being shown.

Bush and his colleagues have also passed bills with deceptive titles. The USA Patriot Act is such a bill, as it was passed on October 26th, 2001. Again, with the title of the bill being what it is, those who are against it will be told that they are not "patriotic." What does "USA Patriot" stand for? Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. What are some of these "tools?" Allowing the government full access to one's medical records, tax records, and library (book) records. This Act also gives the government authority to break into a person's home without a warrant. They are not obligated to tell this person about the break-in. The person may never know about it. Only Russ Feingold of Wisconsin voted against this bill on October 26th. But, over the course of the past 4+ years, there has been an increasing opposition to the Patriot Act, especially to the few portions I mentioned. Almost 400 communities in the U.S. have shown their displeasure with it. The No Child Left Behind Act is another such bill. In 47 of 50 states, there have been schools who have been outwardly critical of the Act and there have been several lawsuits filed by such schools. The title of the Act may sound warm and fuzzy, but it is not an honest representation of what has and will result because of the bill.

I've heard politicians lie and manipulate before, but not to this extent. Bush did at one time claim he was a "uniter" and not a "divider," but the direct opposite has been shown during his tenure. Anyone who has protested against the war has been labeled by many Bush followers to be "Anti-Americans" or "terrorist sympathizers." Some feel it's a disgrace to the troops, because we wouldn't have our freedoms if it weren't for them. Can't we come to a compromise and realize that both the Conservatives and Liberals are right to an extent? Yes, it's true. Soldiers fought and battled, so that we live freely in this country. But, they didn't fight for censorship. They didn't fight for one voice to be heard and not another. They fought for freedoms and our freedoms are null and void unless we make the most of them. We can argue about the war and political issues all day, but in the end, we don't have to agree and that's the beauty of it. It's not a crime to have a differing opinion than the person sitting next to you or to hold a different belief than the majority. Bush and his administration have been able to use language to manipulate the public greatly in his 5+ years as president. Fortunately, as poll numbers have shown, the manipulation tactics have gotten to be less and less effective as time has gone on. I only hope that trend continues in the next 2+ years.

"Paradise Now" Review

"Paradise Now" tells the story of two young Muslim men who are going through the seemingly never-ending battle between Israelis and Palestinians. These two best friends are told a day prior that they are to fulfill a mission as suicide bombers. After they're both told this, the story gets a bit more personal and illustrates for us the histories and backgrounds of these two young men. They believe they will attain equality to the Israelis if they do not go through with these missions. As one says in the film, "At least we will die as equals." But, a woman in the film, Suha, is a bit more moderate in her views and she's unafraid to express them to the two men, especially as she gets suspicious and worried about what lies ahead for them. The first mission fails and both men start having doubts about what they're doing, but they both are sent out for a second mission. At any time, they can call the man who drove them to the destination and go home if they so wish. Both Said and Kahled (the two men on the mission) had stated if they were chosen for a mission, for them to be together, so they could die with one another. The ending is a bit of a surprise. It is ambiguous and sad, yet hopeful. It was just announced that "Paradise Now" is up for Best Foreign Picture at the Academy Awards. After viewing it, I can see why this is. It's a very fast paced 91 minutes, keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat throughout, has intense dialogue, gets personal with Said and Kahled, and has an unforgettable finale.

Overall Grade: 8/10

Super Bowl Prediction

Only four days left until THE game. I capitalize THE, because, the game I'm referring to is the Super Bowl, between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Seattle Seahawks. First off, I'd like to point out that I reside in Omaha and am an Atlanta Falcons fan, so I have no bias toward either team in this game.

I think it'll be a close game, a lot closer than the blowouts two weekends ago in the NFC and AFC Championship Games, where the likes of Denver and Carolina decided not to show up at all. In terms of matchups, I like how the stingy Pittsburgh defense matches up with the often times one-dimensional Seattle offense a lot better than the other way around. If Pitt can contain Shaun Alexander, they'll be in great shape. Special teams is another matchup to keep your eye on. Neither team has a huge home run threat, like a Marvin Harrison, Randy Moss, or Terrell Owens, so field position will be critical in this game. Long, sustained drives that don't result in any points, but put the other team inside their own 10-yard line, will be extremely beneficial. Since I don't think the game will be a high-scoring affair, turnovers will play a huge role in deciding the Super Bowl champion. Because of that, keep an eye on the quarterbacks, Matt Hasselbeck of Seattle and Ben Roethlisberger of Pittsburgh. This will be the first Super Bowl for both quarterbacks and it'll be interesting to see how they take on the added pressure. Neither will need to pass for 300 yards or throw for 4 touchdowns to decide the game, but they will need to manage the team, manage the clock, and avoid the big mistake. If one quarterback has a 0 in the turnover column when the game is over, more than likely, that quarterback's team will be victorious.

Crowd many times doesn't play a factor in these type of games, but it could on Sunday. Pittsburgh will definitely hold the edge. Star tailback Jerome Bettis is from the Detroit area and which city is closer than the other to Detroit? Pittsburgh by many miles.

Motivation will also be a big factor and both teams should have plenty of it, considering this is the Super Bowl. But, I give a slight edge to Pittsburgh here. Both teams would like to win for their coaches, as Seattle head coach Mike Holmgren could be the first coach in NFL history to win Super Bowls for both an AFC and NFC team (he also coached the Packers to a Super Bowl win). Pittsburgh head man Bill Cowher has had a great tenure with the Steelers, but has one thing missing from it, a Super Bowl victory. Whoever wins this game, their respective coach will start being compared to some of the better coaches in NFL history (not the best, though). I give the edge to Pittsburgh, though, because of Jerome Bettis. This could be his last game in the NFL. He's hinted at retiring after the season. There's nothing that the Steelers would like to do more than to let "The Bus" retire and ride home with a Super Bowl victory.

Both teams have been playing well of late, but there is nobody playing better than Pittsburgh right now. They're a wild card team who has beaten Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Denver to get to where they are and have won seven straight overall. With all the factors I just mentioned, I can't pick against the Steelers in this one. Seattle should keep it close, but I like Pittsburgh to come out on top 21-17.