THPIDICBLN Complex

What do all those letters stand for? The Hard Part Is Done I Can Be Lazy Now. Know anyone who gets like this? In relationships? During tragic times? I'm starting to see it more and more and it's starting to really bother me.

From what I've seen, this complex is most prevalent in relationships and during tragic times in one's life. I'll look at these predicaments separately.

I've seen this a lot with relationships. Ever know someone, a guy we'll say, and he's seemingly the nicest, sweetest, most sincere and genuine boyfriend for the first year. But, then, when the couple gets married, he stops saying and doing what made the gal fall in love with him and say "yes" in the first place. When he gets home from work, he just grabs a can of beer and plops down in front of the television set. All that hard work and effort paid off. He's married now. There's no need nor reason to keep up the hard work and effort. The mission was accomplished. He has now earned the right to be lazy.

Or, how about during tragic times? Before the death of a loved one, the family may be very distant. Some may be on non-speaking terms to one another. But, after the death, they're all there for one another. Those that weren't speaking to each other are close and talking like they were best friends. But, after a couple weeks or so, the family slowly drifts back to where they were before the unfortunate incident.

This seems to be a commonality amongst most people I know. Once the mission is accomplished and two people tie the knot, as it's called, or there's been a time to grieve with one another, they then go back to their normal routines. Why is this? If two people fall in love and get married, they're not getting married to spend the rest of their lives with someone other than the person they thought they fell in love with and got married to, right? They're getting married to the person they met, dated, and fell in love with. If this person changed drastically in either (or both) their words or actions, how would the other maintain the same feelings of love they had for them when they were someone completely different? Why is there such a temporary artificial love displayed in times of tragedy? It seems to bring people together, but only for a short time. Once they shed tears together. Once they hug and hold one another. Once they tell stories they have about the deceased individual, they can let their guilty conscience rest and move on with their lives.

I'm curious on how different this "complex" is in collectivistic cultures, as opposed to an individualistic culture such as ours. It seems to me that in times of tragedy, most of us feel a sense of guilt, wishing we could've been there for them, and feeling that we owe them something. Most people must not have much of a conscience, because after the funeral, the session afterwards, and some time (a couple days) spent with the family, that guilt seems all but vanished.

I ran into this complex just recently. I'd been working long and hard on something for a very long time and throughout that duration, I received plenty of support from friends, family, and loved ones. After it was finished, that support, encouragement, and enthusiasm just wasn't there anymore. They felt as if their duties ceased to be after I completed the task.

I don't want to lecture, but let me tell everyone something. Whether it be a relationship, a tragic incident, an accomplishment of some kind, or something else that requires people to support, love, and come together, that support and love should not pause or stop after one feels they've given what they owe. Love should not be a temporary thing that can be shut off, especially with friends, family, and others close to you. One's duties and responsibilities are not complete until they can do them no more (death). We never know when that time will come, so our support, encouragement, love, and enthusiasm shown to those we love should be shown on a consistent basis, because when that time comes, there will be no going back and no more love or support can we give or receive from these people in our lives.

...And Then There Were Four

To label this year's NCAA Tournament as any one word would be inaccurate. It's been wild, fun, entertaining, tense, whacky, crazy, unbelievable, and unforgettable. I thought the opening weekend of the tournament would be tough to top, but thankfully, I was wrong in that assumption.

Duke and LSU was everything I expected. As they've shown all throughout the course of the season, the Dukies have had trouble with opponents whom have a solid interior game. LSU most definitely has that, as they showed through the course of the weekend. Glen Davis and Tyrus Thomas were a two-man wrecking crew for the Tigers. Davis looks like a slightly smaller Shaq, yet is more versatile, has more range, and can shoot free throws better. Thomas is thinner than Davis, but still tall and he has those long arms that can block any shot so long as he's within three or four feet of the shooter. Not only that, but Thomas can jump. When I say he can jump, that boy can jump. He's got springs in his shoes. If an LSU ballhandler tosses the ball up near the basket and Thomas is around? You can rest assured that he's going to leap, find the ball, grab onto it, and dunk it for two points. This makes him a pain at both ends: shot blocking, rebounding, and slam dunks. The two big guys down low, along with J.J. Redick going 3 for 18 from the floor allowed LSU to control the tempo of the game in a 62-54 victory over the Blue Devils.

Bradley hung tough with Memphis for thirty minutes, but there are forty minutes in a game of college basketball, so Memphis ran away with it in the final ten, winning by the score of 80-64.

But, those two games were merely an appetizer for what was to come later. Never in my 25 years have I seen back-to-back endings in Sweet 16 games like I did that night. First up was Texas and West Virginia. Texas, being a two seed, came in as the favorite, but West Virginia can never be taken lightly, as they showed last year in reaching the Elite 8 (almost the Final Four) and this year in getting to the Sweet 16. Texas looked to be in control of the game until about the midway point of the second half when West Virginia started heating up from the three point range. Texas lead by three with half a minute left, when West Virginia drove down the court, and star Kevin Pittsnogle buried a fadeaway three point shot with five seconds left on the clock to tie the game at 71-71. Texas guard Pauloni received the pass from way downtown with just over a second left. He put up the shot and the only sound heard before the crowd erupted was a swoosh as the buzzer sounded. From start to finish, that was probably the more exciting of the two games. But, the other, I'm still scratching my head about. Gonzaga dominated UCLA in every facet of the game. They lead 37-20 at one point. They were up by around 10 points for the majority of the second half. Adam Morrison had a solid game. UCLA started the first half 0-8 and started the second half 1-7. There was no way that UCLA could win, right? They call it March MADNESS for a reason! Down 71-62, UCLA finally went on a run, until they were down 71-70 with twenty seconds left on the clock. UCLA put on the full court press and trapped a Bulldog by the sideline. The ball was stolen by point guard Farmar. There were two Bruins downlow, so Farmar just lobbed it up for them and it was layed in for a 72-71 lead. Gonzaga inbounded the ball, hurried it too much and had it stolen again. UCLA knocked one of two free throws down to take a two point lead at 73-71 and that's how it'd end. After Gonzaga lead by seventeen points at 37-20, they were outscored by UCLA by a score of 53-34. How the Bruins won that game is still beyond me, but they found a way in an unbelievable comeback and finish.

Overall, Friday's games didn't equal that of Thursday's, but that'd be next to impossible. They did come fairly close, however, and that in and of itself, is pretty impressive. The worst game of the evening came between eleven seed George Mason and seven seed Wichita State. George Mason was up by as many as nineteen points in the second half, before the Shockers put on a late surge to make the score a bit more respectable at 63-55. Boston College and Villanova went at it in the other early evening game. BC got out to a 9-0 lead and looked unstoppable, but as I've learned in this year's tournament, if a team has a big lead early in the game, they seem to lose focus and come up short in the end. It was no different here, as BC played sloppy basketball, turned the ball over way too much, and settled for outside shots too consistently. Villanova didn't play their best game, but played just well enough to come out on top, 60-59. Florida and Georgetown locked horns in a battle. If they had put on pads and helmets, I don't think the feel of the game would've been any different than it was. It was back and forth until the very end, until Florida converted on their last couple possession and the Hoyas could not respond. The Gators wound up victorious by the score of 57-53. But, the game of the night had to of been between top seeded UConn and fifth seeded Washington. To say that UConn was sloppy would be the understatement of the tournament. They turned the ball over, not 10, not even 20 times, but 26 times in the game. That number could've been worse, but UConn held onto the ball a bit better in the last few minutes of the ball game. With that number, it'd be impossible for UConn to beat a quality club like Washington, right? Again, they call it madness for a reason. Washington lead by anywhere from five to ten points in the second half, but couldn't convert enough on UConn's mistakes. When UConn turned the ball over seven consecutive times, that was Washington's opportunity to take full control of the ball game and they couldn't do it. That's when they went cold shooting the ball. Finally, in the last few minutes, UConn seemed determined and focused to make a run for it. Rashad Anderson hit a three. Point guard Marcus Williams scored on a lay-up and was fouled for a three point play. Then, down three points with just a few seconds remaining, UConn drove up the court, passed to three-point specialist Rashad Anderson and he hit the game-tying three with 1.8 seconds remaining, sending the game into overtime. In overtime, UConn outplayed an undermanned Washington club. I say undermanned, because, by the end of the game, five players on Washington fouled out. UConn outlasted UW 98-92.

After Thursday and Friday's games, we went from the Sweet 16 to the Elite 8 with these matchups: LSU vs. Texas, Memphis vs. UCLA, UConn vs. George Mason, and Florida vs. Villanova. I've said all along that Duke was going to lose to a team with a strong interior, such as LSU or Texas. Now, those two teams faced one another and I was looking forward to the intensity on the inside for both teams. Oddly enough, one team showed they were far stronger on the inside than the other, and that team was not the second seeded Longhorns of Texas. Lucky for them, they made a few more three point shots than did the Tigers. But, last I saw, LSU had outscored Texas in the paint by a score of 28 to 6. This stat was shown at the midway point of the second half. Glen Davis and Tyrus Thomas were too much for the Longhorns, as the Tigers outmuscled the Longhorns to a 70-60 victory. In the other game on Saturday, it was expected to be a near opposite as the first. Memphis is young, deep, athletic, loaded, and fast. They like to run, similar to Tarkanian's old UNLV teams. They averaged approximately 81 points a game during the season. UCLA liked to slow things down a bit more than Memphis, but could still put up a few points, so this would be a fun, high-scoring affair, right? Not so fast. In fact, the Elite 8 matchup between Memphis and UCLA turned out to be the lowest scoring Elite 8 game since the addition of the shot clock. Memphis finally looked like the young team that they are and UCLA kept just enough pressure on the young Tigers to expose their weaknesses in a 50-45 victory for the Bruins. Sunday's games were even more crazy. I'll start with the late game. Florida lead from about start to finish to upset top seeded Villanova 75-62. 'Nova lives and dies with their three point shooting and this was shown on Sunday. So, only one top seed remained, the cardiac kids from UConn, as they took on the Cinderella team of George Mason. UConn seemed more focused from the outset than they had been. They didn't turn the ball over nearly as much as in the Washington game. At one point, they lead by twelve, but that lead was trimmed to nine going into halftime. Still, for UConn this tournament, that was a healthy halftime lead. But, George Mason didn't give up. The smaller George Mason Patriots outrebounded UConn by two in the game. During the course of the regular season, UConn averaged to outrebound their opponents by over ten per game. George Mason seemed to want it more. When UConn went man-to-man on defense, the big guy on the inside, Lewis, battered and abused at will. When he was double-teamed, Jamar Butler would knock down a trifecta. But, as has been a trend in this tournament thus far, UConn seems to shine at the very end. Up two, George Mason had a one-on-one free throw opportunity. The front end of the one-on-one was missed and Marcus Williams drove up the court, dished it to Denham Brown, who drove down the lane, and made a reverse lay-up, barely over the outstretched arms of two George Mason defenders, to send the game into overtime. Would the emotional letdown of going into overtime get the best of the underdogs? A magic 8 ball might say that signs point to yes, but in this tourney, I don't doubt George Mason anymore. They made almost every shot they took, from the floor, that is. Up two points with seven seconds left in overtime, Lewis went to the foul line to shoot two. He missed both and Denham Brown tried to be a hero again and barely missed on a three-point attempt that would've won the game. The eleventh seeded George Mason Patriots, who had never won a NCAA Tournament game heading into this one, are off to the Final Four.

So, there we have it. On Saturday, we have a 4 vs. a 2 (LSU vs. UCLA) and an 11 vs. a 3 (George Mason vs. Florida). This was the first time since 1980 that a number one seed did not reach the Final Four. Who will win these games? That depends on a few things. If LSU has as easy of a time inside as they did against Texas, it'll be very difficult for UCLA to come out on top. But, if UCLA keeps Davis and Thomas in check and forces the Tigers to make outside shots, then the advantage definitely goes to the Bruins. In the other game, if George Mason can pull even with Florida in the rebounding battle and continue their good outside shooting, then they've got a chance. What's benefited the Patriots so much in the Tournament is there rebounding on both ends of the court, their balanced offensive attack, their second chance opportunities on the offensive end, and their good outside shooting. If they keep it up, they've got a chance. One thing George Mason will definitely have on their side is the crowd. Indianapolis is closer to where their campus resides than any of the other three schools and they're an eleven seed. Only one other eleven seed has made it this far and that was, ironically enough, LSU. Let the Madness continue!

"V For Vendetta" Review

The Wachowski brothers are back at it after their Matrix trilogy. Please don't let the loving or hating of "The Matrix" determine if you want to see this film or not. This film is far different from any of the Matrix flicks.

It stars a man in a theatrical white mask, known as V. It takes place in the not too distant future in London, England, where the form of government has transformed from democratic to totalitarian. Because of this alteration, an 11:00 curfew has been set for the city and if anyone is seen walking about after curfew, they are subject to arrest.

Natalie Portman chances it early on, as she walks out slightly after the curfew hour. Two old men grab hold of her and look eager to please themselves at her expense, when V arrives, clobbers the two men, and saves Portman's life.

After that point, Portman is stuck to the life of V. She's fearful and angry with V and his actions, yet, is entranced and grateful, at the same time.

Much is not known at the outset of V or Evy (Portman), their backgrounds, or intentions. At first glance, V seems like a hero to Portman, but not long after, is seen as a terrorist. Throughout the story, one may be ambivalent on their feelings toward V. While he may seem like an evil terrorist to some, he may seem like a heroic revolutionary to others.

This is when the film gets to be real interesting. It's not a political sermon, but draws many political parallels with what is currently transpiring in the world of politics and presents a hypothetical scenario of what could be seen in the future.

Many questions have to be asked after viewing this film. Our freedoms worth sacrificing for a feeling of security? Has the element of fear truly silenced the majority of people into not questioning government or decisions made by the authorities? Is the media truly honest in the information they spread to the public? What is the true definition of terrorism? Do we see enough of V in ourselves where we'd feel the motivation to revolt if a similar predicament arose in our lifetimes?

This film is not for everyone, especially those who are on the far right side of the fence politically. I would not recommend this film to the Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world. But, for anyone who is not afraid to question authority, regardless of their political affiliation, then I would definitely recommend this film to you.

It can be a bit too talky at times, but overall, the dialogue is solid. There are enough bits and pieces missing from the story to hold our curiosity and interest throughout the film, before those little puzzle pieces become known one by one. The musical score, the direction, the acting, the story, and the plot are all pretty solid. There aren't many, if any weaknesses in this film. It's a bit too chatty at times, but doesn't lose its quick intense pace. While I wouldn't rank it as high as the first "Matrix" film. It definitely ranks higher than the lasts two in the trilogy. It's a very solid effort after the disappointing "Matrix Revolutions" with plenty of material to excite, entertain, and provoke thought.

Overall Grade: 8.0

Check This Book Out

Well, I just got a book published, received a proof copy on Friday, was very satisfied with what I saw, so I officialized things and it is now available to the public. Any and everyone is welcome to check it out at the URL I write below. On the page will be a picture of the front and back covers, a brief description of the book, a 10-15 page preview of what can be expected in the book, and an opportunity to purchase the book either in hard copy or downloaded form.

http://www.lulu.com/content/245250

Opening Weekend of March Madness

Where to start? There was lots of talk regarding the Big East after Thursdays games, as they went 0-3. However, they have gone 9-1 since that time and are sending a league leading four teams to the Sweet Sixteen. Jim Nance and Billy Packer are eating their own words. I'll get to that in a minute. The RPI leading Big Ten Conference went a combined 3-6 and are finished after the second round. That's right, the Big Ten is sending no teams to the Sweet Sixteen.

There have been plenty of great basketball games in the first couple rounds. There has been a trend of runs and not just any runs. North Carolina-Wilmington lead George Washington by 18 points in the second half of their first round 8-9 matchup. GW then went on a 19-0 run to take the lead and eventually win the game. Third seed Iowa lead by 17 points over fourteen seed Northwestern State in the first round, before the Demons stormed back to close within two points. With half a second left, Northwestern State threw up a three point prayer that was answered and they won the game 64-63. UConn got into trouble in the first round against sixteen seed Albany. Midway in the second half, Albany lead 50-38, before the top seeded Huskies got their heads out of their rears and played some good basketball. In fact, none of the top seeds played extraordinarily well in the first around against the sixteens. Fifteen seed Winthrop took second seed Tennessee to the buzzer. Tied at 61, the 'Vols hit a fadeaway jumpshot with half a second left on the clock to come out on top 63-61.

There were some upsets that occurred. Twelve seed Texas A&M upset Big East Tournament Champs and five seed Syracuse 66-58 in the opening round. Ten seed NC State beat seven seed Cal in a back and forth battle. Nine seed Bucknell outlasted eight seed Arkansas. Thirteen seed Bradley beat the Big XII Tournament Champs and four seed Kansas. Ten seed Alabama pulled off a slight upset against seven seed Marquette. The enigma that was the Michigan State Spartans fell early, to the eleven seed, George Mason. Another twelve beat a five, as Montana defeated Nevada. Wisconsin-Milwaukee continued their recent early success in the tournament, beating six seed Oklahoma. The upsets didn't just stop in round one, though. Bradley beat fourth seeded Kansas and then beat fifth seeded Pittsburgh to advance to the Sweet Sixteen. Washington pulled off a slight back and forth upset against Illinois. George Mason beat sixth seeded Michigan State and then third seeded North Carolina to advance on to the round of sixteen. They will be facing Wichita State, who beat second seeded Tennessee in the second round. Ohio State was given a test by Davidson in the opening round, but couldn't get past seven seed Georgetown in the second round. There's a 5, 6, two 7's, 11, and 13 in the Sweet Sixteen, including a 7 and 11 going head to head (Wichita State and George Mason). That means, at worst (or best, however you look at it), a seven seed will be playing in the Elite Eight for the chance to move on to the Final Four with one more victory.

Announcers Jim Nance and Billy Packer were hard up on the committee after the selections were announced. They were especially vocal about the selections of George Mason and there being four teams from the Missouri Valley Conference. The Big East had a record eight teams invited to the dance. They lead the way, with four teams moving on to the Sweet Sixteen. The Missouri Valley is tied for next in line, with two teams moving on: Wichita State and Bradley. The Pac Ten, ACC, and SEC are also tied for the second spot with two Sweet Sixteen teams. But, that's not even the kicker. The Mo Valley, just from those numbers, prove that they did indeed deserve to get four teams invited to the tournament. Nance and Packer liked to point out records of the past few years of conferences in the tournament. Packer rambled on and on about how the ACC, Pac Ten, and Big XII were all so much more successful historically than the Missouri Valley in the tournament (all received four invites). This is why that is, Billy. Let's look at this, shall we? The ACC got four invites: a one seed (Duke), a three seed (North Carolina), a four seed (Boston College), and a ten seed (NC State). Three of the four teams are the better seed and by a long shot, as Duke played sixteen seed Southern in the first round (only winning by sixteen and it was even closer than that). North Carolina played fourteen seed Murray State and won by only four points. Boston College played thirteen seed Pacific and won in double overtime. The most impressive opening round win? NC State's six-point victory over seven seed California. The Wolfpack got blown out by second seed Texas in the second round and North Carolina got defeated by eleven seed George Mason. The conference is 6-2 overall. Their average seeding per team is 4.5. The average seeded team they've played against in both rounds has been 10.4. In other words, the ACC has gotten some very favorable matchups. Moving on to the Pac Ten. They received four invites: a two seed (UCLA), a seven seed (California), an eight seed (Arizona), and a five seed (Washington). All four Pac Ten teams were the higher seed in their first round matchups. Their record thus far is 5-2. Their average seed was 5.5. The Pac Ten's opponents have had an average seed of 8.7. The gap is not as large as it was with the ACC, but it's still fairly large. The Big XII also got four teams into the tournament: a two seed (Texas), a four seed (Kansas), a six seed (Oklahoma), and a twelve seed (Texas A&M). Three of the four teams went into the opening round the higher seed. The conference has gone 3-3 thus far, including Kansas and Oklahoma losing in the opening round to thirteen seed Bradley and eleven seed Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Big XII teams had an average seed of 6.0. Their opponents have average a seed of 9.7. Out of the three conferences, the Big XII had the lowest average seed of their teams entering the tournament at 6.0. The smallest gap between their teams and their opponents seedings was in the Pac Ten, where the gap was 3.2. Overall, the three conferences are a combined 14-7. Their average seed is 5.3. The average seed of their opponents has been 9.6. That's an average gap of 4.3. Allright, now let's look at the Missouri Valley Conference. They received four invites: a seven seed (Wichita State), an eleven seed (Southern Illinois), a ten seed (Northern Iowa), and a thirteen seed (Bradley). They have gone 4-2 in the tournament thus far, with their only losses coming in the first round against six seed West Virginia and seven seed Georgetown, who are both representing the Big East in the Sweet Sixteen. Average out the Mo Valley schools and their average seed comes out to be 10.3. The average seed of the teams they have faced has been 5.7. Compare that with the three other conferences Billy. The lowest average seed had been the Big XII at 6.0. The Mo Valley had an average seed of 10.3. The lowest opponent average seed was the Pac Ten at 8.7. The Mo Valley's average was 5.7. The smallest gap between a conference's teams and their opponents, in terms of seeds, was +3.2 (Pac Ten). The Mo Valley was at -4.6. The teams in the Sweet Sixteen: Duke beat a sixteen and an eight to get to where they are. Boston College beat a thirteen and a twelve. UCLA beat a fifteen and a ten. Washington beat a twelve and a four. Texas beat a fifteen and a ten. The Mo Valley schools? Wichita State and Bradley? Beat a ten seed, a two seed, a four seed, and a five seed. There's a reason why the ACC, Big XII, and Pac Ten all had better records than the Missouri Valley in previous tournaments. They're not stuck with the eleven and thirteen seeds. They'll get a two, a four, and a five. Missouri Valley schools have to play those top tier teams in the major conferences in the opening rounds. You place Wichita State against a Seton Hall and they win by twenty. You place a Northern Iowa against a Georgetown, and they fall by only five. Place a Bradley against a Kansas and a Pittsburgh, and they win by four and six. Place Wichita State against Tennessee and they win by seven. We can't compare the Duke's and UConn's of the world to Missouri Valley teams. The two Missouri Valley schools have earned their way to the Sweet Sixteen more so than anyone else outside of George Mason. Give credit where credit is due. Speaking of George Mason, Nance and Packer were uncertain of that selection as well. What have they done? Beaten Tom Izzo's Michigan State Spartans (six seed) and Roy Williams' defending national champion North Carolina Tar Heels (three seed) to reach the Sweet Sixteen to face who? The Missouri Valley's very own seven seed, Wichita State Shockers. Jim and Billy had to eat their words and stuff their faces full of them after this weekend was over with. Hopefully, this will keep up.

Poor Bill Self, the Kansas head coach. He leaves Illinois. Bruce Weber goes there and in Weber's first season, the Illini reach the finals. Self, in his first two seasons at Kansas, has lost opening round games to Bucknell and now Bradley.

There are four matchups I'm really looking forward to in the Sweet Sixteen: Duke vs. LSU, Gonzaga vs. UCLA, Villanova vs. Boston College, and Florida vs. Georgetown. As an underdog favorite, I'll also be looking forward to the George Mason vs. Wichita State game.

Well, that's all I can ramble about for the time being. I didn't do so hot in the opening round, but did pretty well in the second and most importantly, all of my final four teams are still left in the field. I'm nervous, especially about UCLA, having to go through Gonzaga and most likely, Memphis, in order to reach the Final Four, but anything is possible. I can't wait for this upcoming weekend. March Madness was just that this opening weekend, pure madness and I can't wait for some more!

Tournament Picks

I finally filled out the brackets. It's a thing of beauty, until 11:00 am CST tomorrow. At that time, I'll start making marks on it and the once clean sheet of paper will lose its appeal.

First round upsets:

In the Atlanta region- #9 UNC Wilmington over #8 George Washington and #13 Iona over #4 LSU

In the Oakland region- #9 Bucknell over #8 Arkansas

Washington D.C.- #9 UAB over #8 Kentucky, #10 Seton Hall over #7 Wichita State, and #15 Winthrop over #2 Tennessee

Minneapolis- #9 Wisconsin over #8 Arizona and #15 Davidson over #2 Ohio State

Other potential upsets: #12 Texas A&M over #5 Syracuse, #11 Southern Illinois over #6 West Virginia, #10 NC State over #7 California, #12 Kent State over #5 Pittsburgh, #11 San Diego State over #6 Indiana, #10 Alabama over #7 Marquette, #12 Utah State over #5 Washington, #14 Murray State over #3 North Carolina, #11 Wisconsin-Milwaukee over #6 Oklahoma, #14 South Alabama over #3 Florida, and #10 Northern Iowa over #7 Georgetown

Sleeper teams:

Atlanta- #5 Syracuse and #4 LSU

Oakland- #5 Pittsburgh, #4 Kansas, and #7 Marquette

D.C.- #6 Michigan State and #5 Washington

Minneapolis- #4 Boston College, #6 Oklahoma, and #7 Georgetown

Final Four: #2 Texas vs. #2 UCLA and #1 UConn vs. #4 Boston College

Finals: #2 Texas vs. #1 UConn

National Champion- #1 UConn

One Demo- Amongst Wimp-o-crats

Would a real Democrat please stand up? Please stand up? Please stand up? One, okay, so one did. How about the rest?

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold stood up and spoke out that President Bush should be censured. This has only occurred one other time, with Andrew Jackson. Feingold spoke of the illegalities involved in the wire-tapping and eavesdropping by Bush and because of these illegal actions, he should be censured. According to the most recent numbers I saw in a poll, 70% of Americans agreed with Feingold. Only 27% disagreed and 3% were uncertain.

But, a couple days after Feingold's remarks, what's the attitude of the Democrats like? Like any other time, they refuse to grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans. It's official. We can now call our two major parties the Republi-cons and the Wimp-o-crats.

Is Feingold the only "Democrat" willing to stand up to the Republicans since 9/11? Remember when the Patriot ACT was signed? October 26th, 2001, just a month and a half after 9/11. Who was the only one to vote against it? Russ Feingold. It was later discovered that many didn't read the proposed bill before signing it and that was later regretted. Feingold was the only one to read through the context of the bill and decide that it infringed upon American citizens' civil liberties. There have been several documented cases of this occurring ever since the bill was passed. Thankfully, there have been some slight provisions made to the bill, but not as many as there should have been. Feingold is still fighting to make sure that the bill does not impede on our civil liberties.

Now, in March of '06, Bush's approval rating stands at anywhere from 34% to 37%. Cheney's approval rating is even lower, at 18%. Up to three-quarters of the nation feel that we are not headed in the right direction as a country. Bush admitted to the wire-tapping and eavesdropping, which is potentially an impeachable offense. 70% of the nation agree that Bush should be censured. Yet, with all these numbers and the public speaking their mind that they do not approve of the job Bush is doing or where the country is headed, no "Democrat" outside of Feingold is willing to stand up and speak out for the public.

It's very sad. Whenever the "Democrats" have an opportunity to take advantage of the hard times Republicans are in, they don't make the most of it. They seem to freeze up like an 8-year old boy before doing a solo at a chorus concert.

It seems obvious to me that only one Democrat is truly willing to stand up for the minds of American citizens and willing to do what's right, whether he's in the majority or minority in the political world. Because of this, I am going to do what I can in attempt to get him to run for president in 2008. I also hope the same for Arizona Senator John McCain. If it's Feingold against McCain in '08, then we'll be guaranteed a drastic change from the eight years prior, with Bush and company.

Below, there will be links where you can reach Senators Feingold and McCain. They both have a lot to offer, a lot more than I've witnessed from any other potential presidential candidate. There needs to be a change in '08. That change won't come about with Bill Frist, Rudy Guiliani, or Hillary Clinton. If one wants to vote Republican, McCain will bring a completely different attitude to the White House. He was a P.O.W. and would do all in his power to bring decency and integrity back to the U.S. Military. For those that want the soldiers to come back home as soon as possible, Feingold would set a time table for the troops to come home. With him in office, it'd also be a certainty that he'd keep a close eye on our balance between liberty and security. We've slipped into dangerous territory, letting freedom slip for false security. It's important we balance the scale, before we get to a point where the scale is tilted too much toward security that we can't retain our freedoms.

Links:

http://www.russforpresident.com/

http://www.draftruss.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/John_McCain_For_President_2008/

Barry Collier

I heard all over the news, especially locally, that Nebraska head basketball coach Barry Collier was going to be fired after the Huskers went 19-12 this year. But, it was reported earlier today that Collier was going to stick around for another year.

I'm glad of this. Collier is a good solid basketball coach, and even though Nebraska has not made the NCAA Tournament with him as their coach, they've shown improvements each and every year he's been there. This shows patience that is not displayed at most schools. It paid off for the Rutgers football team with coach Greg Schiano. I hope it pays off for Collier and the Huskers as well. They were not selected as an at-large team in the NCAA Tournament, as was expected, but will probably go to the other tournament, the NIT. Good luck there and hopefully the patience will pay off for the program.

March Madness

The teams have been selected. Brackets are printable. It is now time to make your picks. What will the first round upsets be? Who will the sleepers be? Will this be the first year that all four #1 seeds make the final four? Who didn't deserve to be in the field? Who got left out?

I watched the 5:00 NCAA Tournament special on CBS Sunday evening. Overall, I'd give the committee a B- grade on their selections. First off, where's the love to George Washington, Gonzaga, and Boston College? GW finished the season at 26-2 in the respectable Atlantic 10 Conference. Two losses all season and one of those came in the A-10 Tournament to Temple. GW was ranked in the Top Ten nationally and what do they get rewarded with? A #8 seed. Yeah, they go 26-2 and they have to play in an 8-9 game. Gonzaga went 27-3, have had a history of solid tournament performances, and have one of the best players in the nation in Adam Morrison. They're an obvious #2 seed, right? No. They get shafted again, being seeded #3. BC was ranked #11 nationally for the ACC Tournament and they made it all the way to the ACC Title Game, only to lose a two-point heartbreaker to the #1 overall seed, Duke. What are they rewarded with? A #4 seed. They're an obvious #3 seed in my book, maybe even a #2.

Kansas, Syracuse, and Indiana were all considered bubble teams not long ago. But, KU and Syracuse won their conference tournaments and were catapulted up to a #4 and #5 seed in their respective region. Indiana was seeded #6. The big name schools got the love when it came to these three.

Who got left out? The two I had a problem with are Cincinnati and Missouri State. Cincy played .500 ball in the toughest conference in all the country, the Big East. The RPI may say the Big Ten is better, but let's do the math. How many teams got in from the Big Ten? Six (#2, #3, #6, #6, #9, and #4). How many got in from the Big East? A record eight, including two #1's (#1, #1, #4, #5, #7, #10, #6, and #5). Do the math, and that's a total seeding of thirty for the Big Ten with six teams. Average those out and you come to an even five. Add the totals for the Big East and that comes to thirty-nine. Average that number out amongst eight teams and that comes out to just under five. So, the Big East got more teams into the tournament and overall, have a higher seeding average than the Big Ten. So, forget the RPI on this one. The Big East is the best conference this year. Cincy won nineteen games and went even in the toughest conference in the country. How they weren't accepted is beyond me. Missouri State was ranked #21 in the RPI at season's end. How in the world does a team not get in with an RPI of 21? That was the highest RPI ranking to ever be left out of the NCAA Tournament. Who's accepted? A seventeen win Alabama team? An Air Force club who didn't beat a top 50 team all year? Give me a break.

Outside of those few mistakes, I think the committee did a decent job, much more so than announcers Jim Nance and Billy Packer think. During the CBS Tournament Special on Sunday, Nance and Packer went on a rant about how they couldn't understand why the Missouri Valley got four teams into the tournament, the Colonial Conference got two teams into the tournament, and yet, the Pac Ten, Big XII, and ACC each had only four teams going dancing. They pulled out their stats book and notified the committee on how many more victories the major conferences have had in the tournament than the mid-majors, in particular, the Missouri Valley. They also ranted about how it's the committee's job to select the 34 best teams and made the argument that if the Bradley's and George Mason's of the college basketball world played in the ACC or the Big XII, they wouldn't be able to finish .500 in conference. So, because of that "rationalization," the power conference schools should be favored over the mid-majors.

I'm going to argue Nance and Packer on this one. The committee's job is not to select the 34 best teams to go dancing as you so declare. Their job is not to select the 34 best based solely upon talent and the conference teams they face in the year. The committee's job is to select the 34 most deserving teams to the dance. If a team from the ACC, is loaded in talent, has a rich history or tradition, but has not met expectations, finishing the season 17-11, then they should not be rewarded with an invite to the tournament. A team in a mid-major conference who goes 25-7, competes with teams in their non-conference schedule, and wins the majority of their conference games, should be rewarded. What, if Shaquille O'Neal was injured for the bulk of the season and the Miami Heat only finished .500 without him, a game back of the eighth and final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference, should Miami be allowed to go if Shaq is expected to be healthy in time for the playoffs? No. Why even play the regular season games if they don't matter? That's what the regular season is for. If UConn underachieved this year and only went 17-13, should they have been invited? No. Even though they're one of the biggest named schools in all of college hoops and arguably have one of the most talented teams in the nation, if they don't play well throughout the course of the regular season, then they don't deserve an NCAA Tournament invite. Sure, the Utah State's and George Mason's of the world may not do as well in a major conference as the Michigan's and Florida State's, but the selection process should not be based upon hypothetical scenarios. Those will get a person nowhere. They should be based upon what happens during the season. Michigan started off very strongly, at 16-3, but lost seven of their final nine games to finish 18-10. They played themselves out of a tournament spot right there. I don't care if they are a "better" team than Bradley. Bradley played themselves in and Michigan played themselves out. It's as simple as that. Who will get rewarded at a job? The person who is considered perhaps the brightest one at the place, but slacks off daily and doesn't fulfill his or her potential? Or, the overachieving little guy, who may not have quite the potential of the other, but has proven to be more productive and beneficial with his effort and determination? I say, let that first person go and keep the second one. Not everyone is a George W. Bush, where he fails at his jobs and then is (s)elected president. That's not how things usually work and not how things should ever work. Reward the smaller and mid-major conference teams for exceptional seasons. Just because a team may play in a tougher conference, may have more talent, and may win a one-on-one competition, does not mean that they deserve the tournament invite over a team who played consistently well throughout the season, fulfilled their potential and thensome, and was hot down the stretch.

I don't care what Nance and Packer's arguments are. I don't agree. Just like you don't reward the Indianapolis Colts if Peyton Manning goes down, only to come back at the end of the season when they're at 7-8, you shouldn't reward a team like Michigan or South Carolina who went 18-10 and 18-15, respectively. There were two flip-flops I would've made with the teams that were chosen: Cincinnati for Alabama and Missouri State for Air Force. Other than that, I think the committee did a decent job with the teams they selected. I only hope that the small and mid-major teams go on to upset some of the bigger name schools. We shall see. Enough ranting. It's time to do a little research and fill out those brackets!

Nebraska Sportswriter Gets Desperate

I just read a humorous column this morning in the Omaha-World Herald newspaper. Sports columnist Tom Shatel wrote about the Nebraska basketball team, as the Huskers have won two straight games to reach the Big XII semifinals.

I don't know if this column is more an indication of how easily excitable some Nebraska fans, of how much wishful thinking plays into Nebraska fans' minds, or if it's a sign that the World-Herald just needs to find a better columnist.

Here's the run down. Unless some miracle occurs, the Big XII will only send, at most, four teams to the NCAA Tournament: Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. As the title Big XII should indicate, there are twelve teams in the conference. Only having four out of twelve be worthy of making the Big Dance is sad to begin with. The mid-major Missouri Valley Conference may send an equal amount of teams to the Tournament as the Big XII. There's even a slight chance they'll send more. So, it's not like Nebraska plays in the Big East, where eight teams could be sent to the Big Dance.

Also, let's not forget, Nebraska is not known for their basketball. Their tradition resides in the ol' pigskin and even their football team has fallen back on harder times in the past few years. The Husker basketball team has not made the NCAA Tournament since 1999, I believe it was. They've been to the NIT (Not Invited Tournament) a few times since then, but not what is referred to as the Big Dance. They usually have a decent basketball team, pesky, might pull off an upset or two during the course of the season, but not good and consistent enough to make a run for the NCAA Tournament.

That was exactly the case this year, as Nebraska finished the regular season at 17-12, the sixth best in-conference record in the Big XII, but one of the weakest non-conference schedules in all of college basketball. At the very end of the season, Nebraska's overall record looked decent, but their RPI (Power Index) was around 100. This is because a few of their wins came against middle school teams. Their most lopsided win came against a team from a nursing home. Nebraska upset Oklahoma, got hammered by Kansas twice, got beat by a down and out Missouri team, lost to in-state rival Creighton, beat the weakest links that I just mentioned, and went to the Big XII tournament a number six seed with a record of 17-12.

The Big XII Tournament started on Thursday and Nebraska opened with a victory over Missouri, a team that has been a wreck all season. Last night, the Huskers beat Oklahoma for the second time this season. So, now, they are 19-12 and face Kansas today in the semifinals. Kansas has beaten Nebraska this year by counts of 42 and 21 points. Since Nebraska's RPI was so low (or high, depending on how one looks at it, but in either light, it's not good), they would have no chance to make the NCAA Tournament unless they beat Kansas today and win tomorrow's Big XII Championship Game. Otherwise, in all likelihood, they'll head off to the NIT Tournament, yet again. Just another season in Nebraska basketball. There is talent out there on the court. The conference is in a down year. All the pieces seem to be there to make a run for the NCAA Tournament, but it just doesn't happen. The weak schedule was perhaps their biggest enemy this year. If they had faced a Kentucky and North Carolina this year, instead of Elkhorn Middle School and Millard Nursing Home, they may have only needed to beat Kansas today in order to make the NCAA Tournament. But, playing those weak teams has made it very difficult to impress the RPI.

So, what do I read today in the Omaha-World Herald? A sports column written by Tom Shatel, talking about Nebraska basketball. He sounded ecstatic, that, and a little drunk. He brought up how this year's team seemed very similar to the one back in 1994, the last time Nebraska won the Big XII Tournament. He raved about the Huskers play last night and asked why they couldn't have done this all season? He spoke of this current two-game winning streak like it was a work of God. Winning two games in a row, is that even considered a streak? Three in a row, maybe, but two straight? Give me a break. Why couldn't they have done this all year? Won two in a row? Well, let's do the math here Tom. Nebraska has played 31 games this year, are 19-12, so if they win two out of three for the year, they'd be 21-10 or 20-11 right now, just one or two games better than their actual record. With their lousy non-conference schedule, it probably wouldn't have mattered if they were 20-11 or 21-10 right now. There are plenty of other teams more deserving than Nebraska to make the tournament. Shatel went on to talk about how the 1994 had more talent than this year's club, but that there were similarities. This is the part when he sounded drunk. He mentioned that both teams have seniors and freshmen. If that is not the sportswriter bonehead comment of the week, I don't know what is. Naw, really Tom? Were there sophomores and juniors too? Were the players taking classes? Did some like action flicks? Comedies? Were a few into other sports? Did they have mothers and fathers? Pets? Drive cars? Ride bikes when they were younger? Wait, he's right! They do have a lot in common! Just, not on the basketball court. Sure, there are seniors and freshmen, just like every other team in the country. That's like comparing two football teams and saying that they both wear helmets. Yeah, no kidding.

Now, if Nebraska beats Kansas today (which I highly doubt), then Shatel and company can start getting excited, because they'd have beaten a team who demolished them by 63 points in two games this season, and they'd be one game away from an automatic NCAA Tournament bid. But, don't get too excited yet Tommy. Kansas has seniors and freshmen on their team too, and these seniors and freshmen are a lot better than Nebraska's.

Update: After the opening five minutes, Nebraska played evenly with Kansas, with the scored tied at nine. But, KU outscored the Huskers 70-56 from that point on, in a 79-65 victory over the Huskers. KU swept the season series 3-0, outscoring Nebraska by a total of 77 points. Ouch! If there is one positive Husker fans can look back on, it's the fact they improved with every game they played the Jayhawks. They went from losing by 42 to 21 to 14. That probably won't be positive enough for head coach Barry Collier to keep his job, but for how badly they got crushed by Kansas this year, they have to look at some positive, no matter how hard it is to find. Now, I'm just looking forward to reading Shatel's column tomorrow. Watch how fast he turns, going from wishful thinking to saying that he knew they'd get crushed all along.

O'Reilly Has Officially Lost It

When I say "Lost It," I don't mean to say that O'Reilly ever had "It" to begin with, whatever that "It" may be, such as intelligence, charisma, a quality program. No, no, no. When I say, "Lost It," I'm talking about the guy's sanity.

I have to admit, I've never been a fan of Bill O'Reilly's show. He, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, they're all alike to me. They all remind me of Adam Sandler in "The Waterboy," when Sandler finds something to get angry about, and then levels the player holding on to the football. O'Reilly seems to be in that state of mind. The only difference is, O'Reilly is in this state on a constant basis, whereas Sandler's character was only like this on the football field. The guy likes to yell, scream, cut off "guests'" microphones if they say anything he doesn't agree with. He'll insult "guests" on shows. He'll cut off telephone callers if they say anything that he doesn't agree with. Yes, Bill O'Reilly is a good, wholesome, honest, dependable, loving family man. Well, he might be loving, but in a different way, so says the $6 million dollar settlement he had to pay his phone sex buddy. But, that's another story for another time.

The story right here has to do with a phone call Bill O'Reilly received on his show just a week ago. Here's how that conversation went. For those that are unfamiliar with the show (keep it that way, trust me), the name "Hill" will be displayed a couple times. She's O'Reilly's yes-person.

O'Reilly: "Orlando, Florida, Mike, go."

Caller: "Hey Bill, I appreciate you taking my call."

O'Reilly: "Sure."

Caller: "I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olberman's show--" (cut off)

O'Reilly: "There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit."

Hill: "Maybe Mike is from the mothership."

O'Reilly: "No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?"

Hill: "That's fair."

O'Reilly: "So, just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks. Whatever. You will be held accountable. Believe it."

The Fox security team did in fact call Mike, among others who had made similar phone calls. Here's what one had to say:

"I got the call on the phone I used to call him from the head of Fox News security. He said that harassing phone calls were coming from my phone. I asked him how many? He did not know. I asked him what was said that was harassing? He said that he did not know but that it did not have to be what was said, but how many calls were being made. He tried to make like I made 20 phone calls instead of one, and that I cursed O'Reilly out. All I said was that I was grateful to O'Reilly for turning me on to Olberman. Then he hung up."

O'Reilly has gotten himself into these feuds before. The most notable feud was with Air America host Al Franken. O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olberman are the latest feud. On Olberman's nightly news show, "The Countdown," he lists the three worst people of the day, and has listed O'Reilly on more than a few occasions. Not long ago, O'Reilly sent a letter to Bob Wright, NBC chairman, and said this:

"Therefore, in an effort to rescue MSNBC from the ratings basement and to restore the honor and dignity of Mr. Donahue, who was ignobly removed as host three years ago, we ask that you immediately bring Phil Donahue's show back at 8:00 PM EST before any more damage is done."

A petition was then posted on O'Reilly's website in attempt to get Donahue to replace Olberman. In response to this, Olberman and his colleagues signed the petition during "The Countdown."

For the record, Olberman and the 8:00 spot on MSNBC has much higher ratings than Donahue did. "The Countdown"'s ratings have increased 55% in the past couple months and "The O'Reilly Factor" has been going in the opposite direction. O'Reilly still holds more viewers on a nightly basis, but the gap is closing. "The Countdown" also just celebrated their 3-year anniversary on air and their ratings are stronger than ever.

Keith Olberman had former Connecticut state prosecutor on the show with him in the past week to talk about the O'Reilly incident. Here's what the former attorney, Susan Filan, had to say:

"The only person that's going to get in trouble here is Bill O'Reilly. He's lost the plot entirely. To think that you can commandeer local law enforcement to be your personal henchman because you don't like something a caller said on the air is absolutely outrageous and absurd. It's an abuse of the media, it's an abuse of law enforcement, and he's now the one engaging in threatening behavior. You can't do that. He crossed the line. What did the caller say that's obscene, 'Keith Olberman'? I don't think so."

She also had this to say:

"Well, I think that this has to be investigated. I think if Bill O'Reilly, in fact, made that threat on the air and, in fact, followed it up with someone from Fox security and, in fact, local law enforcement was called, I think that has to be investigated. Because that is an abuse of Bill O'Reilly's power."

O'Reilly is the anti-"liberal." He wants to lecture and tell people what they should think and believe. He doesn't want people to think for themselves. If anyone disagrees with him in any respect, he'd rather not hear it. He's not subtle about this either. The words "Shut up" have got to be his favorite in the English language. He's not coy about hanging up the phone on a caller or cutting off the mic on a guest either. He even insulted a guest for what seemed like five consecutive minutes. The guest's father was killed during 9/11 and like the guest's father would've done (so claims the son), the guest questioned the motives of the war and did not believe that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was the smart one. O'Reilly went off about how the guest's father would be ashamed and how he should go move somewhere else, if he doesn't like it in the United States. The guest had studied O'Reilly's rants at other guests, so he knew when Bill was going to pause, and that's when he'd speak out. When he did this, O'Reilly yelled out, "Cut off his mic! Cut it!"

How can one feel justified in hanging up on a caller or cutting off a guests' microphone if the person is not saying anything obscene, vulgar, or threatening? Then, on top of that, threatening people who call in, if they so much as say something O'Reilly doesn't agree with? Calling the local authorities? Having Fox security call their home? That is just downright ridiculous and frightening!

O'Reilly liked to label those who were against the war as Anti-American. But, he should really look in the mirror sometime. O'Reilly is obviously against any kind of Republic or Democracy. He doesn't believe in first amendment rights. He'll talk about how the troops and wars are what put our freedoms here in the first place, and yet, through his words and actions, he's basically showing that he doesn't care for the freedoms of others, so long as he has his.

Bill O'Reilly is an egotistical, narcissistic, phone sex-operating, narrow-minded, fascist. Those that believe in the base and foundation of what makes America America, yet disagree with decisions made by politicians (including war) are American in every sense of the word. Edward Murrow stated it best when he said, "There is a difference between dissent and disloyalty." O'Reilly doesn't believe in the base and foundation of this country. Through his words and actions, he believes in totalitarianism. To the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, King, Murrow, and others, O'Reilly and those like him are the true Anti-Americans.

Links:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060305/cm_huffpost/016772

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11698322/

Other fun O'Reilly Links:
http://www.cosmosleft.com/pages/3/index.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/billoreilly/index.htm

Bush Top Ten

Top Ten Ways President Bush Can Improve His Approval Ratings

10. Wear a rainbow-colored tie and see "Brokeback Mountain."
9. Leave and take over as president of Iraq.
8. Enter a national spelling bee competition, and get shown up by middle schoolers.
7. Try out for "American Idol" and watch Simon tear him apart.
6. Go back to the good old days, get wasted, and snort a few lines, before every major speech or press conference.
5. Be a guest on "Survivor" to see just how loony he really is.
4. Choke on another "pretzel."
3. Never speak to the public again.
2. Create an 11th amendment to the constitution- No other Bush may become president again.
1. (drum roll) Go on a hunting trip with a liquored-up Dick Cheney.

The Problem With "Liberal" Teachers

I've heard it many times and the more I read in independent and alternative news, the more I read about teachers being labeled as too "liberal."

Right as the war in Iraq began, an elementary school teacher spoke to a class about alternatives to war. A student asked if she was for or against protests and she stated that she favored all alternatives to war, until it was truly the last resort. So, a student tattled on her and not long after, she was let go by the school.

Just recently, a college professor made comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of his speech, he noted that all he was trying to do was provoke thought and just because he said what he did, didn't make him right. He was just attempting to get the students to open their minds and look at things in a different light. A student ratted on him and the teacher has been suspended from teaching until the investigation comes to a close.

These are only two of the many stories I've read relating to teachers being too "liberal." I have no problem with people speaking up and expressing their displeasure of a certain teacher, but to let a professor go because of one student's complaint? That is what I don't understand.

In the first scenario, the teacher was not preaching. She was not playing anti-war music and saying that she was 100% against the war. All she stated was that there are alternatives (which there are) and that she only wanted war as a last resort. Isn't that what President Bush initially stated? The option of war would only be used as a last resort? Yeah, that wasn't true, but it is what he said. So, why in the world should she be let go for those statements? If a coach lets the players know all the options they have on offense, should he then be fired? What is wrong with letting all the options be known, as opposed to just the one?

In the other case, the teacher stated what his intentions were with the lecture- he was just trying to get the students to open their minds and think. Ever taken a philosophy course? This is what philosophy professors are famous for, telling off-the-wall stories to provoke thought from their students. They're not trying to preach, just get the students to think a little differently and see things from different perspectives. What's the harm in that? The same is true in Critical Thinking/Reasoning courses. Just look at the title of the course. The professor wants the students to think critically. So, what's the harm in getting them to attempt to think critically?

Some people will go as far to say that the education system is being taken over by the far-left end of the spectrum, politically speaking. What do these people want? For there not to be any questioning? Critical thinking? Logical reasoning for arguments? For everyone to be yes-people?

While it is true that there are more liberally-minded teachers than conservative ones. Why do you suppose this is? How much money does the average teacher make in a year? Many have to get a second job in the summer just to keep afloat. So, money and materialism are not motivators for the typical professor. Typical motivation is to make a difference in a person's life and to lead them down the right path. Who do you suppose would be more inclined to taking a job like that? Someone who thinks liberally or conservatively? More liberals than conservatives, that's for certain. So, I've got a solution. We pay the teachers more. This would motivate people from both sides of the spectrum to take on teaching. There would also be a great deal more competition for jobs all across the country, so more times than not, we'd get the best possible teacher to fit a spot.

Now, many college students are turning away from potentially teaching, because they feel the money involved would not be enough to provide them with a financially stable life, especially if they were to get married and bring children into this world. So, we are losing out on many potentially great teachers due to the lack of money involved. Pay them more money and we'll get more out of it. The students will benefit from this as well, because with better teachers, we'll see improvement in grades, even in the areas of math and science (where we've been struggling). When will politicians finally step up and do this? I haven't the slightest idea, but unfortunately, I'm not seeing it anytime in the near future.

Received Another Lovely E-Mail

This one was a forward from a relative of mine dealing with Martin Luther King Day. Now, is it just me, or was MLK Day celebrated over a month ago? Third week in January, I believe? Why did he feel it necessary to send it now? Was he embarrassed that I had proven his other e-mail to be false? So, he had to scrap through anything he could in attempt to redeem himself?

In this e-mail, it spoke of King's: 1) Supposed affairs, 2) Supposed links to communism, and 3) Alleged plagiarism in speeches and papers of his. The e-mail then complained about a holiday celebrating, well, the "devil," pretty much. It said for everyone to make sure that they keep all these "facts" in mind on MLK Day. Again, it being March, I think this individual was embarrassed by my showing him up on his bogus e-mail, so he had to send something out for redemption. It also spoke about how we live in a world of reverse discrimination, whites are now the minority, and whites don't have as many rights or opportunities as blacks.

It read like an e-mail a KKK member might send to some potential prospects, in hopes of burning crosses on MLK Day. It made for a lovely read, I must say.

You know, I have a book coming out shortly and a poem in there is entitled "Dr. King." I wrote it on Martin Luther King Day four years ago, not long after the U.S. declared a war on terror. I'm sure this family member will love that poem. He'll probably condemn me and declare me the devil's advocate.

As I did with his other e-mail, I'm sending this individual some information to rebut his claims. While it can't be for certain what happened in regards to King's extramarital affairs, there have been differing stories on the matter. The FBI claimed they had evidence regarding these affairs, even with prostitutes, and even sent King a suicide note, threatening to expose these events if he didn't kill himself. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was very much against the black movement and kept a particularly close eye on King, wanting to ruin his reputation. Hoover and the FBI even resorted to bugging King's residence and hotel rooms. Family members of King claimed that the FBI set up attractive women in his rooms to set him up as having extramarital affairs. So, it cannot be certain what the true story was, but Hoover definitely wanted to dispose of King, and was going to do anything in his power to do so.

The plagiarism claims seem to be fairly valid, but there are also different takes on this matter. While, it seems that King did most certainly use others' words in speeches and papers of his, it's also said that this was quite common for African American pastors and they didn't consider it plagiarism. They felt it was all being used for a common cause and for a higher purpose, so while looking at it in black and white terms, we may say, yes, he plagiarized; we also have to look at the time in which it took place, his ethnic background, and his profession.

When it comes to links to communism, this was very common back in those days. Former Senator Joe McCarthy called it the "Red Scare." But, decades after that incident, many question whether it was a "Red Scare" or if he was just a "Red Menace." Anyone who so questioned the government, especially the war, was labeled a "dangerous liberal" and therefore, a "communist." There was no differentiating between liberals and communists for McCarthy at that time. So King, leading his movement for peace and equality, would've definitely been considered liberal and "communist" by Hoover, McCarthy, and the like. But, does that mean he was in fact a communist? No.

So, there are many different angles and perspectives one can take when analyzing these stories on Martin Luther King. When it comes down to it and all the angles are presented, one will most likely believe what they want to believe. One who despised King and what he stood for, will probably believe that he was a bad man and all these stories are true. Others, who applaud what he stood for, will probably go the direct opposite route. Yet, others, will stand somewhere in between the two extremes.

But, the most ignorant comments in the entire e-mail have to deal with reverse discrimination, whites being the minority, and not having as many rights or opportunities as blacks. I did some research on this and here are some numbers I pulled up:

Whites still make up over 79% of the U.S. population. Blacks only make up 11% and Hispanics constitute close to 9%. Whites are the minority? If minority means the majority, then I guess that's accurate. But, from what I've come to know, it's never meant that.

How about yearly income? The median for whites is almost $45,000 and the mean average is close to $60,000. For blacks, that's a different story, where the median income is slightly over $29,000 and the mean income is just below $40,000. Hispanics rake in a median income of almost $34,000 and a mean average of just over $44,000. 19.7% of whites make under $20,000 a year and 7.9% make less than $10,000 yearly. For blacks, that number increases to 35.7% that makes less than $20,000 annually and an astounding 19.1% make less than $10,000 a year. 28.2% of Hispanics make less than $20,000 annually and 9.5% make under $10,000 a year. Going the other way, 44.6% of whites make at least $50,000 a year. In comparison, only 27.4% of blacks and 30.9% of Hispanics make at least $50,000 per year.

Only 8.1% of whites live in poverty, while 24.9% and 22.6% of Hispanics live in poverty. The poverty rate for blacks is three times that of whites and the Hispanic poverty rate is almost three times that of whites. How can anyone in their right mind think that whites are the minority, that we suffer from reverse discrimination, and that we don't receive the same rights and opportunities as the true minorities? If someone wants to believe the stories regarding King, that's one thing. But, to state that a group of people who comprise nearly 80% of a population as a minority? To say that a group of people who have one-third the poverty rate that these other groups have don't have equal rights or opportunities as them? To say that a group of people who averages to make approximately $20,000 and $16,000 more per household than these other two groups of people suffer from reverse discrimination? I've heard and read some ignorant statements, but this one might be hard to top.

Links:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html
http://www.cdc.gov/omh/Populations/populations.htm
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/c2kbr-36.pdf

The Nice Person's Dilemma

A friend of mine and I recently discussed what kind of baggage comes along with being a nice person. Why is that? Why must we carry that baggage? Is it because we actually listen to people? Give good advice? Actually seem to care? Those probably all play roles, but why is that we seem to have a magnetic force, affecting all those around us who have major issues or problems? Their eyes spot ours and immediately know they can come talk to us. There's never that person we're attracted to on every level who immediately spots us and walks over to engage in conversation. No. It's those people who need a counselor, a psychologist, a best friend. So, there we are, listening, nodding, giving them eye contact, telling them what we think about their problem(s), and through this, they may get the wrong impression and think we're interested, when we're only being nice. To them, we're perfect. That's just fantastic, isn't it? We're perfect to people with more baggage than Michael Jackson. That makes me feel special, to say the least.

You know that old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all?"

Well, I have a new saying that might help us nice people out. "If a time calls for you to say something too nice, don't say anything at all." I think that might help out some. Being nice is fine, but being too nice might be what gets us into trouble.

Conservative? Liberal? What?

I got into a funny discussion with a friend last night. She mentioned that she and her ex couldn't talk about anything. This was especially the case when anything involving politics or religion came up. He'd always shoot back with a, "No, you're wrong," "You're being so ridiculous," "You're being irrational," or "I read a book about that once, so come back to me at another time when you've done your homework like I have." Allright, so the guy knows everything, right? He thinks so, anyway.

But, after a long discussion with my friend, he seems very confused. Maybe the young lad doesn't know as much as he believes. Wouldn't that be something? My friend, we'll call her Lacey, does not like guns. She believes in gun laws. Heck, she'd feel a heck of a lot safer if there were no guns, period! Her ex, Gus we'll call him, doesn't believe in gun laws and claimed that Lacey was really liberal, because of her views on guns. Allright. But, Lacey witnessed the news one evening and overheard a young man who robbed a store and killed somebody, and stated that he should be punished. What did Gus say to this? "Gosh, you're really conservative on this, aren't you?"

Allright, so let me get this straight. If one supports gun laws, then they're liberal. If they support one being punished for a crime, they're conservative? What? So, liberals don't believe in any punishment or responsibility? Is that right, Gus? What, since Gus doesn't believe there should be any gun laws, should I thereby label him an anarchist? I could, but I won't.

While, for the most part, it is true that liberals favor gun laws more than conservatives, I have never heard that conservatives favor punishment, consequence, and responsibility more than liberals. Heck, when it comes to politicians, it seems that so-called liberals and conservatives alike, only believe in punishment, consequence, and responsibility when it comes to other countries or people who don't agree with them in their own country. But, for them personally? Heck no, there shouldn't be any punishment, consequence, or responsibility. I'll give two examples, without names being mentioned, of course...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

"They have weapons of mass destruction!"

One of those quotes is from a Democrat and one is from a Republican. Ahh, yes, they both were extremely upstanding, honest people who could fess up to wrongs they committed, prepare themselves for the consequences, and take full responsibility for their actions. Uh-huh.

So, while I have to agree that more liberals favor gun laws than do conservatives. I can't understand the logic, reasoning, or rationale behind saying conservatives believe in punishment, consequence, and responsibility more so than do liberals. Sorry Gus, but you don't know as much as you think, so hit those books again, and do your own homework!

Politics Can Blind People As Well

I've written a couple stories about how religion can blind folks. Well, politics sure can too! A true die-hard Republican or Democrat might feel so red or blue to the core, that they just can't stand to hear the other side so much as speak. Anything their party says, well, it's got to be true, right? Anything the other party says? Oh, that's complete nonsense! Sometimes it gets ridiculous.

Since the gist of this will be based on die-hard Republicans, I'll give an example of a die-hard Democrat right here, to try and even things out just a bit. Because, hey, this can happen on either side. If a Democrat were president and he/she said that there was life on Neptune, the die-hards may scream in unison, "Yeah, yeah, that's totally right! I always thought so!" They may say this, even though, they honestly never thought it was possible. But, if a Republican candidate speaks about there not being any signs of life outside this planet yet, even before he/she states those words, those die-hard Democrats will already start yelling, "You're full of it! You suck! Go home! Go to Neptune where you belong!" It's a beautiful thing how politics can blind many. I just received an e-mail that illustrates this. I will copy and paste every word of it, so you all may not be cheated out of the pleasure I had in reading this and then discovering, as I so suspected, that it's inaccurate. Keep in mind, this was sent by a relative of mine, who is red to the core, a die-hard Republican. Here is the e-mail:

"About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.'

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,242,700

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:
'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare...'

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the 'complacency' and 'apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake and that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom."

There you have it. Anything stand out as BS to you? Some people will go to any numbers or any source (no matter how fake or pretend that source is), so long as it backs up their party. Well, I looked further into this and first off, the states won by each candidate is wrong. Bush won 30 states and Gore won 20 (along with Washington D.C.).

The quote by "Alexander Tyler" is nonsense. His name was actually "Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler." There is also no record of "The Fall of the Athenian Republic."

Professor Joseph Olson is not the source of the statistics noted. He has confirmed this on several occasions. Listen to this. This is what Dave Hamrick, editor of Fayette Citizen, had to say concerning this e-mail:

"I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting 'facts' supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election.

Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore.

I didn't have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular... the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties.

This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist.

'Now I'm getting somewhere,' I thought.

But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the 'research' was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn't do the research either, and didn't remember who had e-mailed it to him.

In other words, he got the same legend e-mailed to him and passed it on to Olson without checking it out, and when Olson passed it on, someone thought it sounded better if a law professor had done the research, and so it grew.

Who knows where it originally came from, but it's just not true."

Isn't that funny? So, what are the murder rates? According to the U.S. Department of Justice, nationally, it was 5.5 per 100,000. The actual rate, as opposed to what that e-mail wanted to suggest, is this, per 100,000:

Gore: 6.5
Bush: 4.1

Quite the difference, I must say. Going from a gap of 11.1 to a gap of 2.4, a difference of 8.7. So, if any of you receive this e-mail or hear others talking about it, feel free to chuckle or to speak up and send them to the link I will list directly below. I sent this link to the person who e-mailed me that nonsense letter. I'm interested to hear his response, if there is one.

Link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

Update:

I just received an e-mail from my relative after I sent him the news that the letter was BS. Here's what he had to say:

"Oops! Sounded too good to be true." Yeah, didn't it? Only for the 34% who are still followers of Bush. They've got to be getting lonely now, just as I was when I was part of the 10% who didn't approve of him directly following 9/11. It can get pretty lonely down there, so one may be more apt to taking any kind of support they can find, even if it comes from a bogus source.

34 and 18- Beautiful Numbers

Why are they beautiful, one may ask? Because, according to a poll taken on February 27th, those are the approval ratings of the president and vice president. Just a month ago, Bush's approval rating was at 39%, but due to the continuing war in Iraq, the impending one in Iran, and the Arab ports, Bush's approval has dropped to 34%, the lowest of his tenure. Just after 9/11, that rating was at 90% and has dropped steadily 56 percentage points to 34%. Vice president Dick Cheney was never as well liked as Bush, because, well, the guy doesn't seem to be the most amiable specimen alive. He's like a Fenster: Old, bald, and doesn't smile. His approval rating was at a staggering 23% last month and that's dropped to 18%.

I just bought this shirt with three bulletholes on it (not true bulletholes, of course) and it reads "I Went Hunting With Dick Cheney." Ahh, it's a work of art I tell you. It's nice to know that whenever I wear this around, less than two in ten people will stare me down in anger, while more than eight in ten will give me a thumbs up and laugh.

So, how do the president and vice president up their ratings? Perhaps if Cheney took all his guns and went on a one-man hunt of Al-Qaeda, then some people might respect him a bit more and claim that he's a terrific VP. If Richard started doing a stand-up comedy tour to show his lighter side and that he actually has a sense of humor, I think that could help a bit as well. But, in all honesty, do I think either of these things will occur? No, of course not.

Bush just mentioned here in the past day or so that they're going to catch Osama Bin Laden. He's back to his old tricks, isn't he? He just admitted the other day that the Bin Laden video shown the week of the election was the reason he won. When times get tough. When ratings are down. It's time to go after Osama. Right after 9/11, oh, it was all about Osama. That was to just create the illusory link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, so after Iraq we go! When asked about Osama during that time, Bush basically said, "Ehh, he's not really on my mind right now. We've got more important things to worry about." Ahh, beautiful. So, from those statements, it can be assumed that Bin Laden wasn't too big a worry for George and company from the get-go or that perhaps something happened between those statements, such as, Bin Laden's death. Because, let's face it, if he died, Bush would've been right in a sense; there was no need to worry about a rotting corpse. But, here we are, four plus years after 9/11, and after a very long delay, Bush claims we're going to go back after the supposed-mastermind of 9/11. Yeah, that makes sense Georgie. That'd be like me coaching a basketball team a few years ago and playing against the Chicago Bulls. I'd be going into the game telling my team to stop #23, Michael Jordan. I'd repeat myself over and over again. After the first quarter, Jordan already has 10 points, and my players ask me, "So, coach, we've been trying, but we can't stop him! Have any more ideas? He's just so good!" Then, I tell them, "No, nevermind, don't worry about him. Focus in on center Bill Cartwright instead or maybe Horace Grant. Jordan can only do so much by himself, right?" So, they do their jobs, stop Cartwright and Grant, but after the third quarter, Jordan has 38 points all to himself. That's when I get in my team's face and tell them, "Stop playing around here! What'd I tell you initially? Stop Michael Jordan! He's tearing us apart out there!" Yeah, but by that time, it was too late, as we were down 86-62. Bush is down to 34%. I personally think Bin Laden is dead, so unless Bush has something up his sleeve about a fake Bin Laden doing an audiotape and saying, "I am here to tell you all that I am dying and will be dead very shortly. This is all due to your great president. You should all love him, respect him, and support him. If you do not, I will have Al-Qaeda strike you again! Peace be with you all. Buhbye now."

Or, if they found Bin Laden's body and claimed responsibility for the killing, then that could play into Bush's favor as well. But, as always, there would be the skeptics, as his body would be nothing but a skeleton and some might come forward and state the obvious, "I don't know, but to me, from those pictures, it appears as if he's been dead for a very long time." And that's why we have experts and analysts, to point out the obvious to us laypeople.

You know, it was my birthday just yesterday when I read about these numbers. I read about them early in my day and it got me smiling the rest of the afternoon and evening. It was kind of a lonely feeling there for a while. When Bush was at 90%, I was that one in ten who didn't approve of the guy, but I am now one of 6.6 out of ten who don't approve of him. So, keep it up George! You set the record for all-time highest presidential approval rating. Let's see if you can set a record for all-time lowest approval rating for a president. That'd be special.