Day 1 of NFL Draft

Day 1 of the NFL Draft was an interesting one. There were surprises, fallbacks, gambles, arguments, overanalyzing, speculation, with a lot to look forward to on the second day of the draft.

The first surprise was the fact that tailback Reggie Bush was not taken first by the Houston Texans. He slipped to the New Orleans Saints at #2 after the Texans took NC State defensive end Mario Williams with the top overall pick. Allright, so it wasn't a surprise to me, but it was indeed a surprise to most around the country. Many rolled their eyes at the pick and think Houston made a bonehead decision by not taking Bush. I said from the moment it was known that Houston would have the first overall pick, that they should trade down and draft someone for their offensive line or someone on defense. Up until last night, though, all I kept hearing was Bush, Bush, and Bush. Don't get me wrong, talent wise, Reggie Bush was #1 in this draft. There's no doubt about that. But, a team shouldn't be drafting based on talent. They should draft according to their needs. Houston has talented skill players on offense, in quarterback David Carr, tailback Dominick Davis, and wideout Andre Johnson. Bush may have aided them some, especially on special teams, but why go for a guy at a position where you've already got a proven player? If the San Diego Chargers had the top pick, should they have drafted Reggie Bush, already having LaDanian Tomlinson? No. San Diego's primary need was in the secondary, so they either draft a corner or safety at #1 or they trade down, gain some additional draft picks and take a man in the secondary with their first overall pick, wherever that may come. Adding depth at a particular position is great, but only if you're loaded at every position and that's a rarity. What are Houston's biggest holes? The offensive line and the defense. David Carr has been sacked over 200 times in his four years as an NFL quarterback. That's an average of over 50 times per season, which is an average of over three times a game (and this includes him missing some starts). I don't care how talented an offense is at the skill positions, it all starts up front and on defense. Who've won the past few Super Bowls? Pittsburgh, New England (three times), Tampa Bay, Baltimore. What do all these teams have in common? They were all solid up front on offense and all had one of the top defensive teams in the NFL. New England didn't win their third consecutive Super Bowl last year and why? They were ranked 26th in defense. If Carr can't get protection to make the most of his talents, to utilize the skills of Johnson on the outside, and to break open holes for Davis in the running game, then Houston won't be able to get anything done, unless they make clones of Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice, Lynn Swann, and Michael Vick. Even if they had the clones, they still wouldn't be the best team in football because of their lousy defense. Houston was ranked at or near the bottom in every defensive statistical category last year. What I would've done would have been to trade down a couple spots and drafted offensive lineman D'Brickashaw Ferguson of Virginia. He was the best lineman in the draft (went 4th overall to the Jets), would've helped that horrendous line tremendously and Houston could've picked up an additional pick or two. Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They did the second best thing (for them), though, in taking Mario Williams. Many want to say that Houston missed out on a golden opportunity to take Bush at #1. But, who was going to help the team more overall? A guy who'd split time at a position they're already solid at or pick up a guy who can get after the quarterback like Williams can and help fill a huge hole for the team? Bush may be the more talented of the two, but Williams made more sense than Bush for the Texans. If New Orleans had the top pick, they would've probably made the same decision and taken Williams and why? They already have Deuce McCallister in the backfield, with Drew Brees at quarterback, and the likes of Joe Horn and Donte Stallworth at receiver. They're very talented on offense. What they need is help on the defensive side of the ball. But, since Williams was taken #1, the Saints picked Bush to add depth to the backfield and give some added stability with the injury-prone McCallister. Houston had a solid first day of the draft where they made it a point to address their weak spots on the team.

The pick that really surprised me was when Tennessee took quarterback Vince Young with the #3 overall pick. Why? Because the guy has a lot to work on, Tennessee is uncertain if Steve McNair will be back in uniform next year, and because their offensive coordinator is ex-USC offensive coordinator, in Norm Chow. It's unlikely that McNair will be in a Titans uniform this next season. So, the quarterback that Tennessee drafted today may very well start sometime early this upcoming season. Matt Leinart started four years at USC, played under Norm Chow for three of them (two titles to show for it), and scored a very solid 35 on the intelligence test. Vince Young doesn't have as much experience, as many reps, and only scored a 16 on the intelligence test (a 6 on his first attempt). Who is more ready for the NFL and for a starting role right away? Leinart, without question. Young may be the more exciting of the two, but he will not be ready for a while to be a starter in the NFL. It was not a smart pick by the Titans, in my opinion. They did get a steal in the second round, however, in drafting USC tailback LenDale White. With he and Chris Brown in the backfield, Tennessee will have two bruising north-south runners that'll be tough to contend with for 60 minutes.

One team that came away with a couple steals was the Carolina Panthers. They drafted Memphis tailback DeAngelo Williams late in the first round. Many had him rated as the #2 tailback, behind only Reggie Bush. Carolina has not been consistent in the running game and this helps them provide talent and youth to a position that was aging and slowing quickly for them. They also nabbed Fresno State cornerback Richard Marshall with their second round pick.

There wasn't much booing going on from the fans for the New York Jets' picks, because there wasn't anything to boo about. The Jets were awful in quarterback protection a year ago, so they wasted no time and drafted the before-mentioned Ferguson of Virginia, the best lineman available. They also drafted the best center available, in Nick Mangold of Ohio State. Then, they helped add some depth and competition at quarterback with the always questionable (health wise) Chad Pennington, in drafting Kellen Clemens of Oregon. Who are the best all-around quarterbacks in the draft? In my opinion, they're Jay Cutler of Vanderbilt and Kellen Clemens of Oregon.

Denver had a very interesting day, but they added a lot, especially on offense. They traded up to draft Jay Cutler, so I don't know what the status of Jake Plummer is there. He had such an exceptional season a year ago, I didn't truly understand this pick, but it definitely gives them a quarterback of the future if they don't plan on keeping Plummer for too long. They then traded for Javon Walker, receiver out of Green Bay. He's coming back from a knee injury, but is said to be recovering nicely and will give them a multitude of options to throw to in the ageless Rod Smith, Ashlie Lelie, and Javon Walker.

Arizona got Matt Leinart at #10 in the draft and even though Leinart lacks arm strength, he'll fit in very nicely with the Cardinals' offensive gameplan. Arizona is already set at receiver with Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin. They picked up standout running back Edgerrin James in the off-season and now have a quarterback of the future in Matt Leinart. He'll be a very nice fit for this ball club.

It's hard to say there are any losers on Day 1 of the NFL Draft, but Buffalo had the oddest day. They had two first round picks, at #8 and #26 and took safety Donte Whitner of Ohio State and then defensive tackle John McCargo of NC State. Whitner was slated to go later in the first round and McCargo was predicted by some to go in the 3rd or 4th round.

As for the Atlanta Falcons, I think they had a very solid opening day of the draft. They addressed team needs in taking the tall and athletic cornerback Jimmy Williams out of Virginia Tech in the second round and then taking the quickest tailback in the draft with their 3rd round pick, Jerius Norwood of Mississippi State. DeAngelo Hall has developed very nicely on one side, but Jason Webster has been anything but consistent on the other side for the Falcons. Jimmy Williams gives them an extra spark, extra speed, and extra size in the secondary. It'll also help that Hall mentored Williams while at Virginia Tech. With the additions of safeties Lawyer Milloy and Chris Crocker in the off-season, Atlanta's secondary should be vastly improved from a season ago. Jerius Norwood ran a 4.33 40 at the combine and for such a speedster, is very much a north-south runner, the kind of guy that'd fit in perfectly with the Falcons' rushing scheme. Warrick Dunn had a great season last year, but he's not getting any younger (or bigger) and his numbers started to fade as the year progressed. It'll be nice to add some speed, youth, and depth. On day two, I hope they draft an outside linebacker, a defensive tackle, and a safety or an offensive lineman.

There will be some exciting teams in the NFC South this upcoming year. I'd say, next to the NFC East, it's the toughest division in football. New Orleans brings in Drew Brees and Reggie Bush to an offense that already has Deuce McCallister, Joe Horn, and Donte Stallworth. Carolina has added Keyshawn Johnson and DeAngelo Williams to join Steve Smith, and Jake Delhomme. Tampa Bay returns rookie of the year Cadillac Williams, to go with a solid group of receivers, and Chris Simms will be the starting quarterback from week 1 in the season for the first time in his career after a surprising '05. Atlanta has added Jerius Norwood to the backfield that includes Warrick Dunn, T.J. Duckett, and Michael Vick. They return two young talented receivers in Michael Jenkins and Roddy White to go along with Vick's favorite receiver, tight end Alge Crumpler. Carolina and Tampa's defense should be solid as ever and Atlanta's defense will be vastly improved. New Orleans still has a long ways to go on defense and it may take a while for everyone to gel on offense with all their changes, but they'll definitely be improved from a season ago.

Is Marcus Vick Cursed?

I saw a brief bit on SportsCenter tonight where they chatted with Marcus Vick regarding his troubles off-the-field. What'd he say? That he's run into bad luck, a curse of sorts. I find this hard to believe. If Vick had been walking down the street and an underage gal walked out of a bar with a beer in her hand right as a police car pulled up and they assumed she was with Vick. Vick then gets charged with distributing to the delinquency of a minor. Then, he's driving along the highway, gets pulled over and the cops magically find marijuana in the glove box that Vick didn't know about. Vick then stands outside a McDonald's, reaches in his pocket to find the wallet he thought was in there and instead, pulls out a gun. My, my, my, if all those far-fetched stories were true, then okay, he did run into some bad luck. But, what are the odds of those stories being true? Could it be true that the marijuana wasn't his? Yes. Could it be true that he didn't buy the liquor for the gals and had nothing to do with them drinking it? Yes. I don't know how he can excuse the gun incident, though. Sorry Marcus, you may have run into a bit of bad luck, but you have to take some responsibility and learn from these incidents. If you had one incident, I'd be much more forgiving, but three separate incidents? It gets harder and harder to believe it's just a string of bad luck. Come on Marcus. Straighten up, learn from those mistakes, and fulfill your great potential at the next level. Don't be another Maurice Clarett.

Gotta Love This Saying

"It's always the last place that you'd think to look." Yeah, no kidding, because once we've found "it," only a demented fool with Alzheimer's would continue to look.

Ridiculous Review of "United 93"

This review was done by a gentleman by the name of Kevin Carr. The majority of what he writes isn't so bad, but there are a couple lines in there that made me roll my eyes and shake my head wildly in disbelief.

He claims that we need this movie. Supposedly, we need this movie to remember. And we need to remember so we don't let another 9/11 happen.

I'm sorry, what? You know, if it was up to us, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. How is a single movie going to make us remember a day we'll never forget and in doing that, motivate us to never allow another terrorist attack to occur on our soil? If I was an omnipotent God, then I'd prevent any terrorist attacks from happening on anyone's soil. But, I'm not omnipotent and I'm not God, so how in the world can I and others of this country just up and prevent something like this from ever happening again? How? I'd like to know. Is the movie an instructional piece on how to prevent terrorist attacks? If so, then this is news to me and probably to the actors, writers, producers, and directors of this film.

I mean, if a movie had come out directly following the first Gulf War, do you really think that would've prevented Bush to have gone in this time? Again, how's it in our power? After movies came out regarding the school shootings, did they happen again? Yes, they did. Will they happen in the future. Unfortunately, yes. What can I do about it? Be a "radical" left-winger and support some gun laws to be passed so it lessens the likelihood of these kids getting guns in the first place? But, that would be a horrible blow to the gun industry and we just can't have that.

I saw a foreign film not long ago, entitled "Paradise Now" and it revolves around the war going on between the Israelis and Palestinians. I saw that a few months ago. I'm just wondering, did that prevent attacks from happening again? Are they buddy buddy over there now?

I'm sorry Mr. Carr, but we do not "need" this movie. It's not going to help us "remember" something that will always be stuck in our minds, hearts, souls, and conscience. It will certainly not have anything to do with preventing another attack. Maybe the rest of the world should see it. Don't air the film in America, but air it everywhere else, so they can catch a glimpse of what we went through on that day. We've already lived that day. Why on earth re-live it? To help us "remember?"

What, if a wife is physically abused by a man for fifteen straight years until she finds it in her to leave him, should she watch homemade videos of him beating her every now and again to help her remember? So she won't allow it to happen again? It takes a long time to heal, recover, and get over something like that. It's not going to just happen overnight and replaying it over and over again isn't going to help things either. That'll bring back horrible flashbacks to which a regression is more likely than a progression.

It's been reported and stated by ever writers and the director of the film, that portions of it has been fictionalized (Hollywood-ized) and made up for dramatic effect and to fill in gaps or holes in the story. So, what we have is a fictional piece based on real life events that is meant to entertain and rake-in big bucks at the box office. The film was made in remembrance of the victims. Aren't we demeaning the victims by making this film? I bet you that this film breaks some kind of box office record this weekend. I bet that Bush's approval ratings increase starting on Monday, and I bet that our progression after 9/11 is temporarily set on pause, because many had to re-live the horrendous day.

To Impeach or Not To Impeach?

Yeah, that's the question allright. So, what's the answer? Who would it help more? The Republicans or the Democrats?

President Bush's approval rating has been shown to be anywhere from 32-36%. Vice President Cheney's approval rating has been even lower than that. Last I saw, it was at 18%. About one in every two Americans believes Donald Rumsfeld should resign. Karl Rove could be indicted any day now. Others have already had charges pressed against them. With mid-term elections coming up, it's very important from the Republicans' standpoint, to start getting more approval up top. If Bush and Cheney are still around 35% and 20% (I'm even rounding up there), it'll be very difficult for the Republicans to maintain control of both the House and the Senate. If that's the case, it'll be a very tough final two years in Bush's presidency (if they haven't been tough enough as it is).

So, here's how I see it. If and only if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld left office, would it help the Republicans right now. Because, if Bush is impeached, who's next in line? Cheney and he has an even lower approval rating than Bush. If they were all removed, though, then who knows, Condoleeza Rice may be next in line and while the public isn't totally supportive of her, they're a lot more supportive of her than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. So, in that remote possibility, it may actually help the Republicans and their chances of at least controlling one of the two seats in Congress.

What Democrats may want is for the impeachment (if there is one) to happen after the mid-term elections. The longer Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stick around, the more likely it'll be for the Democrats to take control of either the House or the Senate (potentially both). But, again, even after the mid-terms, if Cheney sticks around and Bush is impeached, what good have we done there? I guess it's better to only have one of the two there, but still, it's scary to imagine Cheney up there and being president, isn't it?

While, I think the "supposed" investigations should be moving at a quicker pace, I'm honestly quite surprised that members of the GOP aren't pressing this issue a little more, because they have a lot more to lose from Bush sticking around than do the Democrats. The Republicans currently have both seats in Congress and could potentially lose both due to the public's low approval of Bush and his Administration.

Over an Ex?

It's hard to tell sometimes, isn't it? How do we know? Are there certain things we should look out for and if they occur, then we obviously know we're over the ex? Sometimes it's easy to try to hop right back on the cart and stroll around, looking for someone new to date. Why's this? It could be a lot of things: 1) A rebound. After a player misses badly with one shot and he gets his own rebound, it's very tempting to put it right back up to redeem themselves. 2) Revenge. Some feel that by dating someone else right away, they'll somehow be getting back at their ex for whatever happened in their relationship, that somehow, it'll take all the pain that the ex had bestowed upon them. 3) Jealousy. What if the ex finds out? Will that make him or her jealous? Will it make them run back, apologize, and seek your love again? 4) Co-dependence. Some just have a fear of being single. They bounce around from person to person like they are a pinball. Dating someone who's a jerk is better than dating nobody at all in their minds. 5) Denial. Some want to fully believe that they never cared for their ex, so they want to prove themselves this by dating again. I have been guilty of #5 before, but not of the other four, fortunately.

So, how do we know that we're over an ex?

1) We don't bring them up in every conversation we have. Whether the commentary is positive or negative, it still means that the person is thinking about them and a great deal. There's a thin line between love and hate and oddly enough, they're very similar in a way. Whether someone confesses their love for someone or their hate and they do it constantly, then this ex is taking up a great deal of time, energy, and emotion from them.

2) Our emotions steady a bit. Ever notice, especially after an intense, long-lasting relationship, you're bouncing around emotionally from one day to the next? That's pretty common. One day, it'll be a sorrowful tear-filled afternoon, thinking back to all the good times the couple shared. The day after, it may be the direct opposite, and their enraged by all the nonsense they had to go through. The following day, it may be indifference that comes upon them and they just don't seem to care. Once these emotions steady and become more consistent on a day-to-day basis, then that's a very good sign.

3) When we stop comparing every living creature to our ex, then that's a tell-tale sign. If they think about diving into a relationship directly following the break-up, trust me, the date doesn't want to hear constant comparisons between them and the ex. "Oh, you're so much better than (fill in the blank). You're such a (compliment) and (s)he's such a (insult). You're such a better kisser than (f.i.t.b.). (S)he kisses like this (gives demonstration)." Trust me, dates don't want to hear that. Deep down, they know if and when you still have feelings for a person. If you keep bringing that person up, they're going to know how you truly feel. Once you're able to date a person and just focus in on and enjoy the date, without thoughts constantly racing across your mind about the ex, then that's a great sign that you're getting over them.

4) How you react when you see them in person, hear their voice, or even read an e-mail they sent to you can usually be a good indicator of how far you've come. It's especially true if the confrontation is in person or over the phone. It's easier for the mind and body to shrug off those genuine feelings over some typed words than it is when it hears the person's actual voice. If butterflies still persist, great memories come back, and tears start being shed after the conversation ends, then, I highly doubt you're over the person yet. But, if you're able to have a civil, sane, balanced conversation, those butterflies never make their presence known, and you're able to walk off after the conversation like it never even happened, then congratulations! You might officially be over the ex.

5) Things you see or overhear about their life won't bother you anymore. If you hear about a new boyfriend or girlfriend that they have, it won't get to you and you won't be jealous.

6) Seeing or hearing things that reminded you of your relationship or just of him/her won't bother you anymore. When you hear a song, see a sign, see a certain movie on television, it may bring a brief smile to your face as you think back to the time, but then, that's it. There's no sobbing session afterwards. There's no need to call your best friend to talk and cry for a few hours about it. It's just appreciating a fun moment in the past and moving forward.

7) Finally, it's a good sign when a person is able to stand back and see the whole picture for what it was and what it is. They can finally look back to the relationship, see what they did wrong, see what the other did wrong, see why they were attracted to that particular person, and see why things didn't work. Many times, when we go through the break-ups, we have a very distorted and blurred vision of all these things. Some might tend to blame themselves for everything. Others will blame their ex for all that went wrong. Some will claim that they loved everything about the person and yet, others, will say they didn't like anything about their ex. When someone can finally stand back and look at things from almost a non-biased outsider's perspective, then, most likely, they have gotten over the ex and are ready to date again.

There you have it, seven very important signs in telling if you're over that ex or not. If there are a few that you know you've experienced, but others that you haven't yet, that's still good. That means that things are progressing and with time, love, and support, you will experience the finalities of all seven signs mentioned above and will be ready to move on and date again.

Keith Jackson Retires

College football announcer Keith Jackson retired today. I've got nothing against the guy, but I'm kind of glad to hear that he made this decision. The past couple years, it's been rather painful to watch games with him as announcer. He just didn't seem to know what was going on anymore.

"Matt Leinart completes a pass to Reggie Bush at the Texas 23-yard line (as the referees signal incomplete). That'll make it first and ten for USC, driving once again in Texas territory."

Fouts then would chime in, "Actually, I think they called it incomplete."

Jackson would respond, "Ahh, yes, I think you're right Dan. That sure was a close one. I wonder if they'll review it. Well, instead, it'll bring up a 3rd down and a few to go."

Fouts would comment again, "Actually, it's 4th down now. They're bringing the kicker out."

"Yes, and again, you are correct."

This didn't just happen on one play. It happened on and off all game. I felt bad for Fouts at times. He had two jobs to perform on gameday: 1) To say what he wanted to say and 2) To listen to Keith very carefully, so he could make corrections.

Keith, you had a good run of it, but it was definitely time to go. Now, I hope Brent Musburger and Craig James make their way out the exit door. Unfortunately, James is rather young, so he may be around for a while.

"United 93" Airs Tomorrow

I wrote a blog on April 4th regarding a preview I saw on the film "United 93." From what I saw that day and what I've read, it seems that some people are very ready for this film and others aren't. Thus far, reviews are very positive, with approximately nine out of ten critics praising the film. But, for the majority of the critics, even those that praised the film, they found it very difficult to sit through. It felt too real to some. Films about Vietnam, about the Holocaust, even about the Gulf War don't feel as real to me, because I was either not alive at the time or I wasn't old enough to truly understand what was happening. But, 9/11 is different. It occurred when I was 20 years old and fully aware of what I was seeing. To watch a film about that would be far more difficult for me than to see a film about Vietnam, because I can think back and remember that day. I can remember where I was, what I was doing, and what I felt when it happened. I can't experience those same feelings with a Vietnam film, because I wasn't there. I wasn't alive. Some people, especially many far righties, can't wait to see this film. It'd be unpatriotic not to. It'll prove that what the government told us was the "official" story. It'll combat "lefty" films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Syriana." They claim it'll help us remember, because so many of us want to forget.

As I wrote on April 4th, how could any of us forget? I'll always remember that day, whether I be 25 or 85 years old. September 11th, 2001 will never be forgotten. But, I don't want to relive that day. I never want to relive that day. Just because one does not want to relive a terrifying and awful experience, does not mean they're trying to forget about it, because it's just not possible. It'd take some serious blocking and denial in order to forget about 9/11. I don't even think Alzheimer's could prevent a person from remembering that day. I don't care to see the movie.

I understand that it might provide some closure for the families of the victims and the families might see it as a way for the country to know the victims, who they were, what they were about, and what they did. The families want the rest of the public to see who they were close to as special people and not just being labeled as a 9/11 victim. If I was in their shoes, I'd understand that perspective. But, I'm not.

On April 4th, I also wrote about the fear I had of filmmakers "Hollywood-izing" their 9/11 efforts. From the reviews I've read, both positive and negative, I think it's safe to say that my fear was legitimate. Even though debris from the plane spread 6-8 miles, there are numerous reports of eye-witnesses seeing a plane in the area and hearing an explosion, and there are even reports of a passenger talking on his cell phone while the plane was hit and he claimed that the plane had been shot and was going down. Even with all this evidence and more that I didn't get into, this film still does not show that the plane was shot down. This isn't to say that the passengers didn't put up a fight with the hijackers. I haven't seen any evidence that states otherwise. But, all the evidence in the world points to the plane being shot down as opposed to the hijackers being forced to crash the plane due to the determined passengers. Maybe that's a reason why the truth doesn't want to be let out, because some are fearful that the passengers will no longer be seen as heroes. But, I think regardless of that fact, the passengers will be seen as strong, determined, and heroic. They did all they could. The plane being shot down was not their fault or their doing. I just don't like to be told lies and whether they like it or not, I'm sure many of the victims' family members would agree.

There was the Flight 93 tale, then Jessica Lynch, then Pat Tillman. All these stories and others were wrapped in lies to make a good story out of something negative. Is that such a bad thing? No, if you're writing a fiction novel. Yes, if you claim it to be genuine and non-fiction. I also think these stories were made up to help make the government appear better. If the truth had been told, then they'd never hear the end of it, but subtract a few words and add a couple of lines, and it's amazing the changes that come about.

This all doesn't sit right with me, because these victims seem to be getting used by the government and others for benefits. What's the filmmaker's true intent with making this film? To truly provide closure for the victims' families and to help Americans remember an unforgettable day or is it to make money off the victims? Sure, 10% of what the movie makes goes to the victims' families, but in the grand scheme of things, what is 10%? How many families are we talking about? Even if we were talking about just ten families, then that's 1% per family. If they were to put some ridiculous number up there, like 50%, then that right there might persuade me to see the movie. That right there would show me that perhaps his true intent is to provide closure for these families and to get word out about who these victims were as people. But, just 10%? Give me a break. That's just a sugar-coated attempt to persuade people that they care, when it's only $1 out of every $10.

If this film were to be made a few years from now, when we found out answers to our still looming questions, after the scandals and conspiracies were found to be true or false, and when we garnered enough time, information, and evidence to provide a thorough and genuine film that most everyone could appreciate, believe, and be ready for, then I'll be all up for seeing it. On Friday, April 28th, 2006, however, when 9/11 seems very recent, when scandals, conspiracies, and unanswered questions remain in the open, I'm not ready for and will not be seeing "United 93." Only if the filmmaker's change their minds and provide more for the families will I change my mind and see a partially fiction and partially non-fiction piece that claims it's non-fiction through and through.

Should religion be allowed in school?

I just received an e-mail about how some people are trying to completely take "God" out of the school system, including Christmas carols.

What should we do? Some don't believe that sexual education should be a part of the school curriculum, because it's the parents' job to teach their kids about sex. Is the same true in regard to religion? Is it the parents' job there also? Or, should it be the schools' job to get the children started in learning about both sex and religion? What about politics? Drugs?

I see both sides of the debate on this issue. One problem with allowing such programs or classes in schools (besides college) is the fact that there is so much to discuss and learn and where do you draw the boundaries? Where is the borderline set that one can't cross when teaching? In sex ed, is it an abstinence only program? Is contraception discussed? What about homosexuality? Bisexuality? Transgender? How vague or detailed will the book, lectures, and discussions be? With religion, does it mainly discuss what is the majority religion for the country, Christianity, or does it delve into other worldwide religions as well? How detailed or vague should these classes be? Same thing with politics and drugs. How sugar-coated will the drug talk be. Will it be like an abstinence class and chanting in unison, "Just say NO!" Yeah, that never worked. So, I do see potential problems in allowing such programs at schools, because there are so many directions the class can go. With these programs, especially in regard to sex, politics, and religion, the teacher is also likely to have a bias and that'll probably show through their teaching.

But, on the other hand, some parents don't teach their children about these things at home. Sometimes, parents expect the child to come to them when they're ready to talk and I'm sorry, but the parents have to be assertive, sit their child down and initiate these talks. Parents will usually have a strong bias on these issues as well. They were raised a certain way and most likely, are raising their children in a certain manner. Parents can also sugar-coat things. They sometimes don't know what exactly to talk about or how far to take the conversation if and when certain questions are asked. It's very difficult to draw an impenetrable line and not be flexible with it, going with the flow of the conversation.

So, here's my opinion on it. Be very light with the sex and drug talk in grade school, but get started with the talks and perhaps have a video or a program in 5th grade. Also, keep the Christmas celebration and carols for those who choose to partake in them. Our Christmas spirit tends to fade and die on a yearly basis. Let the kids enjoy things while they still feel the magic of the holidays. Middle school is typically when teens start trying cigarettes, drugs, and become sexually curious, so this is the time to educate and talk to them in more detail. Don't wait until high school. It'll be too late by that time. I also might make it mandatory to take two courses, one involving sex and drugs and the other involving politics and religion. This is the time in a person's life when they're experiencing some major changes and through that, trying to find themselves and what they believe in. Even though teachers can be biased, I'd try to lay the courses out in a manner where their biases wouldn't get in the way much, so the students could learn a broad range of ideas, beliefs, and insights. So, even if they were taught only one way at home, they'd have the ability to finally see outside the box their parents created for them and hopefully not be forced into being a person they wouldn't want to be otherwise.

So, should religion be allowed in school? Yes, I think it should, but in a more open and broad manner than I'm sure some would like to see. It's not the schools' job to tell students what to believe. It's their job to educate. That's all I see this as. The students are welcome to go home and believe what they want or to go to the church they so choose, but unless a child goes to a private school affiliated with a particular religion or sector of a religion, then it's not the school's job to force-feed the student into believing one thing and one thing only. If that was the school's job, there'd be no reason to have school. English would become William Shakespeare jammed down our throats. Science would become nothing but Einstein. Psychology would be nothing but Freud. That's not how it's done though. We're given several different books from different genres by different authors in English. We're given different theories and formulas from different scientists in whatever Science class we may be taking. We read about different beliefs and theories from the people who have shaped Psychology over the years. Perhaps if children had more of a balance in their lives with these topics, they'd be less prone to developing prejudices on certain groups of people, yet, at the same time, able to feel comfortable believing in their respective religion.

What word is wrong?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the democracy for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.













The answer is: democracy should be republic

Odd Commercial

In car commercials, people usually speed by cars they normally wouldn't. Great reviews are shown like in film preview. Physically attractive people are usually driving the cars. They also will try to persuade the viewer through some special limited time deal. It's a happy joy ride in these automobiles. It seems like they were just given the car to drive around in and show off for the public. Oh, they probably were, but anyway.

There's a new commercial for the Jetta and how do they show the car off in these 30 seconds? Through head-on collisions! That's right! Then, the folks in the Jetta get out of the car. They're allright and the car has only a slight dent! Amazing! The price, the reviews, the look, the speed, the attractive specimens in the car don't matter anymore! It's all about how well the car can take a hit! My, how I want to buy a Jetta now! They sure know how to convince their customers! They've convinced me and I'm not a customer. Guess what? It's going to stay that way!

I have a question for Jetta, if you were watching an airline commercial, what would make you feel better and safer? Lovely elevator music, stats about the safety of the airline, and the plane flying off above the clouds, as the catch phrase is let out, such as, "We love to fly and it shows" or seeing a plane crash and seeing some survivors from the accident, saying that in case of a crash, it's the safest airline to fly with? I'm sorry, but I'll go with the former as opposed to the latter.

The Fox News Shocker

Okay, so not really. Fox News' own Tony Snow is going to be the new spokesperson for George W. Bush, replacing Scott McClellan. It's humorous how Fox News claims that CNN and MSNBC have Democratic biases, yet, Fox News' own Tony Snow gets chosen as the new spokesman for the Republican President Bush. Yeah, we'll see if Keith Olbermann gets picked for the job if a Democrat wins in '08.

I am surprised that Bush picked Snow, however. Why not go for O'Reilly or Hannity as a spokesperson? They'd be yelling, screaming, throwing chairs at the press for asking certain questions. They'd be blurting out, "You America haters! You all should go to jail!" That seems to be more in line with Bush's agenda than Tony Snow, who has criticized the president in the past. That's kind of funny in a way, but honestly, outside of Bush's little circle, who hasn't criticized the president? When asked about the criticisms, Snow responded with, "You should've heard what I said about the other guy," meaning, the Democrat. So, no, Snow doesn't seem to love Bush, but perhaps likes him more than he could like any Democrat. That's my guess.

Ahh, news channel biases. They all carry with them some bias, depending on who is talking. But, I've only seen one documentary about one of these channels and that film is called, "Outfoxed," which, by looking at the title, would suggest it's about Fox News. Fox News has criticized CNN for being Democratically biased. O'Reilly has been trying to get Keith Olbermann replaced on MSNBC. Yet, Fox News should really just look in the mirror, shouldn't they? Maybe that scope of theirs, that I just wrote about in my previous blog, could use a little widening and expanding. Just watch, O'Reilly will claim that CNN is biased because a member of Fox News was hired to be the spokesperson for the President. I don't see the logic in that, but I don't see the logic in most everything that O'Reilly says.

Narrowing the Scope to Our Own Liking

Isn't this true in many cases? We only hear what we want to hear and negate anything else said about it? We only see what we want to see and block out anything that might distract us.

It's true in so many cases. Politics is one prime example. With the mid-term elections coming up, be prepared for some lovely commercials where one candidate insults another. The Republican candidate will get on the Democratic candidate for being a flip-flopper, for being soft on crime, for being pro-choice, for wanting to up taxes. The Democratic candidate will get on the Republican candidate for being pro-life, for cutting taxes only for the wealthy, for favoring security over liberty, for being close to President Bush. They'll blow things out of proportion. The Republican may claim that the Democrat was an anti-war protester back during Vietnam and then go off on a slippery slope, stating that because of that protest, he's definitely not supporting the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran. Because of that, he's against the war on terror and wants to increase the risk of terror in this country. "Would you feel safe with a man at office who does not care about your safety?" Then the Democrat will spew back about how the Republican doesn't believe in any gun laws, and he'll go off on a similar slippery slope, claiming that because of this, more guns will get into hands of civilians and criminals and with more guns comes more gun violence. "Would you feel safe with a man at office who does not care about your safety?" In the end, will it matter what these two have to say? For the most part, no. Die-hard Republicans will buy into their candidate's commercial and start calling the Democrat an Anti-American. They'll dismiss the Democrat's commercial as nonsense, claiming that more guns equals less crime. The Democrats will nod in unison at their candidate's commercial, saying that their should be some gun laws to prevent some people with dangerous histories of obtaining guns. They'll then dismiss the Republican's commercial, stating that it's nonsense.

Notice the trend here? This is true in more than just politics. Look at religion. If something like the "Da Vinci Code" was proven to be true, then Christians would claim that it's nonsense and look to a Christian study for their answers. The smoking industry looks to studies provided by American Tobacco. Mormons look to Joe Smith. Muslims look to Mohammed. Christians look to Jesus. Republicans look to Bush. Democrats look to someone else. Those that oppose abortion look to studies that support their view. Those that are in favor of abortion look to studies that support their opinion. Have an opinion? I'm sure you can find a study or a book supporting your view somewhere.

Can't we open our scopes a bit more? Can't we see the BS spewing out of both Republicans' and Democrats' mouths? Can't we look to the source of these studies and try to find consistency throughout numerous reports and studies on a topic? Can't we accept that not everyone believes in the same religion and perhaps there are inconsistencies and flaws in ours just as there are in others?

It's easy to have a narrow scope, because when hearing or seeing a single word, we'll pass immediate judgment. If a narrow-scoped Republican or Democrat hears or sees the opposing party name, then they immediately pass judgment.

I'm sorry to disappoint anybody, but things aren't that simple. I'm a registered Democrat, but does that mean I'll always vote that way? No, it doesn't. I'm not a fan of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and the like, but I'm also not a fan of many Democrats. If and when election time comes, we should be more voting for the person we truly believe will best represent our country and move it forward as opposed to just voting based on party affiliation. Let's try to open those scopes even just a smidge, because it's amazing how much more we can learn about the world and others if we allow ourselves the ability to receive the information.

A Walking, Talking Contradiction

Gotta love the folk who say one thing and do another. It's like they're blind in one eye and see 20/20 in the other. Yeah, I think we've all done this a time or two. But some are so consistent with it, that they are nothing more than a walking, talking contradiction. Pretty much everything they say, you can expect an action that contradicts those words.

I don't know, I think that when we give others advice, many times we state what we want to believe. Our conscience speaks and it can even be surprising in hindsight, when we look back at what we said, thinking, "Wow, I said that? Huh. I guess that is true, isn't it?" But, it's different when we're taking part in what we spoke about to someone else. We tend to look at the situation differently, tend to be blinded by our inner biases toward a person, place, or situation, and don't go with that same gut instinct we went with to advise another person.

But, I would hope, that somewhere down the line, we could become more consistent with our words and our actions. There will always be minor slip ups here and there, but I'd hope that those slip ups would occur less frequently as we grow and mature. But, this just isn't the case for some.

Does our conscience give us an accurate perception or mold of who we are and what we believe, but when we go out into the very same predicaments we'd spoken about before, we lose track of or we don't fully believe that our conscience molded us accurately?

For example, I've heard people say I don't know how many times that they'd never date someone who they had to change much for or perhaps they told another not to date a particular person, because that person wanted them to change the entire complexion of who they were. Yet, at the same time or perhaps in the near future, the one who gave the advice or spoke those words, will drastically change themselves in order to please another. Someone might say that they are very much against disloyalty in anything, yet, they had just asked someone to have an affair.

When people speak these honest words, do they feel the rules don't apply to them? It only applies to others? Is it a narcissistic perspective that they wrote the manual on what's right and wrong, so they don't have to follow the same guidelines as others?

It's very confusing, yet oddly humorous, when I hear and see these contradictions. Perhaps people are blind to their own hypocrisies and contradictions, but others outside the box certainly aren't and it can be very confusing for those outside the box looking in to witness these constant contradictions.

My advice is if you or anyone else bumps into a walking, talking contradiction, to actually confront them on the matter, so that hopefully they can start seeing it themselves and make some changes to prevent the contradictions from occurring so frequently.

Preaching Bloggers

Why is it that some bloggers feel the need to preach? I don't mean that they start writing scriptures and give blogified sermons. No, I mean that they preach and lecture about different topics. Many times, the blogs are directed towards a "you." So, when I read it, I'm thinking, "Me? What? What did I do?"

There are obscenities thrown around, insults, and the lecture usually consists of how a person or persons needs to go about something, how they can't go about something, what they have to do in order to better a situation, what they can't do, etc.

I don't enjoy preaching blogs that make me feel like I'm at the back pew of a church and the pastor is looking right at me as he raises his voice. It's not a very comforting feeling.

It doesn't give me a fuzzy feeling inside if I open up a book and it says, "You need to stop being so stupid and break up with that girl! She's an idiot! She doesn't deserve you! I hate her! Ahhhhhhh!" Yeah, that would kind of scare me and I'd quickly dispose of the piece of literature in the fireplace.

Shouldn't the preaching blogs be kept between the two parties? Can't they talk? Or, at least, e-mail one another, so no one else can read the sermons?

If people are going to preach to one person in particular, they should work in a church or keep the sermon between they and the other party involved.

Afraid of Being Alone?

Are you afraid of being alone? If so, you're not alone. Fear of being alone is one of the most common fears, along with public speaking and death. Well, fear no more. We have found your perfect mate and obtaining them is just a phone call away. Call now and you will receive a personalized robot made to your liking. If you're in the talking mood, with the press of a single button, they will sit and listen to you! They actually come with a human-like voice and will give you advice if you need it! Being alone is very depressing for some, but be depressed no more! Your future partner is at your control. They'll never die! They'll keep you from being alone! If you're one of the next 25 callers, you'll receive a back-up robot free, just in case problems should arise between the first robot and yourself! Feel lonely? You're not alone! Stop feeling lonely and call now! 1-800-SETLMNT. That's 1-800-S-E-T-L-M-N-T. Don't miss out on this amazing offer!

We accept all major credit cards, checks, money orders, and cash. Your own personalized robot costs only $29.95 plus $100.00 in shipping and if you're one of the next 25 callers, you get the second robot free, with an additional $100.00 in shipping.

Marcus Vick vs. Michael Vick

Ahh, while I'm in the sports mood, I thought I'd compare the two brothers. Not long ago, Marcus was in a cocky mood when talking to the press (surprise, surprise) and insulted his brother Michael on how he plays the game. Well, let me compare the two brothers and let's see if Marcus can still talk bad about his brother.

Passing precision- Even Michael has admitted that his brother throws a nicer ball than him. I tend to agree and the stats will reflect those statements. Score- Marcus 1 Michael 0

Arm strength- While Marcus can put a little air under it at times, he still has to work on this part of his game. Michael's deep ball is one of the best in the game. Score- Marcus 1 Michael 1

Passing mechanics- Neither Vick has perfect passing mechanics and neither one has bad passing mechanics. It's hard to compare the two here, especially from only seeing Marcus start one full season. So, I'll give this a push. Score- Marcus 1 Michael 1

Pocket presence- While Marcus gets too tentative at times, seemingly uncertain on what he should do, Michael knows what he wants to do and where he wants to go. If he feels pressure or sees a lane open, he's not hesitant about running. Because of that uncertainty on Marcus' part, I give the edge to Michael. Score- Michael 2 Marcus 1

Footwork- Marcus takes too many steps when running with the football. He'll run sideways at times and not being as quick as his brother, this is not very successful most of the time. Michael takes longer strides, might dance around, but has the elusiveness of Barry Sanders, so he can do that. Score- Michael 3 Marcus 1

Leadership- In his redshirt freshman year, Michael lead Virginia Tech to a national championship game against Florida State, where he played exceptionally in a loss to the Seminoles. He's demonstrated that leadership in the NFL as well. Marcus' leadership has been too inconsistent, especially in the big games, to really qualify him as a quality field general. His misbehavior hurts him in this area as well. Score- Michael 4 Marcus 1

Intelligence- I have no idea what either one scored on the test that's given to potential draft picks going into the NFL. Regardless, Michael has made many less poor decisions than his brother has and in a longer stint. Score- Michael 5 Marcus 1

Instinct- While Michael has more natural instinct than Marcus, this instinct gets him into trouble sometimes with getting hurt. Marcus lacks that instinct and it's uncertain if that'll develop anytime soon. I'll give this one a push. Score- Michael 5 Marcus 1

Mobility- If Marcus becomes a starter in the NFL, the Vicks will be two of the most mobile quarterbacks in the NFL, perhaps NFL history. This is definitely one of their biggest strengths. I'll give this a draw. Score- Michael 5 Marcus 1

Speed- Marcus is quick and speeds along at a steady pace, but does not have the burst of speed that Michael has. Marcus runs a 4.46 and he looks like he's running that on the field. Michael runs a 4.2-4.3 and looks like he's running a 4.0 on the field. Michael takes longer strides and has the ability to burst to the outside and scamper a ways. Marcus hasn't shown that ability. Score- Michael 6 Marcus 1

Size- The differences are slight, but noticeable at the same time. Michael is about an inch taller than his brother and slightly larger. This may be the only time I give any Vick an edge in the size category, but I'm giving it to Michael here, for the simple fact that I'm comparing him to another Vick in his brother Marcus. Score- Michael 7 Marcus 1

Final breakdown- The only area that Marcus shows more ability than his brother is with his passing precision. That is an important ingredient to being a successful NFL quarterback, but leadership, pocket presence, arm strength, footwork, intelligence, speed, and size are very important as well. While little Vick might be able to talk trash to his brother regarding one part of his game, he still has a lot of growing and learning to do if he wants to be the quarterback that his brother is, so he might want to keep his trap shut for a while. Final Score- Michael 7 Marcus 1

Marcus Vick vs. Vince Young

Due to the comparisons Mel Kiper drew between Marcus' older brother Michael and Vince Young, I've already compared the two of them and Michael won the battle by a score of 6-2. The draft is less than a week away and I thought it'd be interesting to compare arguably the two most talented dual-threat quarterbacks in the draft, that being Vince Young and Marcus Vick. Young is expected to be a top ten pick and it's a mystery where Vick will go in the draft, due to his on-the-field and off-the-field problems. Is there potentially more to gain with Vick? More to lose? I'll compare the two in every category I can think of and it'll be easier this time around, because both Young and Vick are going into the draft at the same time and will be rookies this upcoming year. It was more difficult to compare Michael Vick with Young for the simple fact that Vick has been in the league for five years and Young will be a rookie. So, here we go.

Passing precision- Young made great strides in this area between his sophomore and junior years at Texas, but Marcus is even a better precision passer than his brother and I gave this category to Michael over Young. So, I'll have to give this to Marcus. Score- Vick 1 Young 0

Arm strength- This is another area that Young improved on between his sophomore and junior years, but he still has room to grow and something to prove in this area. Marcus may be a better precision passer than his brother, but Michael definitely has the stronger arm. He can throw the ball deeper and can put more zip on his passes (sometimes too much). Both quarterbacks have room to grow and something to prove in the NFL when it comes to arm strength. This category is a draw. Score- Vick 1 Young 0

Passing mechanics- This has to be the biggest question mark and concern with Vince Young. It's very fortunate that he stands in at 6'4'' with how he sidearms the ball at times. Because of this, he and Marcus throw like a guy who's 6'0 or 6'1'' and that usually equates to many batted balls in the NFL. Marcus is definitely the smaller of the two. He's even smaller than Michael and Michael is listed at 6'0, maybe 6'1''. But, he definitely has the better passing mechanics. He has nice touch on the short throws, can put a bit more zip on the intermediate routes, and can put a little air under the ball for the deeper routes. Vick still needs to prove that he can throw a good deep ball and throw them with some consistency, but he definitely has the edge in this category over Young. Score- Vick 2 Young 0

Pocket presence- Both quarterbacks are quick and mobile, which allows them more time to let their receivers find space and get open. While his brother Michael is never afraid to tuck the ball in and take off with it if he sees and open lane, Marcus doesn't like to do that much. It could be that he doesn't have much experience and hasn't found a way to make the most of his speed as a quarterback or it could be that he seriously wants to be a pocket passer. This makes him hesitant at times, though. When he feels pressure, Marcus is more tempted to just throw the ball away, as opposed to making something out of nothing. Vince Young's pocket presence has improved dramatically throughout his college career. One need only have watched the USC game to understand that. Vick's pocket presence isn't bad by any means, but Young has him beat here. Score- Vick 2 Young 1

Footwork- It's funny, for how quick both players are, their footwork could use a lot of improving. Both wait way too long for blockers to get in front and make their blocks so they can find a hole to run through. That's not going to work at the next level. This category is a push. Score- Vick 2 Young 1

Leadership- It's very difficult to tell where Vick stands with his leadership role. After his troubles two years ago, he came back and lead Virginia Tech to an 11-2 record. He also choked in the two games they lost, to Miami (Florida) and Florida State. He made some poor decisions against West Virginia (gave some fans the finger) and Louisville (intentionally stepped on a Louisville player's arm). When he was mentally there, he lead the team through his play on the field. When he wasn't mentally focused, that leadership lacked immensely. On the other side of it, Young was the soft-spoken leader all season long for the Longhorns. He even possessed that quality in his sophomore season, when his passing skills were Eric Crouch-like. No matter what the score is, with Vince Young in the huddle, Texas believed they would win, and this past season, they did, every single time. Young definitely gets the nod here. Score- Vick 2 Young 2

Intelligence- Young scored very poorly on the intelligence test given to all potential draftees. I don't know how Vick scored, but I can only assume it to be higher. However, when it comes to decision-making on and off-the-field, Young has definitely shown more consistency with good judgments. Taking all these factors into consideration, I'm going to call this one a draw. Score- Vick 2 Young 2

Maturation- Do I even have to write anything here? With all of Vick's antics on-the-field and his violations off of it, as well? Score- Young 3 Vick 2

Instinct- As I mentioned before with pocket presence, Vick still has to get a feel of when it's the right time to take off with the ball, when it's the right time to throw it away, and when it's the right time to chuck the ball to a receiver. Young's greatest asset alongside his leadership, has to be his instinct. The guy just has a nose for the end zone and a feel for when he should run and when he should throw. Young gets the nod here as well. Score- Young 4 Vick 2

Mobility- Even though both quarterbacks need to learn how to use their mobility more effectively, especially Vick, both are quick and can buy time for receivers to get open, much more so than other quarterbacks in the draft such as Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler. I'm giving this one a push. Score- Young 4 Vick 2

Speed- This category may surprise some people. Even though Marcus is not as quick as his brother and didn't utilize his speed as much last season as Young did, Marcus is actually the quicker of the two. He ran a 4.46 40 meter and Young ran in between a 4.48 and a 4.56. Neither player has the initial burst of speed that Michael Vick does, but both players are quick and have a gliding-type speed, where they run at a very steady pace no matter where they are on the field. I give a very slight edge to Vick here. Score- Young 4 Vick 3

Size- As with the Young vs. Michael Vick comparisons, this is probably the easiest category of all. Michael stands in at somewhere between 6'0'' and 6'1'' and his brother is even smaller, standing in between 5'11'' and 6'0''. Young is an ideal 6'4'', so I definitely give him the nod here. Score- Young 5 Vick 3

Final Breakdown- While both players are extremely talented and probably the most talented dual-threat quarterbacks in the draft this year, Vince Young is probably the safer choice because of Marcus Vick's unpredictability with his decisions during a game and away from the field. Vick might even have more potential than Vince Young, given that he's a better passer and quicker, but he has not shown the leadership, instinct, and maturation needed to be a successful quarterback at the next level. If Vick improves a great deal in those three areas, then somebody will steal themselves quite a sleeper pick on draft day, but if his trend of behavior continues, then he'll just be a team cancer. Young has a lot to improve upon, especially with his passing mechanics and precision. He also has yet to prove that he can run an actual offense, so it'll be interesting to see how he meets those challenges in the NFL. What he does have is a nose for the end zone, great pocket awareness, an instinct that can't be taught, and solid leadership that is needed out of a team's quarterback. Final Score- Young 5 Vick 3

Ah-ha, so that's why UConn stumbled in the Tourney...

To say that UConn was sloppy in the Tournament would be quite the understatement. Even though Duke was the overall #1 seed, UConn was the favorite to win the tournament. I had them winning it all, as did who knows how many other's.

They were down by 15 points at around the midway point of the second half to sixteen seed Albany, before they came back to avoid being the first one seed to lose to a sixteen in the opening round.

It didn't get any easier in the second round when they faced off against Kentucky. UConn had the lead through the majority of the contest, but the Wildcats wouldn't go away. The Huskies made some clutch free throws down the stretch to outlast Kentucky. If the game had gone another five minutes, UConn may have had to pack their bags after just two games in the tournament.

The Sweet Sixteen game against Washington was one of the ugliest performances I've ever seen out of a UConn basketball team. They turned the ball over twenty plus times and that includes the final ten minutes of regulation, where they only turned it over once. Somehow, some way, UConn beat Washington, thanks to a Rashad Anderson three-pointer with just over a second left in regulation.

Their luck ran out against George Mason in the round of eight. But, even in that game, UConn had a chance to pull it out at the very end, thanks to the Patriots not converting on free throws.

The pre-tournament favorite to win it all could've lost any of those four games, but managed to advance to the Elite Eight, only to fall to George Mason.

UConn appeared to be distracted throughout the tournament. Only on a few brief occasions did they play UConn basketball. They forced things too much, turned the ball over with consistency, relied on the outside shot, didn't utilize their size down low, were inconsistent at the foul line, and lacked that fire and motivation that championship teams need to have.

Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong, and Ed Nelson were not utilized down low enough. The guards rarely looked in their direction and when they did, it was at a point when UConn didn't feel a rhythm down low or were down by too many points to just settle for two. Rudy Gay was extremely inconsistent all tournament. He played horribly against Washington and had a solid game in a losing effort to George Mason. Rashad Anderson is like the microwave. When that guy gets to hitting threes, then he's unstoppable, but when he gets to missing threes, it can offset the offensive structure, gameplan, and allow an easy two at the other end. The only consistent shooter in the tournament for UConn was Denham Brown. Some may argue that Marcus Williams was.

Marcus Williams was an interesting player to watch in the tournament. In all four games, he turned the ball over more than anybody else on the team. He forced the touchdown pass way too often. He never allowed the offense to get in a rhythm, never allowed the team to play inside and outside, and forced things too much. On the other hand, after the team got down, he was the one to get them back in the ball game. When the pressure was on and the team was down in the second half, Williams finally woke up and played solid basketball. He was awful in the first half of the games, but was exceptional in the second half. It looked like he tried to be part of the old Harlem Globetrotters team in the first half, but finally settled down and played his kind of game in the second.

Somehow, UConn managed to win three games by playing so sloppily. I think they had, without a doubt, the most talented team in the tournament, but it takes more than talent to win championships. Just ask the Yankees. In recent days, sophomore standout Rudy Gay and junior point guard Marcus Williams have declared themselves eligible for the NBA Draft. I wonder how much this played into the mind of players like Gay and Williams in the tournament. Many times, it seemed that they wanted to hit the home run when only a single was available, especially Williams. They didn't look focused, didn't look to have the fire or motivation, and looking ahead to the next level and the money involved could very well have played a part.

Dissent? Patriotic? Treasonous?

Just a few days ago, John Kerry stated that dissenting against the war in Iraq was patriotic. Some have agreed with the former presidential candidate. Others have gone the other route and claimed it to be treasonous. Which is it? Does it lay somewhere in the middle of the two?

In a "democracy" or republic, I don't see there ever being a scenario where dissent is treasonous. In dictatorships, it may be seen this way, but America is not a dictatorship, so this wouldn't apply to us.

There are situations where dissent can be dangerous and put people from our country at risk. For example, if someone overseas decides to dissent against the military he or she is with, the dissent could come at a time when they're covering for someone, they turn their back and walk away and that person they were supposed to be covering for gets shot and killed. That's why it's so important to have a voluntary armed forces. With a draft comes the increased likelihood of dissent within the military. Dissent that doesn't put people at risk of being hurt or killed is a different story. Again, it's voluntary. There aren't a few people who are drafted into having the right to dissent. Those that want to speak up have the right to do just that. Those that don't want to don't have to.

I don't think there's one label we can attach to the word dissent. While it may be dangerous in some situations, it isn't in most. If a group of people live in what they want to call a "democracy" or a republic, dissent must be spoken, enacted, heard, and seen or else that "democracy" or republic will slowly transform into a dictatorship, where the draft truly is relevant to people having the right to speak. Only a select few, those in power, would have this right. Anyone else would be punished and possibly killed for letting their voice be heard.

Whatever one wants to label it, whether that be patriotic or treasonous, dissent is a necessity and an essential aspect to keeping alive a "democracy" or republic.

Falcons' Draft Needs

The NFL Draft is less than a week away and I'm no Mel Kiper Jr., but thought I'd run down the list of the Atlanta Falcons' needs going into the draft.

1. Secondary- Atlanta has helped themselves tremendously in the off-season by acquiring safeties Lawyer Milloy and Crocker. Corner DeAngelo Hall is already making his presence felt at the NFL level, but they lack consistency on the other side. So, drafting a quality corner or a safety to provide more depth in the secondary would be very beneficial to the Falcons.

2. Offensive line- After letting go of Kyle Shaffer, Atlanta traded for veteran Wayne Gandy, but overall, Atlanta's line is less than remarkable. They're very small and average, at best. They may block well when they run the ball, but are below average when blocking during a pass. There are many reasons Vick scrambles like he does and one of those reasons is the fact that when he drops back, more times than not, the line let somebody get to him. Atlanta needs more size and mobility up front to protect Vick and to further improve the passing game.

3. Outside linebacker- Getting Ed Hartwell back in the lineup will be extremely important for Atlanta to go alongside perennial pro bowler Keith Brooking. Demorrio Williams was a project coming out of college, as he was a tweener in size, but with his speed and athletic ability, the Falcons gave him a shot. While Williams makes some unbelievable plays, he also gets run over many times and misses reads. This is partially due to his lack of experience, but is partially due to his size (or lack there of). There will be a battle for that outside linebacker position in the off-season between Williams, Michael Boley, amongst others. If Atlanta has an opportunity to draft a quality OLB who can fight for some playing time in his rookie season, they should make the most of that opportunity.

4. Defensive tackle- Atlanta is set in three of their four defensive line spots with Kearney, Abraham, and Coleman. Their other DT is Chad Lavalais when he's not hurt. Rookie (now second-year player) Jonathan Babineaux played some when Lavalais sat out last year. Lavalais is the more veteran of the two, but Babineaux has more upside. It's difficult to tell at this point how much both players will mature and grow in the off-season and if one will truly be ready to step up and make their presence felt consistently next season. The Falcons may want to draft another DT to provide more competition at that spot and hopefully boost one of those two players into a more steady starting role position.

5. Receiver- It seems like Atlanta needs a new receiver every year, doesn't it? It's not as critical a need this year, as third-year player Michael Jenkins and second-year man Roddy White showed some promise at the end of the season last year. But, a big guy for Vick to throw to is always a plus. Atlanta also lacked in special teams last year, because of Allen Rossum's injuries, so the Falcons may look to a multi-tool player if they're to draft a receiver this year.

6. Running back- Yeah, crazy right? With Dunn, Duckett, and Vick in the backfield? DVD? Well, Dunn isn't getting any younger and Duckett isn't getting any more effective. Dunn has a bigger heart than anybody in the league, but with his small frame, he can only take so many carries in a game and that's when Duckett comes in handy. T.J. struggled some a year ago, however, and Atlanta may want to look elsewhere for some back-up tailback production.

7. Quarterback- What? Replace Vick? No, no, no. Back-up Matt Schaub has been a hot name on the trade market and as he's in his last year of a contract, Atlanta might be able to use him to get a first round pick or another solid player. If he is traded, then Atlanta will need to get themselves a solid back-up in case Vick goes down.

8. Place kicker- Todd Petersen was effective last year for the Falcons, but the guy has been around for a few years, has lost some range, and Atlanta may want to start looking for a kicker of the future.

Bush and God

Again, Bush claimed that what he was doing was through God just yesterday at a church. This isn't the first time he's done this. He's actually said such things on more of a national stage, during a nationally-televised speech.

Bush seems to use God as a reason or a cop out for any mistake he's made. Katrina, NSA, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Valerie Plame, they were all acts of God. Bush was just doing what the Good Lord instructed him to do. I wonder what meds he's on, because he often times sounds delusional. I wonder if he sees "dead people." Well, he obviously does, in Bin Laden, so, that right there answers that question.

Would that work in court? If Bush was charged for doing something(s) illegal, would it work in front of a judge or a jury for him to say, "I was doing these things in the name of the Lord?" I would surely hope not, unless he was trying to get off on an insanity plea. Then, it might be possible. But, otherwise, I'm not thinking so.

The funny thing is, when I read stories where Bush is not in front of a large set of people, he acts anything but Christian. The man has a favorite finger and I think we can all imagine which one that is. Yes, it's in between the ring and index. He'd also need to have his mouth washed out with soap a few times, just like in the flick, "A Christmas Story." He seems to be rather judgmental. Yet, when he's in front of a large group of people, especially those at a church, he whips out those BS lines about how he's following through with God's word and he's doing the work of the Lord. Unfortunately, some of them buy it. Gullibility is a politician's best friend.

When it all comes down to it, some people believe Bush to be God. Honestly, I think Bush believes himself to be God. He fears nothing. He believes he won't have to face any consequence regardless of his action. The man seems to believe he's immortal.

They should start doing skits on SNL like they did back when Mike Ditka coached the Chicago Bears, but instead, compare Bush to God. I can only imagine the look on Dubya's face if he saw and heard that.

Let's not pull another Iraq with Iran...

What good came from invading Iraq? That was how long ago? Bush and his Administration claimed that we'd be in and out, it'd be an easy mission, and we wouldn't spend much money in completing it. How wrong were they? It's been, what, over three years now? Rumsfeld and others have stated we could be there for ten years? Bush has said we'd be there so long as he was the president, so, at least another two and a half years? I won't even get into the money that's been put into the war.

How'd it all start out? With Bush and others claiming they had WMD, were dangerous, were part of the axis of evil, that they had a link between them and Al-Qaeda, amongst numerous other lies. Bush stated that war was the last resort and that they were attempting to work things out diplomatically as much as humanly possible. They claimed to have gone every other route, until war was the only option left. Again, more lies.

So, how's it starting this time? Same kind of thing. Iran is dangerous, are a part of the axis of evil, that they have the ability to make nuclear weapons, and that we'll try to work things out diplomatically, as war is the last resort.

It sounds all too familiar, doesn't it? Experts claim that Iran is a long ways away from having the ability to make nuclear weapons. Iran claims they're only a danger to us if we strike them. So, what on God's green earth are we doing? Is it Bush's point to make us the most hated country in the world? Is that the goal his trying to reach by the end of his tenure? Afghanistan, Iraq, then Iran, North Korea, Syria, China? When's it going to end? Thank God he only had two and a half more years to create chaos. Who knows how long it'll take to fix it all (even most of it).

Please, let's not pull another Iraq. Let's not start war with a country based on false pretenses and get more of our soldiers and innocent civilians killed. Let's not put our country more at risk of an attack by attacking another. Let's not waste more of our money on another war. I don't know what Bush is trying to do, but he and Jim Jones may want to stop drinking that kool-aid.

Lovely timing as always with the Bin Laden tape...

Just after Bush saw his approval plummet to 33%, which was at the time, a low for him, his dear old friend Osama Bin Laden releases an audio tape from his grave. It was the first time in a couple months that Bin Laden has been heard from. He has not been seen on a video since just before the election of '04.

It's always perfect timing with these Bin Laden tapes, isn't it? Just before the election? Directly following Bush's lowest approval rating and just before film "United 93" opens in theaters nationwide? Yes, perfect timing indeed.

The question now is, will it work? For a while after 9/11, the answer to that question would have been a resounding yes, but it's gotten to be less and less effective as time moves along. Will "United 93" be the awakening that Bush wants from America to bring back visual memories of what happened on 9/11, strike fear into our minds and hearts, and support him once again? Only time will tell.

The numbers may not indicate such a thing now, as CNN just released a poll showing Bush's approval at an all-time low of 32%, but I believe in the next few weeks, we'll see Bush's approval steady off some and even increase in some polls, due to the audio tape from Bin Laden and the movie about flight 93 on 9/11.

There have not been any verifications on the audio tape. Former spokesman Scott McClellan says they are genuine, but he's been known to lie a time or five-hundred and thirty-six, so, it's hard to believe anything he has to say. Pakistan has no idea where he is. Nobody else has claimed it to be genuine. I think Bush and company have stored away a full cabinet's worth of Bin Laden videos and tapes that will last them into Bush's last two years as president. Heck, maybe they're all out of video tapes, since Osama is dead. Audio tapes are easy. Anyone can do those. If I worked on my accent some, I could help Bush and company out with that. But, I won't.

So, please, to everyone reading, if you go and see the film "United 93," use that time to remember the lives that were lost that day, especially on flight 93, but don't let it regress us back to the fear and panic we suffered from directly following the attacks. This movie was made in honor of the families (and to make mucho buckos), not to put fear back into our minds, hearts, and souls like we felt directly after the attacks.

Update- 32%

It's funny what all has happened of late. Not too long ago, CNN released a poll showing that President Bush's approval rating was at 34%, his lowest at that point. Fox News chimed in, saying that the CNN Poll is democratically-biased, so it was inaccurate. Just a few days ago, Fox News released a poll, where Bush's approval rating was at a new low of 33%. Just this morning, CNN released a poll, outdoing Fox News', with Bush at a brand new low of 32% approval. What, will Fox News speak out again, saying that CNN's poll is inaccurate when their own poll showed very similar results just a few days ago? I would hope not, but with Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity over there at Fox, I won't guarantee anything.

Westboro Baptist Church

There are less than 100 members, most of whom are within a family, but these members sure like to receive any kind of publicity possible by protesting. They've even protested at a soldier's funeral. Why all the protesting? Well, because they feel everything bad that happens to our country is God's wrath for us being tolerant of homosexuals. The WBC claims that God hates Swedes because of their tolerance to homosexuality.

I'm all about protesting, but at a person's funeral? Ehhh, that might be crossing the line right there.

So, everything revolves around tolerance towards homosexuals, eh? Hmmm. I don't know what bible they're reading, but it's not one that I'm too familiar with. All the hurricanes, the wars, and soldiers' deaths can all be blamed on the country being tolerant towards gays? How stupid are these people?

Can we blame the melting ice caps on our country's tolerance toward gays? Oh, the one up north, that's closer to Sweden, so it's based on their tolerance, right? Violence in this country, oh, that has everything to do with tolerance toward gays. Pastors molesting children, that definitely has to do with our tolerance toward gays. Homosexuals being beaten and killed in hate crimes, again, another prime example of God's wrath being shown for our tolerance of gays.

What planet are these people on? Is Tom Cruise nearby? George W.? I'm sorry, but some people take things a BIT too far with their religious beliefs, or prejudices, I should say. What, would they claim years ago that anything bad that happened in our country was due to our tolerance toward blacks? Would the males claim it was due to our tolerance of women's rights?

WBC members, say what you want, but you're wrong. I know how simple you'd like to make things and just blame everything on homosexuals and people's tolerance of them, but things aren't that simple. Not everything is 2 + 2. Not everything is black and white. Not everything can be blamed on one group of people. Bad things and bad occurrences have been taking place and transpiring in this country from its outset. We can't go around pointing fingers at one group of people and saying it's all their fault, because that would be truly ignorant of us to think and say.

I can guarantee you, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath had nothing to do with this country's tolerance of gays. I've also got a newsflash for you, this country may be more tolerant than some, but is not TOO tolerant of gays. Believe what you want. Believe what the National Enquirer tells you or your made up version of the bible, brainwash your kids and family members that everything is the homosexuals' fault, be hateful in expressing those feelings and beliefs, and we shallst see what happens. I believe the God that we see and believe in is almost a direct reflection of us in a way. I believe in a peaceful and loving God. They believe in a hateful and vengeful one. Take one look in the mirror and you'll see what I'm talking about.

"American Dreamz" Review

"American Dreamz" is a satire about American pop culture. It takes some shots at American politics, but, for the most part, it makes fun of Americans' obsession with reality television and with just being on television.

Hugh Grant stars as "American Idol" judge Simon, hosting his own show, "American Dreamz." Dennis Quaid plays President Staton (AKA George W. Bush). Willem Dafoe plays the vice president (Cheney). Mandy Moore stars as young woman who is selected to be a contestant on "American Dreamz."

Directly following his re-(s)election, President Staton feels exhausted and for one reason or another, is motivated to read and learn a bit about the world. He actually asks for a copy of the newspaper and not just any newspaper, but, the New York Times. Staton hides in his room for weeks after the (s)election, reading through books, magazines, and newspapers. He even read one from Canada. Even though the president attempts to become better educated, his approval ratings drop drastically. As the Vice President notifies him, "The only group of people who approve of you are children under the age of 5." So, Cheney and company map out a way to get President Staton out of his room and into the public's eyes again, so that his numbers will rise. To do this, they book appearances on Larry King, Oprah, and to be a guest judge on "American Dreamz."

I won't give too much away here, unless some are blind, the three finalists are: Mandy Moore, an Arab that likes show tunes, and a Jew that likes rap. That and the rest of the movie are rather predictable. Even the odd ending I saw coming.

All-in-all, it could've been better, but was an entertaining film. Hugh Grant was his usual self. Mandy Moore gave a solid performance. The "American Dreamz" contestants were rather amusing, a couple of performances in particular. "Dennis Quaid and Willem Dafoe did decent jobs of portraying the president and vice president. American Dreamz" could've been a funnier film, but the 110 minutes went by fairly quickly, there were a few laughs (a couple of really good laughs), and even though it didn't quite live up to my expectations, it certainly does pass as an amusing satiric bit about American pop-culture.

Grade: 6.5/10

Down to 33

What's this 33 I speak of? Bush's approval rating as of yesterday, presented by Fox News of all people. Only 66% of Republicans approve of the job he's doing, a low during his presidency. 11% of Democrats approve.

That's quite sad. One in ten people of the opposing party approves, one in three from your own party doesn't approve, and just one in three people overall approve.

If it gets to the point where only one in three people approve of the job a president's doing, he should just automatically be kicked off the island and we can vote someone else onto it, don't you think? We shouldn't have to wait until '08. The people have spoken, we're not happy, and in a "democracy," the people should decide, right? If that were the case, then, so long Dubya!

The Most Annoying Commercial

For those outside the Omaha/Metro area, be grateful that you don't have to witness the KPTM Fox 42 News commercial. Now, if I am able to find what all is said during the 30-45 second commercial (it feels like 5 minutes), then I will be sure to post that.

But, to give you an idea of what it sounds like, the commercial revolves around the word "Time." Like I said, the commercial runs for approximately 30-45 seconds and whenever the word "Time" is said, it is stated in a loud, almost robotic tone. How many times (no pun intended) is the word "Time" stated in this 30-45 second commercial? 22 times! Yes, I counted! 22 flipping times!

It goes something like this:

It's time.
In the nick of time.
It's about time.
Don't waste your time.
It's time for the time.
Nine's the time.
It's your time.
KPTM brings you the time.
It's the time of your life.
Time, time, time.
KPTM Fox 42 news at nine. It's your time.
It's about time.

I only wrote "time" 15 times in there (feels like I wrote it 30 times). So, I'd have to add another seven to amount to what KPTM has done on their wretched commercial.

Yeah, it's time they find a new writer, because after watching that commercial comes time for some advil.

Is There Ever a Nice Way?

To reject a person? Is there ever a nice way one can go about it? Or are they all equally as harsh? How much can a person euphemize or sugar-coat things surrounding the word no that'll make the other person walk away in smiles, as opposed to tears?

I ask this, because just a few days ago, I was told about a similar situation. A guy asked a gal out sometime and she responded with, "Although I'm flattered by what you have said, I'm not interested in dating you or anyone else right now. You're a very nice guy, very easy to talk to, but more in the friend sense. I'm sorry if you're disappointed, but this is how I honestly feel. I hope that this won't stop you from ever talking to me again."

Supposedly, this gal has a history for dating, well, jerks and allegedly, she told a friend of her's a few months back that she had an interest in this young fellow. So, it indeed came as a big shock to him when she told him all of this. So, this young man talked to her friend, told her the story and the friend replied with, "Well, that was nice, I guess."

What's nice about it? The woman dooms things from the start, with the word "Although." Those are awful words: Although, however, but.

"Although you're a great guy, I just can't date you."

"You're truly a great person, however, you're not my type."

"I'm very flattered by what you said, but I still don't want anything to do with you."

If you are told or written any of those three words after asking a person out, be prepared for rejection!

So, what else was "nice" about it? The compliments on being a nice person and easy to talk to? Oh, sure, rub it in to the guy. He's this and he's that, just not good enough for you, eh? Okay then.

The friends line? Was that "nice?" That she sees him in more of a friend sense? What's nice about that? That's one of the famous cop-outs.

"You know, I just don't think we're meant to be like that. But, I'd love to be friends. Let's be friends. Let's be best friends. Let's be the greatest friends that ever lived. But, nothing more."

So, no, again, rub it in the guy's face. He's great, he's nice, he's easy to talk to, great to be friends with, but, nothing more.

How about that last line? Was that "nice?" That she hoped her answer wouldn't prevent him from talking to her again. What's that? Yeah, let's rub that pie full of salt and spices nice and deep so they burn! Allright, so he's very nice, very easy to talk to, great as a friend, and she hopes they continue to talk. Whoop-dee-doo!

What about the line, "I'm sorry if you're disappointed?" What? Don't be sorry. If she was truly sorry that the guy would be disappointed, she wouldn't have turned him down now, would she have? I'm sorry, but that line can't be said. That's like a potential boss calling a person he just interviewed and saying, "You didn't get the job. I'm sorry if you're disappointed." Whatever, shutup! I don't want to talk to you! ::click::. Disappointment goes without saying. If anyone is rejected from anything, they're going to feel disappointment. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doh!" If someone is rejected from a job, a college, a guy, a girl, whatever, they're going to feel a sense of disappointment. They don't need to read or hear, "I'm sorry if you're disappointed." If they're truly sorry, then send over some money, a new car, a trip to Hawaii, a cruise across Europe. If they're truly sorry, then show it. If they're not truly sorry, which, they're not, then don't say you are!

It's all about easing guilt off of one's conscience. This person's answer was full of those signs. Let me run down the list: 1) The flattering line, 2) Don't want to date anyone right now, 3) the compliments (nice, easy to talk to), 4) I'm sorry if you're disappointed, 5) friends, and 6) I hope this doesn't stop you from talking to me. In a very short response, there are six statements made to ease the guilt off of her own conscience. How sugar-coated can a rejection be?

It doesn't matter how sugar-coated a rejection is, it's still a rejection and will sting just the same, if not worse than it would if the person just said "no." The more a person says in a rejection, the deeper it's going to bury inside one's gut and the more it's going to hurt. Keep it short and to the point. If someone goes all out and says, "No. You're ugly, short, dumb, have crooked teeth, bad breath, an annoying voice, are bad at everything you do. I wouldn't be caught dead ever dating you!" Now, that is the worst rejection letter one can receive. I shortened it down a bit to get to the point. I imagine if someone added more details, this would be one excruciatingly long and painful letter. The one I just noted at the onset of this blog is not as painful, but is still pretty bad. Because, the person just doesn't stop with the sugar-coating. Instead of just saying "No," they have to go on and on about why they're saying no, that they think the other person is nice, and easy to talk to, and would be a good friend, and they hope they'll continue talking, and, and, and, and, and! When it comes to a rejection, don't make it some 8-10 minute speech, because the longer it drags on, the more intense the pain will be felt. Just say, "No, I'm not ready for a relationship right now." Bam. One sentence, 9-10 words long and that's it. If the other starts asking the why's and how come's, then that's when the sugar-coating lingo will come about, so be prepared. But, if you can just handle that one sentence rejection, trust me, you'll be thankful!

Oh, I guess to sum up and answer the question posted in the title, no, there isn't ever a nice way to reject a person. The word "no" will always make its presence known and felt in a rejection, regardless of the words its surrounded by and pain will always be felt because of it. So, keep it short and sweet, and if you're going to reject someone, just say "No!"

"American Idol" Study

I just read a headline yesterday, stating a study found that the show "American Idol" brings families closer together. I didn't even read the article. That headline was enough for me.

How in the world can any television show truly bring a family closer together? Not only that, but why "American Idol?" Who came up with study. Was it to try and refute what the new satire "American Dreamz" is claiming? It is ironic when that study came out, isn't it? Just a day before "American Dreams" opened nationwide. About 1 in 2 critics (50%) like the film, by the way, but I have a feeling it'll do pretty well at the box office.

So, tell me, how does "American Idol" bring the family closer to one another? Are we just speaking in a literal sense, like they sit by each other during the show and that constitutes as being "closer" to one another? Because, if that's what they're claiming, then okay, they may have a point. But, food does that. Football does that. Movies do that. Church can do that. Concerts can do that. Heck, drinking and smoking can do that. So, I hope that's not what they were claiming, because just about anything and everything can bring people into the same proximity.

Allright, so check that off. So, was the study really suggesting that "American Idol" brings the family closer together in the sense of them getting to know, love, and respect one another more? If that's the case, then this is really hard for me to believe. Listening to Simon badger the witnesses, I mean, singers, I'm sure will bring a mother, father, and their two children closer to one another. That won't influence them at all, especially the younger ones. I'm sure by sitting in front of the television watching this show will make Al, Peggy, Bud, and Kelly all that much "closer" to one another. Give me a break. It may bring them closer in terms of proximity, but not actually "closer" to one another. Staring at a television next to some people, letting your brain cells rot in the process, and paying sole attention to that tube will not, in any way, shape, or form, bring a family closer to one another. Dismissed.

The Game Gets Old

I've heard all those silly sayings before, "Don't hate the players, hate the game." The players and the game get old after a while, don't they?

It's the same routine, with some minor changes each time in attempt to improve upon the last relationship or dating stint. Two people meet. They talk and get to know each other. Time is shared, things are bought, questions are asked. The two introduce one another to their friends and families. Things become more intimate, physical, and sexual. A comfort, familiarity, and security sets in. There are spats, misunderstandings, arguments, and obstacles to work through. At one point or another, they become too much to handle for one party and all comes to an end.

All that time and energy spent, all that was shared, all the good times and bad put the two right back out on the market where they started prior to dating. Not only that, but it takes a while to get over the relationship. It doesn't just happen overnight to get over all the time and energy that was spent on a person. It takes a while to build up that strength and motivation to put yourself back out on the market again. Then the cycle starts all over again.

There are times I'd like to know how far along into the game I am. Is it still the second quarter? Halftime? Will there be an announcement for the two-minute warning? When will it be time to sit on the bench? To start? To backup? To go for the jugular? To play defense? To play conservative?

That's what makes the game so interesting I suppose. It's unpredictable and you never know what the next play call is going to be. But, playing the same game time in and time out gets to be a bit old, and it's come to the point where I almost want to know before hand if the game is going to be a winner, loser, or a draw.

Ladies Want a Challenge

I wrote a theory about this a wild back in the blog titled "Nice Guys vs. Bad Boys." I said then that it seemed to me that gals perhaps liked having the challenge of shaping up the bad boy and if (and when) things went wrong, she'd have the nice guy to talk to. This way, she gets to keep both the boyfriend and the friend. If she went about it the other way and dated the nice guy, do you really think the bad boy would play the role of nice guy and listen to her vent? Although, what would she have to vent about? Vent about not having anything to vent about? Do people really do that?

I wrote that theory from careful observation, good listening, and of course, first-hand experience. I bumped into another situation like that just yesterday. A person I know has a history of dating guys who are jerks, to be nice (no pun intended). So, a guy who she claimed was "very nice" and "very easy to talk to" asked if they could go out sometime and she declined and why? Because she just saw him as a friend. Although, that's a cop out, as I've mentioned in another blog of mine, properly titled "Cop Outs."

So, from there, I actually went on to ask some females why this was. Why do females seem so compelled to the jerks and only see the nice guys as friends? Well, from the ladies that got back to me on that, it seems my initial theory may have been pretty accurate. The two answers I heard most often were that: 1) She doesn't have very high self-esteem, so she doesn't feel she deserves a good guy and 2) She sees him as a challenge. Either way, the female has to push extra hard in order to make things work. If she's down on herself, she'll put forth the extra effort just to make sure her boyfriend is happy and so she isn't single. In the other scenario, she'll have to try extra hard, because the guy doesn't give her a lot of attention, doesn't talk to her much, seems unavailable at times, and this makes her try even harder to garner his attention. As one lady said to me, to paraphrase, ladies like the thought of changing these guys, taming them, or having the guys all to themselves. As she said, it's destined to be a manipulative relationship.

So, what is dating like to these girls? A guy buying an old beat-up automobile, and with time, money, and parts, fixing it up to his liking? Does the same thinking go into this as well? The guy's logic might be that, in time, he'll be saving a lot of money by fixing this cheap old car up than buying a new one? Heck, he might even be able to sell it for a decent amount. Do ladies think that way with guys? In time, after fixing him up to her liking, he'll be saving her a lot of time, money, and heartache than just going with the good guy? I might understand that with the cars, but not with people, sorry.

When ladies say, they don't want drama, want a guy who is nice, close to his family, likes kids, amongst many other things that makes him resemble the stereotypical "nice guy," what's she really saying?

"He can't be dramatic at all. I hate drama."- Oh, how I want my relationship to be like that on a soap opera.

"He can't carry much baggage with him."- He'll be no problem. I do the trash every week. I can take care of his too.

"I want him to be nice, kind, you know, that sort of thing."- I want him to be nice once in a while. If he opens the doors for me, gives me flowers, compliments me, dances with me, takes me to one of my favorite romance movies, and does this all in one night? That's just too much for me.

"I have to be able to talk to him. Some of my ex-boyfriends would just nod and smile, not listening to anything I had to say!"- As long as he pretends he's listening and says "Uh-huh" or "Yeah" every now and again, then that's good enough for me.

I guess that's it. It's time to go a different route, because this one certainly isn't working. Ladies may tell the nice guy that she wishes her jerk of a boyfriend was more like him, but does she really mean that? Part of her might. But, I'll only believe that if and when she dates that other guy. Until then, they'll just be meaningless words. That's all the good guy provides for these ladies it seems like, meaningless words.