"Over the Hedge" Review

"Over the Hedge" is the latest animated film to hit theaters. The lead character goes by the name of R.J., a raccoon (voice of Bruce Willis) who attempted to steal a bear's food while it was hibernating, but accidentally destroyed it all. The bear gives R.J. a limited amount of time to get him the same food that R.J. had destroyed. If R.J. doesn't, then, well, he may be residing in the bear's stomach when all is said and done.

While thinking of a plan to obtain all the food, R.J. bumps into a group of animals that seem friendly and naive'. They include: a turtle (Gary Shandling), a squirrel (Steve Carrell), a possum (Eugene Levy), a skunk, and some porcupines. R.J. tries talking the family of animals into going over the hedge into suburbia and eating the best food in the world. Of course, he doesn't tell them why he's really wanting to do this. What transpires is a raccoon manipulating a group of animals into a plan that's made out like it was in "Ocean's Eleven."

After seeing this film, the only word that really comes to mind is "cute." It's difficult to have too high expectations for animated films anymore, ever since "Shrek" was released onto the big screen, but this was a very watchable film. There were never any slow moments. The characters were likable in their own ways, and there were a few giggles along the way. Most came at the expense of Steve Carrell's character, the squirrel, named Hamilton. That thing comes across as one addicted to speed and jolt cola. It's nothing compared to "Shrek," but is watchable, especially with the family. If you're not seeing it with the family, then one can wait until it comes out on video.

Grade: 6/10

#715

This is old news by now, but San Francisco Giants' left fielder Barry Bonds has surpassed legend Babe Ruth for second on the all-time home run list, hitting his 715th home run.

What are my thoughts and feelings? As of now, I'm fairly indifferent. If he passes Hank Aaron to become the all-time home run leader, then I'm sure I'll be a bit more opinionated on this topic, but as of right now, I don't really care.

Records are hard to measure. Why? Because things keep on changing. If Ruth and Aaron had played ball in this era, they could've gone deep 900-1,000 times and no, I'm not exaggerating. Why? Better equipment, juice (in several forms), smaller ballparks, more tape and film to watch and study. The bats are better, balls are better, game is more complex, fences are further in, so there are more home runs. That's not even including the muscle-enhancing drugs. Andro was legal until a couple years ago in baseball. Can you imagine Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron on andro, only needing to hit the ball (with a better bat) 350-400 feet for a home run?

I love pitching duels. I'm pretty old-fashioned. I love defensive slugfests in football, love a hard-hitting low-scoring game in hockey, and love a great pitching duel in baseball. But, the majority want to see offense. They want to witness home runs, so the stadiums (for the most part) favor the offense. There are not too many pitcher's parks anymore. This brings in more fans and with them, more money.

It's a changing game. I know some of us see it as silly when movie stars thank their fans after receiving an award, but you know what, where would these entertainers be if we didn't pay money to see their films or watch them suit up and play baseball? Baseball lost a great deal of popularity following their strike and what helped bring baseball back? Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, when both slugged over 60 home runs and Big Mac hit a, at the time, record 70 home runs in a season. Oddly enough, I don't think Selig and company were paying too close attention to the inflated home run numbers, because they were more focused on the popularity (money) of the game. Bonds topped McGwire, hitting 73 homers in a season just a couple years later. Not until recently, after baseball's popularity has risen to what it was prior to the strike, did Selig and company decide to look into the muscle-enhancing drug problem.

Does Bonds' 715 home runs in this day and age impress me more than Ruth's 714 back when he played? No. But, it's impossible to compare the two numbers and how different they'd be if the two players were to switch eras in which they played. Baseball is a very unique game in how it changes over time.

Football has changed some through the years, but the length of the field has been 100 yards for I don't know how long. A touchdown has been worth 6 points, an extra point worth 1 point, a field goal worth 3 points, and a safety worth 2 points. Whether one plays at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City or plays in Foxboro, Massachusetts, there is 100 yards separating the two end zones and the points rewarded for particular scores remains the same. But, this isn't the case in baseball. There's the Green Monster at Fenway, the Ivy at Wrigley, the centerfield hump and shortened wall in left at Minute Maid Park, pitcher's parks in Detroit and San Diego, and a lovely air to carry balls out of the park at Coors Field. What may be a home run in one park may be a fly out in another. That's why records are so difficult to compare, especially in baseball.

Does Bonds come across as the most personable guy in sports? No, not exactly. Has he gotten a lot larger since his rookie season? Yes, most definitely. But, regardless of if Bonds ever took steroids and no matter what era he played in, he is a great baseball player. He's won gold gloves in left field. He's the only player in the 500-500 club (home runs and stolen bases), and has won numerous MVP awards. No matter how much some people want to hate him, there has to be some level of respect for the guy. Whether it's found that he has done steroids or not, I'm going to respect him as a baseball player. Steroids may have their pluses, but Bonds' gold gloves, 500 stolen bases, unbelievable eye at the plate equating to his record-setting walks and on-base percentages were not a result of any steroids. With or without muscle-enhancers, Bonds is a great Hall of Fame-worthy ball player.

Belated-Memorial Day Comments

Yeah, it's a bit late, I know. I just haven't been in the writing mood the past couple days. Memorial Day is a very sad holiday, especially when we're at war. It's a time to remember and show thanks to those who sacrificed themselves in times of war.

I think most Americans do attempt to honor the fallen soldiers on this day. They've proven this to me on a fairly regular basis. The people who have not done so are those supposedly serving the people in another manner, our government.

I don't wish to generalize, because I know that there are some in the government who have served, fought overseas, who have even been P.O.W.'s. But there are a few, especially at the top, who I can't for a second, believe honor the fallen on this day.

This day is to show thanks for soldiers who were brave enough to fight for and defend our freedoms and way of life. What's the current war being fought for, though? Yeah, I know what Bush likes to say, that they're fighting for our freedoms and way of life and spreading democracy. But, this is all a lie.

I wish I believed it. I'm truly thankful to those overseas who believe it. But, that wasn't the original story. The administration is on plan D currently. While the soldiers have fought overseas, we've slowly seen our government gain more power, to put more emphasis on security, and therefore, less emphasis on liberty. While these brave men and women are overseas fighting to protect our liberties, they're slowly being stripped from us. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that those up top would lie to these men and women like that and to the public in general.

Those that we honor on Memorial Day didn't fight and die for censorship. They didn't die for the Patriot Act. They didn't put their lives on the line to place more emphasis on security than liberty. They died so that the final two lines in the first verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" rings true, that we remain "the land of the free, home of the brave." While they prove that last line, that second to last line, for which they fought and died for, is slowly slipping away.

While I and many other Americans try to pay our respects to these brave men and women who sacrificed their lives so that we may remain "the land of the free, home of the brave," there are a few up top that truly need to reflect on their decisions and what's transpired in recent years, and truly attempt to put forth their honest gratitude. They've done anything been shown that thus far.

"A Game of Inches"

I was watching an Atlanta Braves game earlier and the announcers couldn't stop stating that baseball is a game of inches. "That just goes to show you that baseball is a game of inches. Just imagine if Sosa came up with the ball cleanly. He could've turned a double play and the inning would be over. But, no, it's now 3-1 after that homer by the Dodgers." They said this time and time again.

I can't stand this saying when it comes to sports, because, guess what? When one looks right down to it, ALL sports are games of inches! In football, when Buffalo lost to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl on the missed field goal by Scott Norwood, I just can't imagine some people saying that, "This goes to show you. Football is a game of inches!" That goes for all the Florida State losses to rival Miami, as well. I'm sure in basketball, when one is close to blocking a shot, but instead fouls the shooter, that saying is never mentioned. It can pertain to ALL sports: Golf, archery, pool, bowling, swimming, hockey, lacrosse, polo, soccer, auto racing, even curling! They're ALL games of inches! So, stop trying to single one sport out as being the one game of inches. I'm sorry, but that can't be done!

It's like singling one job out as "a job of seconds." Guess what? We all go by the same clock, so if one is two minutes late at one job and another is just as late at another, then, they're both late by two minutes or 120 seconds. I don't care if one is a janitor, a teacher, a lawyer, or a movie critic.

The same is true here. Saying that a sport is a game of inches is like saying a person's height is measured in inches. Gee, do you think? Where there are rules in place, guidelines to follow, and there is a measuring device of some kind, then this is how operate things and this includes sports. There are certain rules and guidelines pertaining to each and every sport and we, in this country, measure in inches, so, there you have it. Regardless of how one wants to single out any sport, they are ALL games of inches! Even people who know hardly anything about these sports know this fact. So, please, cut down on this cliche' during ballgames. It gets mighty old.

Slight Change To NBA Predictions

Okay, so I may have reached a tad when I said that the first team to score 120 in the Phoenix-Dallas series would win the game. That was true in Game 1, but not Game 2. So, I'm going to say that the first team to reach triple-digits will win the games. I'm going to stay with the first team to score 70 wins the games in the Eastern Conference Series. They might as well strap on pads and put on their helmets when they go out there.

Another Suggestion For Bobby Cox

Hey Bobby, you still haven't switched Giles and Renteria in the batting order. Giles is starting to turn it around some, but I still think you'd be doing yourself a favor if you hit Edgar in the top spot and Giles at #2.

An even more important recommendation, though, is to pitch Chris Reitsma in the 8th inning. He's not a closer. In the past week, you've shown what little confidence you have in him, as he threw 2/3 of an inning last week, before you brought out McBride to get the final out and the save. Today, you did likewise, but brought Remlinger on to record the final out of the 9th and get the save. Yesterday, you went to Kenny Ray and he got the Cubs out 1-2-3 in the 9th for a save. Ray's E.R.A. is around 1.50. He's gotten the first batter out in the innings he's pitched 21 out of 24 times, I believe. Reitsma's E.R.A. is over 6.00. He's already blown 3 save opportunities and has a road E.R.A. of over 9.00. He seems to be much more comfortable in the set-up role. It's hard to decipher how comfortable Ray will be in the 9th based on one outing, but he looked sharp yesterday (as well as today, in the 8th) and it seems that wherever you put the guy, he's going to deliver. Chris won't like this, but I'd recommend closing with Ray from here on out.

Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh Should...

Open their own drug clinic. Rush has already been charged and arrested because of his addiction to prescription medications. Now, Pat Robertson claims that he has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds. Football players can't even do that. If Robertson really could do that, he should've been in the Olympics and won a gold medal. In a poll, 90% of people don't believe that Robertson leg-pressed 2,000 pounds. That doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is how in the world can 10% believe that he actually did leg-press that much?

Perhaps Robertson has been doing some hallucinogenics. With some of the statements and claims he's made in the past, this wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Robertson and Limbaugh should go into business together. They can both do their drugs, make outrageous claims, and preach about it on television and radio.

Prediction: Robertson's next claim will be that he went to a Grateful Dead concert on the planet Venus, where he met Jesus and told him the exact date of Armageddon.

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060526183909990006&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Euthanasia Theory

Why is it that most people are fine with the idea of putting a pet to sleep, but they find it immoral and unacceptable to do something similar with people?

I have a theory as to why this is. Many of us see our pets like little kids. They're sweet, innocent, and uncorrupted by the world in which they live. You can have the best or worst day of your life and they'll run up to you and sit in your lap or give you a kiss, with their tail wagging perhaps. It doesn't even matter what you say to them. It all depends on the tone of your voice. You could speak to them in four different languages in a two-minute span and they wouldn't know the difference. They'd continue to love you. There's no obligation to go out and buy them a bouquet of flowers on Valentine's Day or to get them something expensive for their birthday. All they want is some food, water, and attention and they'll be happy. Due to all this, I think it pains most people to see pets suffer, because we don't feel that they deserve that. They're innocent, sweet, have not been corrupted, are loving, and the only time they made you mad is when they made a statement about not getting enough attention. So, when they don't seem happy anymore, don't move around much, don't eat a whole lot, and seem to have lost all love for life, we're not as hesitant to say, "Maybe we should put him/her to sleep. I hate to see him/her suffer like that."

But, with people, it's a different story. We're all the same species, know that none of us are innocent, that we've been corrupted in one way or another, and in an odd way, I think somewhere deep down inside, we believe that humans deserve to suffer, in knowing all that we do about our species. Maybe dogs have the same outlook on dogs as we do about humans, they see their owners as superior to all others, so they don't believe that euthanasia should exist in the human world.

It's also possible that many humans believe that we're the superior species, so the lives of our pets are less important than our own. Some may even compare it to suicide and giving up on life.

I doubt too many people would admit to the first potential reason I listed, but I can see more admitting to the second and third potential reasons. It's just difficult for many people to compare pets with humans and that's understandable for a variety of reasons, but pets are like children in many ways. They can brighten our lives on any given day with a simple smile or wag of the tail.

"It's All Mental!"

Is it all in our head? A buzz after one drinks alcohol? Love? Misery? Seizures? Highs? Depression? Is everything controllable? What is possible and not possible is dependent upon our thoughts and beliefs? If one believes they can beat depression, can they automatically flip the negative thoughts to positive ones and go from misery to joy? If one battles seizures, can they beat and overcome them through outwitting them? Is everything a choice? Can we ultimately decide everything that will or won't occur in our lifetimes and how these events will affect us?

Some would like to believe this. I wish I could believe this. But, there are some things in life that we cannot help. I didn't have a choice as to what gender I'd be, who my parents would be, what language I'd be born into, where I'd be born, what skin color I'd have, what orientation I'd be, what religion I'd be born into, what political leanings I'd be surrounded by, what health issues I'd be born with, amongst many other things. That's what I was born with and born into. I had no choice in the matter.

As we grow, the ability to make decisions for ourselves widen, but the permission to make decisions for ourselves is rarely ever at a maximum. We're either working under someone or compromises come a-calling when we're dating, married to, or living with someone.

What about thoughts, feelings, and sensations as we grow? Are they all choice? Can we numb or block out the pain of an ankle sprain if we so choose? If we choose to drive on a given night, can we block out a buzz from drinking alcohol if we wish? Is happiness or sadness all a choice?

Attitude can play a major factor in how one feels on a daily basis. If one holds their head high and carries with them an optimistic attitude about everyday life, that will definitely play a role in their overall level of happiness. But, there are genetic and environmental factors we can't ignore. Almost everything has some link (from minimal to extreme) when it comes to heredity. Alcoholism and depression are no different. If there's a history of alcoholism or depression in a family, while this by no means guarantees that a new-born will grow up to be a depressed alcoholic, it does increase the likelihood of them developing some form of depression or having troubles with alcohol. Environment also plays a role. If a family is non-communicative and seemingly depressed, the child will most likely suffer negative consequences. If a child is born during the mass genocide in Sudan, the war in Iraq, or the Holocaust, what he or she was born into and surrounded by will definitely affect the child.

I wish life was so simple. I wish everything we thought, believed, felt, or experienced was based on our choice. But, it's not that simple. It's complex. There are some choices we can freely make for ourselves. There are others we need guidance with. There are yet others that are unfortunately beyond our control.

Weatherpeople

What I'd give to be a weatherperson, to get paid for looking nice, being likable, point to a blank screen, and know that I will be wrong 99% of the time.

Just last night, they were calling for a 30% chance of isolated thunderstorms. So, according to them, there was a 70% chance we wouldn't get these storms. It rained and stormed off and on from midnight through nine in the morning.

I think we'd be just as accurate in thinking the opposite of what the weatherperson tells us. The percentages have to equal 100. So, since they said there was only a 30% chance, there's actually a 70% chance. If there's a 100% chance, then okay, we can count on there being some precipitation. If they don't mention rain at all, then allright, there's no chance. But, if they say there's a 10% chance of rain, get your umbrellas ready, because what they're really saying is that there's a 90% chance of precipitation. At the end of the year, if one were to tally up the number of times their percentage was more accurate than mine and vice versa, I'm guessing we'd be pretty even.

"They all sound the same!"

Ever caught yourself saying to another that a song you heard sounded exactly like another one? Ever even just thought that to yourself without muttering a word? I think most people have done that at least once in their lives. I know someone who is like that, but only to the extreme. I don't know that there isn't a band whose songs don't all sound alike to him. I've caught myself saying that with one band, The Wallflowers. That was just based on the singles I heard on the radio or videos I saw on MTV (yeah, a long time ago, I know). So, I highly doubt that ALL of their songs sounded alike. Just the ones that I heard sounded quite reminiscent of one another.

The Wallflowers, Nickelback, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, U2, John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Led Zeppelin, Three Dog Night, REO Speedwagon, R.E.M., Rob/White Zombie, Green Day, amongst many other band's songs all sound the same to him.

I can hear similarities. It's not like a band such as Led Zeppelin will do an album where one song is old-school rap (Dre-esque), followed with a cover tune of an oldies song, going punk with their third song, gothic rock with #4 on the disc, Pantera-metal on the 5th tune, a "Stairway"-type epic at #6, country on #7, a duet R&B tune with Boyz II Men with their 8th track, a rap-meets-rock song at #9, and a gospel hymn at #10. No, there will be some common and similar elements in a band's music. Will all the songs actually be the same? No. But, there will probably be similarities between the songs.

I just have to roll my eyes anymore, because everytime we talk music or the radio's on or a CD is playing, he mentions that a certain band's songs all sound the same. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard him say that. While he does know quite a bit about music, he's the master of exaggeration, as well. I think those two factors even one another out and what he's really saying is, "Some of their songs sound similar." That's what I'll try to hear everytime he says the other line. We'll see how well that strategy works.

Baseball "Experts"

We're just over a quarter of the way through the season and some of these so-called "Experts" are already saying what can and cannot happen in the final three-quarters of the season. Not long ago, the Atlanta Braves were 12-18 and "experts" were preaching about how this wasn't the year for the Braves, that their streak would finally come to an end, and that they were in really big trouble this year. They're now 25-23 and only 3 1/2 games behind the first place Mets. There are 114 games left to go. What, it's impossible to make up 3 1/2 games in the 114 remaining? Even the Kansas City Royals aren't eliminated. It'd take a miracle for them to make a run at the playoffs, but look at what Houston did last year. The Houston Astros started the year 15-30 and what'd they go on to do? Make the playoffs and advance to the World Series. Sometimes (many times), these "experts" are much too quick on jumping the gun. It's 162 game season. One game, one week, the first 48 games of the season aren't going to decide who's in and who's out. It's a very long season. There will be plenty of time to analyze and predict potential matchups and what might happen at the tail-end of the regular season and into the playoffs. Just after the quarter mark into the season is not the time to be doing that, though.

The Poor Cubs

A good friend of mine has been a Cubs' fan for as long as I can remember. His favorite time of the year is in the off-season, because that's when moves are being made and everyone is 0-0. One can pretend that everything will go perfectly. Even before the season begins, one can envision their team going to the World Series and bringing the trophy back to their hometown. But, then reality sets in, or in this case, the regular season, and all those dreams and visions go by the wayside. The Cubs' fans' motto since 1908 has been, "Well, maybe next year." We're only 47 games into the season (just over a quarter of the way through) and my friend is already stating this motto. He and others were saying before the year started that the Red Sox broke the curse two years ago, the White Sox ended their long streak of not winning a World Series a year ago, so it was only fitting for the Cubs to break their curse and end their streak this year. If the first 47 games are any indication of what's to come, the Cubs' fans' may want to start saying that motto of theirs already, "Well, maybe next year."

Chicago has gone 5-21 in their past 26 games, are 18-29 overall, but their past four games have been especially painful for Cubs fans. They got swept by the Florida Marlins, the cellar dweller of the National League East and the team with the second worst record in the National League (third worst overall). The Marlins swept the Cubbies and with ease. Chicago ace starter Carlos Zambrano took the hill on Friday afternoon to face the Atlanta Braves at Wrigley. Even though Zambrano was wild at times and walked a handful of Braves, he had a no-hitter going into the 7th inning. At this point, the Cubs were up 4-2. They were up 5-3 going to the 9th inning when closer Ryan Dempster took over. Pinch hitters Pete Orr and Tony Pena lead off the inning with singles. Second baseman Marcus Giles walked to load the bases with nobody out. Edgar Renteria walked to score one and make it 5-4. Chipper Jones struck out. Andruw Jones hit a ball to right field, where Pena tagged up and scored easily to tie the game at 5-5. But, second baseman Neifi Perez couldn't handle the throw from the outfield, and Giles was sent around to score. Perez then overthrew catcher Michael Barrett (Perez was charged with two errors on the play) and Giles scored the go-ahead run, to make it 6-5 Braves. Kenny Ray then came on in the 9th for Atlanta to get the Cubs out 1-2-3, at which point a loud chorus of boos were heard all around Wrigley. A game where starter Carlos Zambrano had a no-hitter going into the 7th inning and the Cubs found a way to lose. Atlanta finished with 6 runs on 5 hits and the Cubs had 5 runs on 12 hits. When things are going bad, sometimes teams just seem to find ways to lose, which was the case with the Cubs on Friday.

Only A 10-Game Suspension, Eh?

Cubs catcher Michael Barrett received a 10-game suspension for his punch last Saturday of White Sox catcher A.J. Pyrzinski. Most people I heard speak about it, including myself, thought he should've received a 20-25 game suspension. Why'd he receive a suspension of only 10 games? Who knows? I couldn't say. Perhaps it's because the Cubs are 18-29, one of only four teams in the National League with a losing record, and a team who has gone 5-21 in their last 26 games. Barrett is currently batting clean-up for the lowly Cubs. Without him in the lineup, they'd probably move third baseman Aramis Ramirez into the four hole. Ramirez has 9 home runs, which is solid, but has driven in less than 30 this year and before his three-hit performance against Atlanta on Friday, his average was below .240. Pyrzinski did not receive a suspension, but was fined an undisclosed amount of money for whatever reason. Something finally did go right for the Cubs this year, their clean-up hitting catcher's suspension is only 10 games. Yeah, that goes to show you how bad their season has gone thus far!

Godfearers

Even those whom I don't agree with when it comes to religion, I will respect their beliefs if they truly and honestly believe. What I have a problem with is those who claim to believe for the sole reason that they fear God and what could happen to them if they don't believe. That right there tells me they don't actually believe. Just because I leave a cookie and a glass of milk out on the dinner table on Christmas doesn't mean that I truly believe Santa Claus will fly in through the night, lay presents underneath the tree, eat the cookie, and drink the milk. Perhaps I do it for fear that if I don't leave the cookie and milk on the table, he won't stop by my house and leave presents under the tree. Perhaps one goes to college, not because they believe it'll do them any good, but from fear of their future if they don't get their degree.

The hypothetical "what if" scenarios are a great deal of fun to ponder over, aren't they? Especially when it comes to eternal damnation, forever burning in fire? Just like the mythical Santa character knew if you were naughty or nice, God knows whether you believe or don't believe, so cast that fear to the side, because it'll do one no good.

Eleven States With New Gun Law

If one feels threatened at all, they are allowed to pull out their gun, shoot, and kill. The other party being armed is of no matter. All that does matter is that one feels threatened. This law was first passed in Florida last year. Since then, it's been passed in the following states: Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona.

As I've stated before, I'm in the middle area when it comes to the issue of guns. I have not and will not own a gun in my lifetime, but I do respect the 2nd amendment and the right to own a gun.

However, as I was not comfortable before with the idea that people are allowed to carry concealed weapons with them, I'm not too comfortable with this idea either. In the end, who does it help and hinder more? The victims or the criminals? If a criminal pulls a gun on somebody, shoots, and kills them, will this give them a new excuse, that they felt threatened and were acting in self-defense?

Can a pitcher throw at a hitter's head at any point in the game now, by saying afterwards, "I just felt threatened. He had this look in his eyes like he was about to come after me, so I felt I had to protect myself and the only way I could do that was to throw at his head."

Isn't that President Bush's logic many times? "They may have been a threat to us someday, so I felt it was best to bomb them on their soil before they had the opportunity to attack us on ours." That's illegal and immoral. Unless someone throws a punch at me, how can I say that I was acting in self-defense by punching him? Unless the batter comes after me with his bat, how can I claim that it was self-defense by me throwing at his head? Considering Iraq had not attacked us, how can we state that our bombings over there were merely an act of self-defense?

In the film "Minority Report," people are arrested for crimes they didn't, but could've committed. How can one be punished for an act they didn't commit? Same here. How can one make the claim that they acted in self-defense, when what they were defending against didn't truly initiate anything to get defensive about in the first place? Where do we set the boundaries? When can we say that a threat is legitimate and when can we say that it's not? Where do we draw that line? If I'm lost in a city I've never traveled in before and I walk up to a person late at night and they pull a gun, shoot, and kill me, because they felt threatened, how in the world could that be seen as just, legal, and moral? Just as I feel that some people have gotten to be a bit trigger happy, figuratively speaking, with lawsuits, I feel that some may get to be a bit trigger happy, literally, when it comes to firearms.

Why Religion Is Useful and Important

If there's anyone that bashes on organized religion, that's me. I'm not afraid to question tradition, point out flaws, or conclude that there's no such thing as a perfect religion. But, as I believe in balance, there are pros when it comes to religion, just as there are cons.

Why's it useful and important? Because it'll save us from eternal damnation? Because it'll help us see our own destiny? Because the path of God can only be shown and seen through religion? No. It's useful and important because it gives people something to believe in. It gives people motivation to do all they can in this life, for they will be rewarded in the next one. It gives people an outlet for all that's going on in their lives. It gives people answers to questions that will never be solved. It gives people a reason to live life, even in the worst of times.

I'd say approximately 9 in 10 people believe in a superior power (God). Can you imagine if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no superior power and that there was no afterlife? When we passed, that was it? Suicide rates would increase. Violent crime rates would increase. Religion was composed much like laws- to keep people in line. Without laws and religion, there'd be no order, and chaos would be the end result.

The belief in God and an afterlife makes it easier to wake up every morning and push forward with one's agenda. It gives one more motivation to live a good life, as opposed to a selfish one. It gives a group of people something rejoice, smile about, and believe in, and I think that's necessary. It doesn't matter if someone is confused on what it is they truly believe, if they're set in stone on what it is they believe, or if they're wavering between a couple different belief systems, as long as there's definitive belief somewhere in their system, then that's what counts. Those who have no belief at all seem to be the least optimistic, the least motivated, and lost unlike any other.

Online Dating

How does one go about meeting a person? Oh, let me count the ways. Work. School. Church. Vacation. Through friends. Through family. Through friends of family. Through friends of friends. Restaurants. Bookstores. Clubs. Bars. Concerts. Parties. Personal ads in the paper. Personal ads in magazines. Telephone services on commercials. What did I leave out? The Internet.

Online dating seems to be more popular and accepted than ever. There are even online dating sites that are receiving their fair share of airplay on the radio and television. Numerous books have been written about online dating, mainly the how-tos (dummy's guide) or success stories. Unfortunately, all the stories I've heard and experienced in the online dating world have not been so positive.

Initially, it seemed like a good way to start a relationship with a person. Since, they're not right there with you, conversation has to be made. Two people can then find similarities, commonalities, and get a good feel for one another before they date face-to-face. But, there's a downside to all of this. In fact, there are a couple of them. First thing's first, it's much easier for a person to lie when typing over the computer than it is for them to look another in the eyes and lie. It's easier for the listening party to tell by the tone of their voice, look in their eyes, or other gestures, how honest the person is being. Words typed on the screen are ambiguous. We can make of them what we want. Many only have the goal of lying to the point where they can get "some action." Another downside with all this is the fact that people are much more prone to rushing things on a physical and sexual level when they finally meet, especially if they've been talking for a long period of time. While their first time meeting may indeed be the first time they've physically been with one another, many times, it won't feel like the first time, because of the deep, lengthy, and personal conversations they had with one another. They may have even said the big "L" word before they even met. There might even be a pressure felt to give in, since they've shared so much on a mental and emotional level with the person. On the flip-side, if two people just up and meet right away without talking to or getting to know each other at all, then they'll be more susceptible to bad or perhaps even, dangerous dates.

The online world is nothing but a meat market it seems anymore. It's like the bar scene. Chances are, if a person looks long and hard enough, they'll find someone who wants to meet up with them that night and they both have the same thing in mind. There are decent people, but don't be too trusting and don't get too carried away before you meet a person. I say, treat it as a blind date that a friend set you up on. Talk to the person over the phone for a little bit, set up a group date, and go out with your friends to meet this person, just in case he or she is trouble. Also, make sure that the get-together is out at a public place, like a restaurant or bookstore. Make that first date short and sweet and if there's a comfortable vibe between the two of you, then keep in touch and set up a following date.

Never again will I trust the online dating world, but I have heard success stories here and there (mainly through advertisements on television and the radio). Just be careful and try not to get too carried away in the fantasy world in hopes that it'll become a reality.

Drama Kings and Queens

Never has anyone told me outright that they love drama. Never has someone called me up to tell me, "Gosh, there's so much drama in my life right now. I love it!" Never have I sarcastically asked someone a question after they vent to me about their problems, such as, "Gosh, don't you love drama?" and they respond with a serious tone of voice, "Oh, yes, of course, who doesn't?"

But, sometimes, I do wonder if a minority of the population actually enjoys their drama. Without their drama, what would they have to talk about? What would they have to gossip about? What would they have to vent and complain about? Even though they won't admit it, I truly believe some of these people are drama lovers.

A perfect example is an ex-girlfriend of mine. No, I'm not saying this because we just broke up and I'm not over her yet. She and I have been broken up for approximately four years. Last I heard, she had one kid and is pregnant with another. So, no, this isn't me being bitter about a break-up. Heck, I haven't even spoken to her for close to a year now.

While she and I were dating, I was blind to many things as can be commonplace when two people date for a lengthy period of time. So, even though it may have been obvious to others looking in on the situation, I was blind to her being a drama queen. But, now that the situation is four years old, I think I'm able to look back with unbiased eyes on our relationship.

Everyday, it was something new or the rehashing of something I had heard multiple times. One day, it dealt with her mother. The next day, it dealt with her father. Other days, it had to do with her step-parents. There were days she'd dramatize the situation between she and her old best friend who lived in Connecticut. Yet, there were other days, that it had to do with me, the relationship she and I shared, friend of mine, family of mine. You name it, she probably overdramatized about it. Heck, I invited her along to one of my best friend's sister's graduation and oddly enough, my ex knew this gal. At the party, I introduced my ex to some other friends of mine, including a gal that a friend of mine was seeing at the time and who I'd known since grade school. We were invited to an after party shindig following the graduation and we accepted. Right as we got in my car, my ex started inquiring about this female friend of mine who I'd known for umpteen years and who was dating a male friend of mine at the time. "How long have you known her?" "Do you think she's pretty?" "Would you ever date her?" Anytime my phone line was busy when she called, she became stricken with paranoia, thinking that it must've been me talking to a gal I was interested in. So, again, when my ex finally got ahold of me, nothing but questions did I receive. Anytime there wasn't enough drama transpiring in the relationship, she made that there was enough by night's end. She'd cry and pretend that she hated the drama, but she couldn't go about a day unless there was drama. If a date or an entire day seemed to be going well, she had a feeling something wasn't right, so she stirred drama so that things felt familiar and comfortable (in an odd way). There were even times when she told me, "Why is it that drama always seems to find me?" I have a simple answer, because she was looking for it. It's reminiscent of that UPS commercial where the guy whose job it is to worry, has nothing to worry about. Then he goes on a tangent that since there's nothing to worry about, there is something to worry about. If a guy or a gal doesn't really want to date another, all they have to do is look deeper and deeper into the person or situation and they'll eventually find something that they don't like, which will give them the reason to not date that particular person. Even if there's nothing to worry about, if one worries enough, they're going to find something to worry about. If there isn't anything to dramatize in one's life, all it takes is for them to become dramatic over whatever comes to mind and all of a sudden, drama appears.

Why does drama appeal to some? I don't know. Perhaps, like I said before, it's what they're used to, so in an odd way, it's familiar and comfortable to them. Maybe they don't have the highest self-esteem in the world, so the only way they feel they can garner attention is by being dramatic.

My friend's mother has stated that drama seems to find me. Is she right? That's hard for me to say. What I do know is I can't stand drama and I'll do anything it takes so that my life is as drama-free as possible. As I've learned (the hard way), drama=stress and stress=seizures, so through transitive reference, drama=seizuress. That's been the main trigger for seizures in my life. I tried to deny that for a little while, but what good does that do? So, I finally admitted the problem and have since tried to live as stress-free a life as one can. My friend's mother can be sure of this, seizures are not pleasant experiences and I in no way, shape, or form want to endure them at any point in time, so drama does not appeal to me whatsoever.

I can't say that's true of my ex and oddly enough, others in the world. The last time she and I spoke to one another was almost a year ago. A friend of mine who'd known about her bumped into a fellow employee who works with my ex and my friend asked about her (my ex). Well, this young lady then informed my ex about what happened and my ex gave me a call. Keep in mind, this was about three years after we had broken up. Here's what was said:

Her: "So, were you seeing anyone else when we were dating?"

Me: "What? What are you talking about?"

Her: "Oh, this gal I work with bumped into a 'friend' of yours who asked about me. How long have you known this friend? Who is she? How do you know her?"

Me: "I'm not going to get in the middle of this. She's a friend, that's all she is. She's married. You and I broke up about three years ago. What's the big deal here?"

Her: "Okay, fine then. Well, I better get going. Bye."

Me: "Okay then. Buhbye."

Yeah, after that final conversation, there's no way anyone can tell me that some people don't love their drama, because I know for a fact that she did. Why? I don't know and I don't want to know.

Remember The Church Spreading Bogus Word Story?

Remember that blog? I found out a couple weekends ago that the pastor at the church I used to attend spread word during a sermon of a false chain-letter e-mail. It dealt with the 2000 election and how "red-staters" are good people and true to God. It also was basically stating that "blue-staters" are nothing but violent uncontrollable people on welfare. Well, I followed through with what I said I'd do. I did research, found the evidence to disprove the chain-letter and mailed the evidence to the pastor.

He called a few days ago and thanked me. He mentioned that he hadn't done much research, but that part of the e-mail seemed to fit in with the following day's sermon, so he decided to use it. His family and he all read my letter and the chain-letter and he realized that it was trying to make a political statement. I kind of laughed when I heard that, because, I mean, any politically half-knowledgable person could read the chain-letter and see that it was trying to make a political statement. He then stated that even though what the chain-letter noted didn't bother him any, it would offend some and church wasn't the right place to make political statements, so, he'd be more careful about it in the future.

Be careful with those chain-letters. Most all that I've received, I've been able to discover that some, most, or all of the chain-letter is false. Please do some research before spreading false chain-letters around. It's amazing how many people read these things and even more amazing (in a sad kind of way) how many people actually believe them.

Kelvin Sampson

It was reported today that former Oklahoma men's head basketball coach and current Indiana coach Kelvin Sampson violated some recruiting rules when he was at Oklahoma. I kind of understand Oklahoma being punished, since that was the school he violated rules with, but why should Indiana suffer the consequences of his actions at Oklahoma? I never understood this. Sure, the University hired him to coach their basketball team, but they had nothing to do with the violations. Why should they have to pay the consequences of rules he broke at a different school? If President Bush just up and left to be president in Iraq and it was discovered that he violated many American laws while he was president here, who should be punished? Bush should be punished. Should the American people be punished? Should the Iraqi people be punished? Bush should be punished. Same thing here, Sampson should be punished. I don't understand how either school, especially Indiana, can be penalized by this man's wrong doing.

Americans Starting to Wake Up

According to a new Zogby Poll, 45% of Americans that there should be another investigation on the 9/11 attacks, including if anyone in the US government allowed or helped aid the attacks. 8% were unsure. So, Americans are split almost 50-50 on this issue. 42% believes that there's been a cover-up (10% are unsure), so we're split almost 50-50 on that issue as well.

It was also asked in the poll if the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq. We're split 50-50 here, well, 44-44, as 44% believe they did, 44% believe they didn't, and 12% isn't sure.

When it comes to the collapse of WTC 7, only 52% had known about the collapse of the tower and 70% believe the collapse should be re-investigated.

The media was also questioned in this survey, dealing with alternative theories on 9/11 and unanswered questions regarding the attacks. 43% rated the media's performance as positive, 55% rated it as negative, as 2% were neutral.

Oddly enough, a day after the Zogby Poll results were surfaced, an Osama Bin Laden audio tape was released. Coincidence? Yeah, right. If it was the first time for this to occur, then I might say it's just a coincidence, but almost every video and audio tape of "Bin Laden" has served a direct purpose, mainly to divert attention away from a scandal or issue within the administration. One in two Americans show through a poll that they believe there should be a follow-up investigation on 9/11 and 7 in 10 believe there should be an investigation on the collapse of WTC 7. The day after? A Bin Laden audio tape. It's getting to be too predictable anymore.

This poll shows signs of hope, that the American public is beginning to open their eyes and ears to news outside of the mainstream and to stories outside of the "official" one told by the federal government. Only 48% had heard about the collapse of WTC 7. For some time, the majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, that he and Al Qaeda were linked, that they had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Osama Bin Laden and Iraq were linked. They found all of this mis"information" through mainstream news outlets. Hopefully, the public will keep their eyes and ears open more in the future and due to that, more will support another investigation (an independent one) on the 9/11 attacks and in particular, the collapse of WTC 7.

Link:

http://prweb.com/pingpr.php/TWFnbi1UaGlyLUNyYXMtQ3Jhcy1IYWxmLVplcm8=

The Bush and Blair Press Conference

Yeah, I watched it. Did I gain any new insight from watching it? No, I can't say that I did. Immigration wasn't brought up. Neither was the Plame case. NSA wiretapping wasn't brought up from the time I turned on the television. What was mainly discussed? Iraq and Iran.

It amazes me how they're able to look people straight in the eye, speak with confidence and certainty, and be lying about what they're saying. Perhaps, since they've spoken these lines time and time again, these words seem accurate and real to them. It's the mere-exposure effect. The more often they hear these same words spoken, the more likely it is that they'll start to believe these very words.

What did Bush and Blair state time and time again? That the war is about spreading democracy and freedom. Freedom is a universal concept and should be experienced and shared by all. They make it sound like this was the plan all along. No, sorry, this whole "democracy-spreading" idea wasn't mentioned until plans A-C failed. So, while Bush, Blair, and others would like us to believe that their plan all along was to spread freedom and democracy in Iraq, I don't know how else to say it, but they're full of you know what. Blair subtly lead on with the false dilemma. He didn't state outright, "You're either with us or against us" like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and others did. But, that's what he was basically leading on at times, only in a more sly and sophisticated manner. Blair is a good speaker, much better than Bush. But, what's that really saying?

Then, after the conference, some "analyst" on MSNBC stated that 90-95% of all Iraqis want U.S. Troops to stay put. I don't know why, but I can't see how this is possible. How many Iraqis have been killed in this war? We don't even know. We'll never know an exact number. But, let's just estimate a minimum of 30,000-35,000. Multiply that by seven friends or family members who want to get back at the U.S. for their loved one's death and that's 210,000-245,000 and that's just a rough estimate. There's no way that 9 out of 10 Iraqis want us to stay put. Imagine if Iraq sent an army to our country to alter our government. Do you really think that 9 out of 10 Americans would want the Iraqi army to stay put? It'd be the direct opposite. Nine out of ten would want them out of the country. Heck, the majority of Americans want to send hard-working minorities back to their respective countries. Imagine the overwhelming majority of Americans who'd want to send an army trying to transform our government and culture back to where they came from.

What cracked me up during the conference? Besides the lies? Besides the dodging of questions? Besides the answering everything but the questions that were asked? One question that Bush did answer (sort of). He was asked what his biggest mistake or regret was during this war. Besides the events at Abu Ghraib, his biggest mistake was his "cowboyish" rhetoric at times that got misinterpreted by some around the world. What rhetoric was this? "Bring 'em on!" and "Wanted dead or alive!" Yeah, that was his biggest mistake. He even mentioned this before he mentioned Abu Ghraib. The weapons of mass destruction claim wasn't brought up. Neither was the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and Osama Bin Laden. The misestimation of how much we'd spend on this war wasn't brought up. Nope, just his "cowboyish" sayings. Has he learned from that? Oh yes, he has, so he said. He certainly has, so don't go expecting any more, "Bring 'em on!"-type sayings anytime soon from the president, because he's a new man. He's learned from that most dreadful mistake.

Lies, lies, more lies, euphemisms, fallacies, avoidance, and did I mention lies? That's about all you need to know about the press conference. One could have the television on mute and anytime either Blair or Bush opened their mouth, you could point and say, "That's a lie!" and be accurate 90-95% of the time.

Do Musicians' Politics Affect Your Listening To Their Music?

I ask this question, because of a poll being conducted on AOL regarding The Dixie Chicks. They've been outspoken with how they feel toward President Bush and I found this poll question interesting and humorous.

It is: "Do performers' political views affect whether you buy their music?"

Out of 232,535 votes at the time, 62% said yes and only 38% said no. I'm very curious on how the public would respond if it happened to be a different performer in a different genre of music than country, because, let's face it, country fans and stars are more prone to being red-blooded than fans of other forms of music. Branson, Missouri and Nashville, Tennessee have been called the country capital of the world in the past and present. Both Missouri and Tennessee are red states. I don't remember too many "blue" states being known for their country music, like New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or Washington. So, I have a feeling this poll is pretty lopsided with red-blooded country fans. I'd be very interested to know the percentages if the genre had been rap or rock.

Who actually looks into a musician's politics before buying their CD? Did people study The Beach Boys, Beatles, and Monkees' political views before going out and buying a record? Is all this information available? Can I find what musicians are registered as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, or not registered at all? Is there a page complete full of musicians and their views on different social issues? Abortion? Religion? Capital punishment? Immigration? War? Taxes? Liberties? Where is this page? Why would one want to look it over? Why do I care if a musician or band is registered as Republican, Democrat, or even registered at all, if I like their music? If I hear a song on the radio that I start bobbing my head up and down to, what am I going to ask myself? "I wonder if there are any other good songs on their CD" would be a reasonable question. Why would I ask myself, "Gosh, I wonder where they are on the political spectrum? I better go check that out, before I go and buy their CD." Heck no, I'm not going to say that!

Is this true in any form of art? Am I only going to watch films with actors who agree with me politically? Will I only root for athletic teams who agree with me politically? Will I only see a comedian perform if they're on similar wavelengths as myself when it comes to politics? Give me a break! It doesn't matter. They're here to entertain. Actors are here to do just that, act! Basketball players are here to do what they do on the court and help their team win. Musicians are here to play music. Their "political views" shouldn't affect if we do or don't buy their CD. If we like their music, then buy the disc. If we don't like it, then don't bother buying it. Why must their politics enter the equation? When it comes to our liking or disliking a musical act, politics is simply a red herring and should be irrelevant to our enjoying of their music. Frankly, I was stunned by these poll results. Whether conservative Republicans dominated this poll or not, I'm still shocked by the results.

Link:

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/dailypulse/052506/_a/dixie-chicks-under-fire/20060525110609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001%C3%ACK%C3%A8

The Chargers Being The Chargers

I have nothing against the San Diego Chargers. I hold great respect for head coach Marty Schottenheimer and for tailback LaDanian Tomlinson. But, why is it that the Chargers seem to find ways of not making the playoffs, living up to their potential, and regressing when they could very well progress?

According to my grading sheet, San Diego had the worst draft in all of football. Their first round selection was of a guy who missed all of last season with an injury. But, worse than that? They left go of now-established starting quarterback Drew Brees, because they have so much money invested in Philip Rivers. Why? San Diego's offense was finally clicking. All they really needed help was in their secondary. Brees, Tomlinson, Gates. San Diego finally had an offense that could batter opposing defenses and win games by themselves, if their defense was having an off day. Brees doesn't have the strongest throwing arm in the league, but he's accurate and smart. It took him a few years to get comfortable in the system, but these past two seasons, he's proven himself to be a pro bowl-caliber quarterback. What do the Chargers do? Let the guy go.

In favor of? Philip Rivers. In two seasons, he's completed 17 of 30 passes (56.7%) for 148 yards (4.93 yards per attempt), 1 touchdown, 1 interception, been sacked four times, with a quarterback rating of 67.1. Brees threw for 24 touchdowns, completed over 64% of his passes, and had a rating of over 89.0 last season. I've heard many Chargers' players and coaches claim that they won't regress any this year with Rivers replacing Brees, but I don't see how that's not possible. Remember, it took Brees a few years to get comfortable with the system and that's when he was playing every game. Rivers has yet to be the starter. It'll take him some time, just as it did Brees, to get comfortable with the offensive scheme. But, unlike Brees, Rivers' mechanics are anything but smooth and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see him be another Rick Meier. Lucky for the Chargers, they still have LaDanian Tomlinson in the backfield, but he can't do it all himself. If Rivers isn't able to throw the ball consistently, defenses will be lining up to stop LT and not even LT will be able to plow over those defenses.

Link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6763

Never Have I Heard Such Hype Based On Pre-Season

What was Michael Jordan remembered for? Larry Bird? Magic Johnson? Terry Bradshaw? Joe Montana? Troy Aikman? Curt Schilling? Derek Jeter? John Smoltz? Tony LaRussa? Phil Jackson? Bill Walsh? Winning. Their post-season achievements. Does anybody remember what Schilling, Jeter, and Smoltz did in their pre-season games? Even regular season? What are they remembered more for? Smoltz's Cy Young award or his exceptional post-season record and leading the Braves to a World Series ring? Same with Schilling. Is he remembered more for his solid regular season performances or for his MVP showing in the Diamondbacks' World Series win over the Yankees? Regular season excellence is noticed, but post-season excellence is forever remembered. Since when was pre-season excellence ever noticed or remembered?

Why do I bring all of this up? Atlanta Falcons back-up quarterback Matt Schaub. He received buzz a couple pre-seasons ago, because of his numbers. Some were even saying that he should start in front of Michael Vick. There's been talk this off-season of teams interested in trading for the back-up quarterback. I still hear some claim that he'd be a better starting quarterback for Atlanta than Vick. Where do they base these claims? Schaub's pre-season performance. While Vick has lead the Falcons to two playoff appearances in his three full years of starting, has been selected to three pro bowls in this three full years of starting, and has lead Atlanta to a 2-2 record in those two playoff appearance, taking them as far as the NFC Title Game two seasons ago, Schaub has yet to win an NFL football game.

While many give Vick flack for not being the most precise passer in the NFL. Schaub's completion percentage is worse than Vick's. Let's check out the numbers, from the regular season, shall we? Schaub has completed 66 of 134 passes for 825 yards, 5 touchdowns, and 4 interceptions. That's a remarkable completion percentage of 49.3. He averages 6.16 yards per pass attempt, has been sacked 10 times, and has a quarterback rating of 68.8, which is good for a back-up, but would be below average for a starter.

Matt Schaub is a solid back-up quarterback. He may even be a decent temporary starter for some teams, depending on their situation at the position. But, he's no Brett Favre. He's no Peyton Manning. He's no Michael Vick. Schaub is tall, has average speed, and is decently suited for a west coast-type offense. He can't flick the ball as deep as Vick, but is fairly precise with the short and mid-range passes. He has a slow wind-up and delivery, which gets him into trouble at times.

So, why did he have such gaudy numbers in the pre-season? Look at the level of competition he's playing against. While he's running an offense that is similar to the one he ran in college, so he's quite familiar with the system, the defense is lining up youngsters they drafted to see who can make it on their team. It's not like he was playing top-of-the-line pro bowlers. Notice the difference in numbers between the pre-season and the regular season. There's a huge difference. In the regular season, he has to face veterans who've been around, studied film, and been in their respective systems for years. In pre-season, he faces newcomers who haven't the slightest idea what's going on and are just trying to knock balls down, make tackles, and receive some kind of praise from the coaches.

Schaub is a very formidable back-up quarterback, but let's not blow things out of proportion or make a case of anything that isn't to begin with. If Vick goes down, then Schaub is a good guy to sub in for him, but unless that happens, then there's no way that Schaub should replace him. I'll pull for the guy if another team gives him an opportunity to start, but I honestly wouldn't expect anything more than an average starter, a Chad Pennington-type, maybe.

Link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6849

Odd West Coast Road Trip For Atlanta

The Atlanta Braves finished their west coast road trip with an even record of 3-3. In the first and sixth games of their road trip, Atlanta outscored their opponents by the score of 19-16 and went 1-1 in those two contests. In the middle four games, the Braves were outscored by the opposition 17-6 and went 2-2 in that stretch.

Atlanta lost two out of three to Arizona and came back to win two of three from the San Diego Padres. Atlanta blew a 9-8 ninth inning lead in their first game against the Diamondbacks, to fall 10-9. They were blown out in the second game, 13-0, before finally salvaging a win against 'Zona in the third and final game of the series, 2-1. The San Diego series was bizarre, especially the first two games. In game one of the series, San Diego pitcher Jake Peavy set an all-time Padre record for strikeouts in a single game, getting Atlanta hitters to whiff 16 times. Yet, Atlanta won the game 3-1. Braves' pitcher Jorge Sosa allowed two hits and no earned runs in his game 2 start against the Padres, yet, he got the loss, due to two errors and two unearned runs, in a 2-1 loss to San Diego. Then, last night, both teams' bats woke up, in a 10-6 slugfest win for the Braves.

A Tale of Two Series

After watching the Game 1's of both the Eastern Conference and Western Conference Finals, one doesn't have to be a genius to notice the distinct difference between the two games. Miami and Detroit will be played like a Dolphins and Lions game and whoever has five healthy guys at the end of the game will win. Phoenix and Dallas is played more like a St. Louis Rams/Kansas City Chiefs game- no defense and plenty of offense.

What can we conclude after the opening games of each series? First one to 70 wins the games in the Eastern Conference Finals and first one to 120 comes out victorious in the Western Conference Finals games.

That should make for an interesting match-up in the finals, regardless of who plays. If a game is played in the double-digits, then that will favor the Eastern Conference club and if it reaches triple-digits, then it will definitely favor the Western Conference team.

I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T

We're special sometimes, aren't we? Sometimes we just don't know what we have or don't have in front of us. Even the most obvious of hints may not get through to the other party. This is especially the case when it comes to attraction between the two sexes.

If one person is interested in the other, they're more inclined to taking whatever they hear or see as a sign of interest or attraction toward them. This is especially true of guys, because let's face it, we're the simpler of the two genders. If a guy says hello to a female who's interested in him, she may call a girlfriend of her's and analyze the "hello" for three hours. If a gal is kind to a guy who's interested in her, he won't need to call anyone to analyze the words that were spoken. He'll just jump around for joy, thinking that he's found "the one."

Don't get me wrong, it does occur with both sexes, but I notice the need to have to s-p-e-l-l things out to the male in order to understand that there is or isn't an interest.

Many times, people are just being nice. A guy might be kind to a gal he just met and she may construe that as flirting, when he thought he was just being nice. If a gal is being nice to a guy and doing everything possible to illustrate that she's being nice and nothing more, it still probably won't get through to the guy. Until she says, "P. Diddy, I don't know where you got the idea that I 'liked' you and I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not interested in you. I like you as a friend, sure, but nothing more."

Not too long ago, this happened to me. This gal and I had hung out a couple times. We knew one another through a mutual friend. On both occasions, I felt a connection. We talked for hours and hours. She seemed flirtatious. Even this third party friend of ours told me that this gal was interested in me. So, not long ago, I asked her out, with the expectation that, at worst, she'd say yes, but, again, I was mistaken. She gave me the friend line.

Just a few days ago, a friend of mine talked to me about this guy who was obsessed with her. She just had a conversation on what she could do to get the point across that she didn't like him. She and I went through a few ideas, before I finally said, "I know it's hard, but you have to tell him." She claimed that she shouldn't have to and she's right. She shouldn't have to s-p-e-l-l things out to this guy or any guy, for that matter. But, unfortunately, ladies, you've got to do what you've got to do. I wouldn't have known how that gal felt unless she told me straight up that she just liked me as a friend, which she did.

It's not fun. It's not easy. It shouldn't be necessary. But, unfortunately, if one party is interested and the other is not, a s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g lesson will need to be scheduled and given.

The Cavs' Collapse

The Cleveland Cavaliers had a 3-2 series lead on the top-seeded Detroit Pistons with an opportunity to put the series away with a home victory in Game 6. They fell a couple points short due to some exceptional offensive rebounding by the Pistons in the final couple minutes of the game. Cleveland played right with Detroit in the first half of Game 7, but fell apart in the second half, as they broke the new record for fewest points scored by a team in a Game 7 of a playoff series. That's not a record a team wants to break.

I heard debate today on if LeBron lived up to the hype and who was to blame for the Game 7 embarrassment. LeBron lead Cleveland to a 1st-round win over Washington and the Cavs took Detroit to a Game 7. Most "experts" picked the Pistons to win four or five games. They even had a 2-0 series lead, until the Cavs won three straight. So, in his first playoff experience, LeBron exceeded expectations.

Who was to blame yesterday? The whole team. LeBron was tremendous in the first half and they only trailed by two going into halftime. But, he settled too much on jumpers in the second half. His teammates weren't making shots. It was an all-around dreadful second half performance by the team. Some may want to fault James solely. Others want to fault his teammates. It was a team effort. The Cavs scoring 61 points directly reflects that effort. The Cavs succeeded expectations in their playoff run, but didn't even bother showing up for the final 24 minutes of Game 7. That's where the youth of the club painfully made their presence known.

Bench Brawl

Chicago White Sox catcher A.J. Pyrzinski ran over Chicago Cubs catcher Michael Barrett on Saturday, in the Sox 7-0 victory over the Cubs. Barrett was blocking the plate on the play, when Pyrzinski tagged up from 3rd base on a fly out and knocked Barrett over on his backside before the ball got to him. Pyrzinski proceeded to slam his hand down on home plate and walked past Barrett, lightly nudging him in the process. Barrett grabbed hold of Pyrzinski and punched right in the jaw. Both benches cleared. Barrett and Pyrzinski were both ejected from the game and now there's discussion on suspensions.

Chicago columnist Jay Mariotti has blamed Pyrzinski for the scuffle, stating that the White Sox catcher is basically a pain in the backside to anybody other than his teammates. Others have blamed A.J. as well, mainly due to problems he's bumped into with former teams and teammates of his.

I don't know the guy, but who punched who here? When Mike Tyson bit part of Evander Holyfield's ear off, we weren't putting the blame on Holyfield because of something he said or did in his past, right? Tyson is the one who bit the ear. Michael Barrett punched A.J. Pyrzinski square in the jaw. Why Pyrzinski was even thrown out of the game on Saturday is beyond me. He shouldn't have been ejected from that game and should receive no suspension. Barrett did the deed and should pay a heavy price, both fine and suspension. I don't know how many games he'll miss, but I'd say around 20-25. I don't know what Pyrzinski said to Barrett, but that shouldn't matter. Barrett should be mature and adult enough not to throw a punch in that situation. The Cubs have been reeling. He, along with many of his teammates are probably frustrated, he was a grenade about ready to pop and that was the time he did so.

For Mariotti and others who blame Pyrzinksi, I suggest you watch the Tyson/Holyfield fight and say on the air, with a straight face, that Holyfield should've been penalized.

Odd Problem For Da Braves

Pitching. Yeah, they won 2-1 yesterday, but allowed 10 and 13 runs in the opening two games of the series with Arizona.

Veteran John Smoltz has thrown well of late. Tim Hudson threw great yesterday, but has been inconsistent thus far this season. John Thomsen had a 1-3 record with a 1.87 ERA until a few days ago, when he was hit hard. Jorge Sosa was 0-5 until he got his first victory in his last outing. Horacio Ramirez has been out with an injury and is currently in rehab. Mike Hampton is out for the season. Kyle Davies just had surgery after a groin tear and he'll be out for a while. The starters are anything but spectacular thus far, but they're the least of the problems. The set-up men have been decent. The big problem? A closer.

There were two areas I was especially concerned about entering the season: A lead-off man and a closer. Marcus Giles struggled early on, but has been hitting the ball better over the past couple weeks. But, the Braves have blown 11 of 20 save opportunities. Chris Reitsma is a solid 8th inning set-up man, but he's not a closer. Who else in the bullpen could be the closer, though? McBride got the save last night, but he doesn't seem to be closer material. Villareal isn't. Kenny Ray has great numbers, but doesn't seem to have closer stuff. Ray's numbers are much more impressive than McBride and Reitsma's, though. I think they should maybe give him a go-round in the 9th inning. It can't get any worse, right?

The Braves had this same problem a season ago with the newly-acquired Dan Kolb of Milwaukee. Dan Kolb couldn't do the job. Neither can Chris Reitsma. Atlanta has only converted on 9 of 20 (45%) save opportunities. It's time to put someone else on the mound in the 9th inning.

Very Interesting Read- "The Jesus Dynasty"

I just finished reading a book entitled "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity" by Dr. James D. Tabor.

First off, I would not recommend this to those who are obsessed with their religious beliefs or are contemplating forming a cult in the near future. But, for anyone who is flexible with their beliefs, isn't too narrow-minded when it comes to religious discussion, and enjoys broadening their theological horizons some, then I definitely recommend this book to you.

While Tabor is likely to tick off many contemporary Christians, his work will likely spark healthy debate. This book illustrates what Jesus and John the Baptist initially intended Christianity to be, how Paul influenced the religion to be what it is today, and shows how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are similar to one another.

Was Mary truly a "virgin" when she gave birth to Jesus? Did Jesus resurrect on the third day after his death? How many "messiahs" were there? Was Jesus the only one? Who was James? What was taken out and inserted from the original writings to the current bibles? How many brothers and sisters did Jesus have? How did Paul influence Christianity and how is this seen today in the religion? These questions and many others are tackled in "The Jesus Dynasty." Tabor has studied religion for over thirty years, where he has an expertise in "The Dead Sea Scrolls" as well as origins.

"The Da Vinci Code" debuts at...

What did I say (write) last week? The more protesting that went on, the more it'd guarantee that "The Da Vinci Code" would debut at #1. The results are in. "Over the Hedge," the new animated film, debuted at #2, pulling in 32.2 million dollars. "The Da Vinci Code" more than doubled that, grossing a total of 77.0 million dollars, which makes it the second highest grossing global opening in history. Even though only 22% of critics liked the film, it blew away the opposition in its opening weekend. It'll be interesting to see how large the drop-off is in its second weekend. All five people I know who saw it over the weekend thought it was anywhere from a "pretty good" to an "awesome" film.

1. "The Da Vinci Code"- 77.0 million
2. "Over the Hedge"- 32.2 million
3. "Mission: Impossible 3"- 11.0 million
4. "Poseidon"- 9.2 million
5. "RV"- 5.1 million

"United 93" dropped from 6 to 9 this past weekend, raking in 1.4 million (28.3 million overall).

P.S.- Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are hosting a thank you party to all the protesters.

Guys, Are You Whipped?

Top Ten Signs That A Guy Is Whipped

10. He spends more money on her than he does on his bills.
9. He takes her out shopping for clothes and make-up on the day of the Super Bowl.
8. He went from Metallica and Def Leppard to N'Sync and Kenny Chesney.
7. When he goes to Blockbuster on a Friday night, he goes for and immediately knows where to find "The Notebook."
6. Even in front of family and friends, he talks to her in a baby voice.
5. He visits her at work on Valentine's Day dressed up in a Cupid costume.
4. He's no longer invited to guys' nights' out, because all he'd do is complain that she wasn't there.
3. He cries when one of them has to go home and says, "I miss you already."
2. When they go to the mall together, they wear matching outfits.
1. (drum roll) On his day off, all he does is call and leave messages on her machine, saying, "I just wanted to call and hear your voice. Even your voice on the machine makes me weak."

Flip-Floppers (in general)

I wrote a recent post about flip-flopping in politics, but, there are plenty of people outside of politics who flip-flop regularly, as well.

Know anyone like this? It gets a tad annoying, doesn't it? One day, they may complain about someone they're dating. The next day, they absolutely hate the person they're dating. The third day, they're in love with this same person. Fourth day, they're not sure if things are going to work. Fifth day, things are good again, but not great. Sixth day, he or she mentions that there's definitely a mutual attraction on a physical level, but they're not sure if that's all it is. Seventh day, they break up. Eighth day, they're boyfriend and girlfriend again. Ever know anyone like that?

Flip-flopping happens sometimes. We have the right to change our minds about something or our viewpoints as we learn about and experience new things. But, if anything is done in excess, it can get to be quite irritating, just like in the example above. Flip-flopping once in a great while is tolerable, because, we all do it here and there. But, flip-flopping about the same topic on an average of once per day for a week or two? That's annoying. After a while, it just becomes the norm and you don't think anything of it anymore.

It's like if someone used space fillers a great deal, such as the word "like," or if vulgar words spit out of a person's mouth two times in an average sentence. If someone says the word "like" once in a while or swears every now and again, then it's tolerable. The vulgar language may be even more effective, since it's not constant. If they're used consistent and often, then the only words one hears anymore are "like, like, and like, like whatever, like totally" or the expletives. When one has gotten used to it (in a way), then it becomes a regular expectation. Going into the conversation, one then expects the excessive space fillers or profanities and it just becomes "normal."

A person isn't going to think anything of the flip-flopping if it continues consistently for a long period of time. They'll probably give up in trying to help out with the situation, because, regardless of what they say, they know darn well the other person isn't going to listen and is going to flip-flop the next day (and the day after). It's then common for the listening party to wonder about the friendship or to ponder about if they ever knew the person at all. It's like with Bush's constant flip-flopping, while he may appease some conservatives, many will scratch their heads and wonder who this guy is and what he truly believes. Same thing in this situation. We're not going to know who that person truly is, what they feel, or what they believe, if they constantly change their minds. It's very confusing if one thinks about it enough. I used to, but have chosen to give my mind a break, because whether or not I analyze the situation properly, it'd never amount to anything with a constant flip-flopper.

A Radical Democratic Idea

It should be official that we don't live in a democracy. A government by the people? Yeah, 29-34% of people believe that to be the case. What's the problem? Well, there are too many to list, but one deals with people's obsession with power and control. They may be ordinary, average people when they're working the regular 9-5 job, but when they are elected to a position like President of the United States, some of their inner demons are likely to make their presence felt. While presidents only make $200,000 a year (only, ha!), they're rewarded with remarkable benefits, and have the control and power that many dream of, but never have. So, what do they do? Play the role of God. The more wrongs they commit and aren't caught, the more immortal they feel. They give speeches to BS that they care about the people, are doing everything they can to better the country, and basically reiterate the same words spoken just a few months before at another speech of theirs. What if that good salary and those benefits weren't guaranteed? What would happen?

Unless the president does something illegal, is caught, resigns or is impeached, he will stick around for his four-year term. In almost any other profession, that can't be guaranteed. If a hot shot manager in baseball is hired by a perennial doormat, is signed to a 5-year contract, and doesn't improve the team any within three years, he can be fired. If a player isn't living up to his hype or potential, then he can be let go or traded. Why, if it's truly a "democracy," can't the people ultimately decide?

So, here's the idea. President's are only guaranteed a salary that the average American makes (the actual mean average) with the benefits of the average American. He can improve the salary up to a maximum of $200,000 and the benefits that presidents have received depending on how he does during his term. How do we measure his performance? Through non-biased independent studies that show the rise or decline in the following areas: 1) Academic performance, 2) Crime, 3) Health of the Environment, 4) Percentage in poverty, 5) Protection of the people, 6) Protection of our liberty, 7) Equal opportunity, 8) Gas prices, 9) Taxes, and 10) Public's Approval. Then, there will have to be a system in place to calculate just how much the president gains or loses based upon his performance in those ten separate categories. At any time during the term, if 33% or less of the public supports the job of a president (or if he is paid only a certain amount of money during a year for his poor performance), then he will be fired from his job and the public can go to the booths to elect another president. With this proposed system, there will have to be some people who agree to be put on the "just-in-case" ballot. These may include those who lost in the actual election.

Also, because there isn't guaranteed money and benefits for the president, I suggest we add a third and possibly fourth party to the ballots. Yeah, I know what you're thinking, "There already are other parties on the ballot." Yeah, and you're right, but what chance do these parties have of actually being elected? Slim to none. Why? No publicity! They're not part of the debates. They don't have all the ads and commercials with their names and stories on them. All they do is take votes away from the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats. We've already allowed the two major parties to get us to the point we are today. Why not give the other parties a chance? So, we give each of the four parties an equal share of money to use however they choose, whether it be through a commercial, radio ad, or anything else (that's legal). They'll all be welcome to debate one another, as well. Through this, we should have equal exposure from all four candidates. Instead of having just a two party system, we'd finally be expanded to four.

I would hope that all of this would motivate politicians to truly put the people ahead of themselves. It'd hopefully motivate them to get things done and right from the start of their presidency. The money and benefits wouldn't be guaranteed. They'd have to work like any other American and with their good work, they'd receive a raise and added benefits. If they slacked off, then expect that to show in their paycheck. If they slacked off greatly for an extended period of time, then they'd be out of a job, just like anybody else. It's time that we don't put presidents on a pedestal. It's time that they don't look at themselves as elite and God-like. It's time for them to truly work for the American people, by actually being an American person.

It's Now Official! We Speak English!

It was announced today that President George W. Bush supports two Senate proposals that: 1) English is our national language and 2) English is our "common and unifying" language.

It was also announced today that French is the official language of France, that Italians speak, well, Italian, and that the world is round.

What does this bill do? Are we really that insecure with our "situation" here in the U.S.? Do we truly fear that Latinos are going to storm across our country and raid us like Anglos did to the Natives? Are we really that afraid? Considering the country is 70% Anglo? Give me a break. Only 10-15% of the population is Hispanic and what out of them are "illegal" and don't speak a lick of English? A minority. There you have it, a minority of a minority. Does this make us feel more secure, to not only teach English in school from the time we put a pacifier in our mouth until we graduate college, but to suddenly announce that English is our national language? Are we going to announce that automobiles are our official vehicle for the highways? That shoes are our official clothing item we use to walk around in? That sunglasses are our official product to protect our eyes on those sunny days? Pretty soon, Bush will announce that umbrellas are our official product to prevent us from becoming wet in rainy weather.

I'm sorry, but this is stupid. A person doesn't need to announce to the world that I'm a male for me to see that I'm a male. A person doesn't need to publish a best-selling book about my hair being brown for me to realize this. A president doesn't need to pass a bill announcing that our official language is English for me to see that for myself.

It's funny (in several ways) that Bush gave approval here, because, I imagine that even those who have a primary language other than English can speak the language better than he can. Bush should have a live debate with a Latino-American whose primary language is Spanish and I'll put money on the Latino that he speaks better English than Bush.

Link:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060518052609990015&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Flip-Floppers United

Might as well group all politicians into that category of "flip-flopper." Name me one politician who hasn't done that. It'd be like naming one NBA basketball player who hasn't complained of a foul call. They all do it at one time or another, regardless of how intensely they deny it.

That was the Republicans main argument on not voting for Kerry in the 2004 election. He was a major "flip-flopper." He was a "flip-flopper" when it came to the issue of abortion and to the war on terror (war in Iraq, particularly). Yeah, Kerry has flip-flopped at times. But, again, name me one politician who hasn't.

Look at Bush. He's flip-flopped a time or two or eighty-six (but who's counting?). He's flip-flopped on such issues as gays' rights, the war, and immigration. He went from wanting to add an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage to coming out (not literally) and saying, while he didn't believe gays should have the right to be married, they should have the rights of a heterosexual couple (excluding the marriage aspect of it). Do I even have to mention the flip-flops concerning the war? Yeah, what's the reason to go to war in Iraq? They have weapons of mass destruction. Then, no, they don't have WMD's, but they have all the materials to make weapons of mass destruction. Then, it goes to, they have the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. Let's not forget how he linked Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. After all those attempts were discovered to be false, they went for the safety route and claimed that we were there to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Now, with immigration. At first, Bush was against putting up that fence along the border. On Monday night, he said that we'd send 6,000 National Guard troops to protect the border. That received mixed reviews from the GOP and the U.S. citizens. Today, Bush made it known that he now supports fencing along the border.

Yeah, and Kerry was bad? Yeah flip-flopped on the Iraq war, because, he thought the administration was being honest to he and the rest of the public. Then, when the accusations proved to be false, he changed his mind regarding the situation.

Bush has changed his mind regarding immigration three times in the past week. Yeah, okay.

Day 1- I support abortion.
Day 4- I support abortion only in cases of health, incest, and rape.
Day 7- I'm against abortion.

Can Bush actually think for himself? Wait, no need to answer that. Unfortunately, most of us know the answer to that. Bush doesn't, because, well, you get the point.

Republican J.D. Hayworth flew Air Force One with the president and gave Dubya a copy of his book (Hayworth's, not Bush's, of course) about the immigration threat. I only wonder who will read it to him and if he's allowed milk and cookies during the session.

Will this boost up his approval amongst conservatives or have conservatives just stopped believing the guy almost as much as liberals? We'll see. Again, I'm guessing that his approval ratings go up slightly.

Link:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060518052609990015

One Over .500

Okay, so I didn't jinx them. The Braves came back and have scored the past 9 runs, including two homers by youngster Jeff Francouer and another by Matt Diaz. The score is Atlanta 9 Florida 1, in the top of the 9th, with two outs, and nobody on. With the win today, that'll push the Braves to one game over the .500 mark, at 21-20, after sweeping a four game series from the lowly Florida Marlins. Okay, the game's over. It's official. Atlanta has swept the Marlins and are 21-20. My eyes are hurting me after all this blogging. I better stop looking at this dang computer screen.

Only Three States Approve of Bush

According to the most recent state-by-state survey conducted and released on May 15th, only the states of Idaho (52%), Utah (51%), and Wyoming (50%) approve of the president. Overall, the weighted average is 33%, with the lowest being in Rhode Island, where only 23% of the people approve of Bush. Good news for Nebraskans, as for the first time that I can remember, the majority is not with Bush. 47% approve of the president and 51% do not approve of him in the extremely red Cornhusker State.

Link:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StatePres060515State.htm

Jon Stewart Has a Field Day With Ramesh Ponnuru

Author of the book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life," Ramesh Ponnuru, made a guest appearance on "The Daily Show" last night.

The book is basically about how Democrats are evil, especially Hillary Clinton, and giving tips on how to stop this "Party of Death."

Jon Stewart put on his serious face last night and by the end of the conversation, Ponnuru was speechless. One might expect to be that way if they make an appearance on O'Reilly or Hannity from being yelled at and scorned so much, but one usually doesn't walk into Jon Stewart's neck of the woods and expect to receive such difficult questions and intelligent points, that they don't know what their point was in the first place. But, that's what happened between Stewart and Ponnuru last night.

Ponnuru's main focus in the book is how Democrats don't regard human life, as can be shown in their pro-life views, their views regarding what happened with Terri Shiavo, and how the courts and media agree with everything they have to say. This is not a very deep or factually-based book, which one can expect, as Ponnuru is an op-ed writer at The National Review.

Stewart asked Ponnuru about the Iraq War, and Ponnuru, in his high chirpy voice, seemed to agree with everything Bush has said or done, including what the correct toilet paper is to use on one's own hiney. So, Stewart asked about innocent civilians who are killed over in Iraq. At first, Ponnuru misunderstood what Stewart was trying to say, so Stewart S-P-E-L-L-E-D it out for him and by that time, Ponnuru was chirping, squeaking, with no words coming out of his mouth. It was quite the interview. I enjoyed every second of it. It shall play again on Comedy Central tonight, I believe at 7 pm CST (8 EST) or, you could check out the comedy central homepage, click on "The Daily Show," and replay the interview with Ramesh Ponnuru. You won't regret it.

Michael Vick's Odd Relationship With The Media

When then Virginia Tech quarterback Michael Vick was drafted #1 by the Atlanta Falcons in 2001, there was a new found excitement in the Atlanta area. When he played sparingly in his rookie season, the excitement grew, amongst fans, players, the league, and the media.

This excitement expanded further when Vick was pushed into a full-time starting role in the 2002 season, ran for 777 yards, threw 16 touchdowns, and lead the Falcons to a 9-6-1 record and a playoff spot. In the first round, Vick lead Atlanta to a win over the Packers at Lambeau Field. It was the first recorded playoff loss for the Packers at their home stadium.

But, since then, the critics have been harsh and angry with Vick. He got injured in 2003 in the final pre-season game for the Falcons, breaking a bone in his leg. Atlanta went 2-10 without him, before he burst out onto the field and aided the Falcons to finish the season off by winning three of their final four games.

Even though, it was apparent how important and valuable Vick was to the team, critics bashed his playing style and claimed that he needed to be a pocket passing quarterback to prevent such injuries that occurred in the preseason game.

In 2004, Vick played all but two of the final three games, because Atlanta had already secured a first-round by in the playoffs. During the season, he ran for over 900 yards and lead Atlanta to an overall record of 11-5 (11-3 when he started) and a first-round by in the playoffs. They faced St. Louis in the second round and dominated from start to finish. On one of the first plays from scrimmage, Vick ran a designed run play to the outside, danced around in the backfield, before finding a microscopic hole, which he darted through. So, they were off to the NFC Title game, where they played competitively for three quarters, but got knocked out in the 4th.

Not too much was being said then about Vick, but there were still complaints regarding how he ran the ball too much.

In 2005, Atlanta started the season off with a record of 6-2 and looked poised to make another run for the NFC Title Game, but fell apart in the second half of the season, to finish at 8-8. Vick played all but one game and ran for approximately 600 yards, along with throwing for 15 touchdowns. What did the critics gripe about this year? Him not running enough.

Now, I read reports that the pressure is all on him this season and that he didn't produce last season, that he was a disappointment last year. What do they expect this guy to do? To scramble around in the backfield for a few minutes, making everybody miss and then heaving the ball 100 yards for a touchdown?

I completely agree that Vick needs to find some chemistry with his two young receivers, Roddy White and Michael Jenkins, but give credit where credit is due. The Atlanta Falcons have lead the league in rushing (by a long shot) the past two seasons and it's not all because of their tailbacks, Warrick Dunn and T.J. Duckett. Dunn is a very solid football player, but he can only take so many licks in a game and a season. Duckett is a solid #2 back. But, I guarantee you, if Kurt Warner was quarterback of the Falcons, Atlanta would not be the top rushing offense in the league. Many of the holes that open up for the backs are due to the defense keeping an eye on the quarterback, Michael Vick. If Vick wasn't there, not nearly as many holes would open up for Dunn and Duckett. Atlanta has that part of their offense down pat, along with Vick's chemistry with tight end Alge Crumpler and veteran wideout Brian Finneran. He just needs to work on finding chemistry with the two young receivers.

Also, here's a quick stat for the sports' "experts." Atlanta scored 351 points last season. That's an average of 22 points per game. For an entire season, that's very solid, especially for a run-dominated offense. The problem? The defense allowed 341 points last season, an average of almost 21.5 points a contest. It's hard to win 10 games if the defense is giving up over three touchdowns a game.

Until last season, Indianapolis' defense was asleep and the Colts had to score four to five touchdowns on a weekly basis to win their games. Because they didn't finish up top or beat the Pats in the playoffs, can we blame Peyton Manning for that? Edgerrin James? Marvin Harrison? Reggie Wayne? No. It's a team sport. If the offense does their job, the defense has to do their job and vice versa. Is it Brett Favre's fault that his offense was banged up last year, with star wideout Javon Walker and tailback Ahman Green hurt early and often? No. Just as it's not Vick's fault that the defense was banged up all last year and often times, it showed on the field.

Wake up. Michael Vick is never going to be a Dan Marino. Whoever expects him to be like that will forever be disappointed. He's not a drop-back passer, just as Peyton Manning isn't a scrambler. While Vick does need to improve some (3-4 percentage points) on his accuracy and needs to build chemistry with his young receivers, the guy simply needs to be himself out there and lead the team to victory. It seems like some people expect him to do everything on a single play and that's not possible. I think many have gotten spoiled with what Vick brings to the table on a weekly basis and anything less than exciting becomes a disappointment. If Jordan didn't hit a big shot or if Vince Carter didn't throw down a crazy dunk on a given night, some would leave the arena disappointed, even if they played solid games and did their part. Football is as much of a team sport as any. Thus far in his career, Vick has done his part to contribute and make Atlanta competitive (many times, victorious). Peyton Manning can't do everything himself. Neither can Brett Favre. Neither can Michael Vick. He's a great and exciting talent. Stop expecting him to do everything on a single play, just sit back, and let him be himself. Trust me, it'll make for a much more enjoyable game.

Marcus Vick Update

Nick Saban and the Miami Dolphins are giving Marcus Vick a chance at the NFL level, as they've signed him to a deal. What's uncertain as of now is where they'll play Vick, after trading for and signing quarterbacks Daunte Culpepper and Joey Harrington in the off-season. It is possible that Vick could play some receiver and on special teams. Saban has warned Vick that if he slips up again like he did at Virginia Tech, then that'll be it for him. Vick claimed that he understood, but only actions will prove that he did.