Monday, July 31, 2006

"A Scanner Darkly" Review

Think "Minority Report" meets "Half Baked" meets "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" meets "Pee Wee's Playhouse." "A Scanner Darkly" is an animated (rotoscope) political drug movie where many times, the viewer can be uncertain of what they are or aren't seeing. To use some lovely lingo, it was "trippy." I can only imagine how crazy one would get if they watched the film while tripping. Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr., Winona Ryder, and Woody Harrleson are the four main stars in the film, based off a novel by Phillip Dick, where at times they look too real to be animated and vice versa.

I can't write too much about it, because one must actually see the film to understand it. Some may not even get it then. What I will say is that "A Scanner Darkly" is a funnier film than I had anticipated, is eerie in its own way, and brings another added element to the screen with it being in rotoscope. The fact that Phillip Dick wrote this 30 years ago is eerie in and of itself. The fact that some elements of the film can now be thought of as non-fictional is the truly crazy part.

Overall Grade: 7.5/10

Comparing Goldberg to Huberman

Not long ago, conservative author Bernard Goldberg released a book entitled "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is Only #37)." As Huberman points out in his recently released book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America (And Bernard Goldberg Is Only #73)," he claims that in Goldberg's list of 100 people, 81 are liberal, 7 conservative, and 12 others. So, anywhere from 81-93% of the people on Goldberg's list are liberals. I will lay this out in black and white, starting with Goldberg's list, then listing Huberman's people, and making a few comments.

Goldberg's List

100. Rick Hilton & Kathy Hilton
99. Matthew Lesko
98. Sheila Jackson Lee
97. Todd Goldman
96. Eve Ensler
95. Courtney Love
94. Guy Velella
93. Richard Timmons
92. Kerri Dunn
91. Barbara Streisand
90. Michael Jackson
89. Jane Smiley
88. Aaron McGruder
87. Sheldon Hackney
86. Chris Ofili
85. The Dumb Celebrity (quotes from Cameron Diaz, Fred Durst, Kate Hudson, Margaret Cho, and Janeane Garofalo)
84. The Vicious Celebrity (quotes from Alec Baldwin, Wallace Shawn, Sean Penn, and Janeane Garofalo)
83. The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity (quotes from Linda Ronstadt, Martin Sheen, David Clennon, and Janeane Garofalo)
82. Laurie David
81. Tim Robbins
80. Kitty Kelley
79. Harry Belafonte
78. Norman Mailer
77. Linda Hirshman
76. Barbara Foley
75. Eric Foner
74. Katha Pollitt
73. Barbara Kingsolver
72. Ward Churchill
71. Phil Donahue
70. Jimmy Swaggart
69. Matt Kunitz
68. Katherine Hanson
67. Randall Robinson
66. David Duke
65. Oliver Stone
64. James Wolcott
63. Amy Richards
62. Howard Stern
61. Michael Savage
60. Ludacris
59. Shirley Franklin
58. Eminem
57. Ted Field
56. Diane Sawyer
55. David Westin
54. Neal Shapiro
53. Anna Nicole Smith
52. Markos Moulitsas
51. Ann Pelo
50. John Vasconcellos
49. Ingrid Newkirk
48. Robert Byrd
47. Maxine Walters
46. Barbara Walters
45. Ken Lay
44. Dennis Kozlowski
43. Paul Eibler
42. Gloria Steinem
41. Susan Beresford
40. Scott Harshbarger
39. Peter Singer
38. Jim McDermott
37. Al Franken
36. Nancy Hopkins
35. Jeff Danziger
34. Bill Moyers
33. Bob Shrum
32. Jerry Springer
31. Maury Povich
30. Latrell Sprewell
29. John Green
28. Julian Bond
27. Paul Begala
26. Dr. Martin Haskell
25. James Charles Kopp
24. Lee Bollinger
23. The Unknown American Terrorist (from the Earth Liberation Front)
22. Michael Newdow
21. Judge Roy Moore
20. Howard Dean
19. George Soros
18. Al Gore
17. Al Sharpton
16. John Edwards
15. Ted Rall
14. Mary Mapes
13. Andrew Heyward
12. Dan Rather
11. Noam Chomsky
10. Ralph Neas
9. Jonathan Kozol
8. Paul Krugman
7. Margaret Marshall
6. Jimmy Carter
5. Anthony Romero
4. Jesse Jackson
3. Ted Kennedy
2. Arthur Sulzberger
1. Michael Moore

Huberman's List

101. The Obnoxiously Loud and Constant Cell Phone User
100. Dan Brown
99. Bill and Brian France and NASCAR
98. Toby Keith
97. Joe Francis and Girls Gone Wild
96. J.K. Rowling
94 & 95. Marc Cherry and Candace Bushnell
93. Tucker Carlson
92. Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim
91. "Dr. Phil" McGraw
90. Mark Burnett
89. Steven Rosen and AIPAC
88. Richard Wilkins
87. Linda Chavez
86. Charles Cawley and Successors at MBNA
85. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology
84. Franklin "Not of the Same God" Graham
83. The Snowmobile, ATV, and Jet Ski Industries
82. Arthur Finkelstein
81. Kirk Lyon and the Sons of Confederate Veterans
80. Bill Donohue
79. Bradley Smith 1
78. Bradley Smith 2
77. God
76. Pope Benedict XVI
75. Kansas State Board of Education
74. Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, and CAIR
73. Bernard Goldberg
72. Halliburton
71. William Regnery
70. Arnold Schwarzenegger
69. Randall Terry
68. Dr. Laura Schlessinger
67. SUV Buyers
66. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins
65. Mel Gibson
61-64. Brown, Owen, Meyers, and Pryor
60. James Baker and the Carlyle Group
59. John Bolton
58. Senator Tom Coburn
57. The Average American
56. Ralph Reed
55. Pat Robertson
54. Sun Myung Moon
53. The Coors Family
52. Jack Oliver
51. Mark Hyman and Sinclair Broadcasting
50. Lowry Mays and Clear Channel Communications
49. The "Wall Street Journal" Editors
48. Kenneth Tomlinson
46 & 47. Elaine Chao and Mitch McConnell
45. Democrat Pussies
44. Samuel "Rob" Walton and Wal-Mart
43. J. Dennis Hastert
41 & 42. Alex Castellanos and Mark McKinnon
39 & 40. Myron Magnet and Marvin Olasky
38. John D. Graham
37. Jeffrey Holmstead
36. John Roberts
35. John Yoo
34. The Discovery Institute
33. James Inhofe
32. Ann Coulter
31. David Horowitz
30. Sean Hannity
29. Bill O'Reilly
28. Roger Ailes and Fox News
27. Rush Limbaugh
26. Michael Ledeen
25. The Federalist Society
24. Grover Norquist
23. Rick Santorum
22. Wayne LaPierre and the NRA
21. Richard Mellon Scaife
20. Phyllis Schlafly
19. Alberto Gonzales
18. Gail Norton
17. Andrew Card
16. Bill Ford, Jr.
15. James Dobson
14. Rupert Murdoch
13. The So-Called Liberal Media
12. Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil, and The American Petroleum Institute
11. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
10. Condoleeza Rice
9. Paul Weyrich
8. Heritage Foundation
7. American Enterprise Institute
6. Tom DeLay
5. Osama bin Laden
4. Donald Rumsfeld
3. Karl Rove
2. George W. Bush
1. Dick Cheney

There are a few in both Goldberg and Huberman's lists that make me kind of shake my head and laugh. I do notice a lot more celebrity types in Goldberg's list, however: Courtney Love, Barbara Streisand, Michael Jackson, The Dumb Celebrity, The Vicious Celebrity, The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity, Tim Robbins, Oliver Stone, Ludacris, Eminem, Anna Nicole Smith, Latrell Sprewell, Jesse Jackson, and those are just 13 that I randomly picked. Huberman lists: Dan Brown, Toby Keith, J.K. Rowling, and Mel Gibson are the names I immediately notice. My comment about these names is simply this, how much power do these celebrities truly have over American citizens' lives? We don't vote them into office (excluding Ah-nuld, which is why I didn't include him on the list). We pay money to be entertained by these people, whether it be to listen to some music by Eminem, watch a film with Tim Robbins, read a book by J.K. Rowling, or watch a game in which Latrell Sprewell participates. Do they decide when we go to war, where we do it, and how we go about it? No. Do they decide on Supreme Court Justices? No. Do we look to them for guidance and leadership after an attack like that on 9/11? Again, no. So, how in the world are these people "screwing up" America? I may not like much in terms of rap or country music, but I'm not going to claim that either is "screwing up" America.

As a blind man could see from the lists, Goldberg's is much more concentrated on liberals and Huberman is much more focused on conservatives. In Huberman's defense, his book was released after Goldberg's and his prime motivation to write the book was to show the other side of the spectrum as opposed to Goldberg's list. But, keep in mind, Huberman does have a history of writing books that deal with being critical of President Bush, so he's no Bush-lover.

I have read complaints from some conservatives on the listing of "God" in Huberman's book. Please read the section on "God" before judging. It's meant in a figurative sense.

I have enjoyed Huberman's book thus far, but I'll admit, some of the listings are silly. J.K. Rowling is the author of the "Harry Potter" series and Huberman basically claims to have listed him because he's sold so many books. But, again, I don't take some of these silly listings seriously. I simply laugh at them at perhaps in wishful thinking, believe that it's just poking fun at some of Goldberg's listings.

From what I've read of both books, I can say with a straight face (yes, even at the computer screen) that while both are silly at times, Huberman's is much more to the point and well-researched than Goldberg's. While Huberman does list some people who just simply annoy him, he does list individuals who have great power in what they do, where as, Goldberg would rather believe that the "liberal media" is ruining America. If Goldberg had written the book back when Clinton was in office, while I may not agree with it entirely, I'd understand if he'd put the names of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and others near or at the top of his list. But, Michael Moore? A film director and author? Just because of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore is the person who is "screwing up" America the most? How is that possible? Moore makes his films to provoke thought, inform, and entertain people. Some may not like his humor. Others may not like the point the film is trying to make. I thought "Fahrenhype 9/11" was rather weak in the points it tried to make, but I'm not going to claim the director of that film is ruining America more than anyone else. As I just mentioned with Clinton while he was in office, Huberman mentions those in office right now in the Bush administration. Whether I be conservative, moderate, or liberal, I could understand why Huberman would do such a thing, just as I could understand Goldberg going that route during the Clinton years. If they both wrote similar books during the Clinton administration and Goldberg place Al Gore #1, Bill Clinton #2, and Huberman placed Steven Spielberg #1, even though I may not agree, I'd understand Goldberg's rationale more than Huberman's.

The books simply preach to the choir. If you're a die-hard Republican, I wouldn't recommend buying Huberman's book. If, on the other hand, you're not too supportive of what the Bush administration has done through the past almost six years and want a few laughs along the way, then I'd definitely recommend "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America." Some listings may be silly, but they are still humorous and make for some fun and easy reading.

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_People_Who_Are_Screwing_Up_America

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Another Sportswriter Writing About Nothing

I read an article today by one Jeremy Green at ESPN.com that talked about the relationship between Falcons head coach Jim Mora, offensive coordinator Greg Knapp, and quarterback Michael Vick. Green commented that nobody has spoken up between the three of them and complained publicly about the relationship and yet he (Green) knows there is tension there. He compares the situation to ex-Cleveland Browns quarterback (and #1 pick out of Kentucky) Tim Couch, whose football career may be all but over now.

While Greg Knapp and Vick were definitely not in sync in their first year together, Vick still lead the team to an 11-5 record and all the way to the NFC Championship Game. They clicked better last year, but oddly enough, the Falcons finished the season at 8-8. This was not due to the offense's ineffectiveness. They ranked 12th in the NFL in total offense. The defense was ranked toward the very bottom. Jim Mora has defended his offensive coordinator and quarterback every time he's had to.

The 2006-2007 season hasn't even started yet and already writers are getting on Vick's back. The pass protection was shoddy at best last season, and oddly enough, improved from the season before. The running game started off great, but faded down the stretch. The only two consistent receivers were tight end Alge Crumpler and veteran wideout Brian Finneran. The two first round draft picks, Roddy White and Michael Jenkins showed improvements throughout the season, but were anything but consistent. The defense was so banged up that the offense had to score 30 points regularly just to win the games. Unless you're the Indianapolis Colts, that's not going to happen.

Four factors have to work in order for the passing offense to be consistently successful: 1) The right plays have to be called, 2) there has to be solid pass protection, 3) the ball has to be thrown accurately, and 4) the receiver needs to make the catch. Vick cannot call the play, block for himself, throw the ball, and catch the darn thing.

What will sportswriters write about next? How coach Bill Belichek should dress during the season, because through the interpretation of hand gestures by players as he walks out onto the field, it can be construed that they disapprove and are ashamed of their head coach? Even though he's lead them to three Super Bowls? The season hasn't started and yet the soap operas are already unfolding for sportswriters. Enjoy the daytime soaps on television and before we know it, the football soaps will be unfolding before our eyes, but again, that's still just over a month away.

Gibson Arrested For DUI

Actor and Director Mel Gibson was arrested for driving under the influence, as his blood-alcohol level was at 0.12. But, that wasn't even the worst part of the story. Gibson has fessed up to saying some very inappropriate statements to the officer who had arrested him.

He allegedly threatened the officer, tried to escape, and laid down some "anti-Semitic" remarks, such as, "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" and "Are you a Jew?"

This is highly ironic for me, because just last night, I was reading a book entitled "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America" by Jack Huberman and Mel Gibson was listed because of supposed anti-Semitism in his film "Passion of the Christ." Many religious scholars and theologians have pointed out many falsities in the film and anti-Semitism. He was also listed on there because he and his father don't believe in the Holocaust. When asked about World War II, Gibson said, "Many people died in World War II. Some of them were Jews."

Gibson did make a statement today apologizing for his words and actions, saying, "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse."

Link:

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/movies/articles/_a/gibson-apologizes-for-despicable-dui/20060728161309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

C-SPAN Airs 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

From approximately 7-9 PM last night (Saturday), C-SPAN aired a late June conference in Los Angeles that revolved around theories regarding the September 11th attacks. Radio show host and documentarian Alex Jones was the host of the show. Alongside him were: a former air force colonel who fought in Vietnam and is running for Congress, a physicist, and two authors. It was a very interesting conference and while I for one had read articles concerning everything that they had pointed out, I'm sure most people have not. Mainstream news usually doesn't cover such areas. They only give the people just enough information so that they feel they know what's going on, when they probably don't. Underground and alternative news sources tend to be less afraid of tackling certain reports and theories. Whether one agrees with anything these men or others have to say regarding the "official" 9/11 story, one can't help but admit after reading some of the reports, articles, and studies involved with the information they're projecting to be at least a little bit curious and say something along the lines of, "Huh, well that's interesting." If anyone is interested in reading about the conference, feel free to check out the 9/11 truth movement, infowars.com, the conference symposium, or the world trade center tower 7 (wtc7). As a friend of mine's father who had worked for the CIA once said, "There's a reason why conspiracy theories exist. Some of them are true."

Lance Bass Comes Out

Former boy band member of the group N'Sync, Lance Bass, has recently come out of the closet. That's right girls. What all your ex and current boyfriends have been trying to tell you over the years was true! After I read the news, I was in sudden shock (note of sarcasm on the word shock). Oddly enough, I heard that a few girls were actually in shock about the news. Come on ladies. When George Michael came out (pun intended) with his "Faith" video, with those shorts barely covering his crotch and shaking his butt like Madonna, did it not occur to you that he might gay? After I saw that video, I immediately knew he was. Same goes with Lance Bass, although, thank God he didn't have a "Faith"-like video where he imitated Michael. I hope Lance has started a trend of boy band members who are willing to come out to the public. Lance got the ball rolling. Now it's time for the others to follow suit. Oh, and Lance, good luck with that reality tv show guy and ladies, let's not go anti-N'Sync because Lance is gay. I knew this when I first saw the band (not in concert, thank God), so deal with it! He's not into you. He'd be more prone to dating your boyfriend, so look out, because now you know that you've got competition for the guys you're after!

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The D.I.L.F.

I've heard of M.I.L.F.'s and even G.I.L.F.'s. Why have I not heard of D.I.L.F.'s? Maybe females throw this term around and I don't know about it, but I have not heard of the D.I.L.F. in the same manner as the M.I.L.F. or even the G.I.L.F.

What are sisters for?

I just overheard a story a couple days ago concerning two sisters who are 18-months apart in age. One constantly dyes her hair blonde to hide the gray and is rather obsessed with her appearance and not aging (or showing that she's aging). The other doesn't dye her hair much and depending on how one looks at it, the hair can either come across as all blonde, all white, or a blend of the two. They live quite a few miles away from one another, so their times together are few and far between. One visited the other for over a week just a couple weeks ago and on their first evening out, a waitress asked them if they were mother and daughter. Then the waitress asked how many years apart they were. Deep down, the blonde gal probably felt pretty good about herself because of these comments, but the other didn't. She even turned to her sister and asked if her hair made her look older, to which her sister responded, "Yes it does."

So, ever since this lady returned, she's been obsessing over her hair. The day after she returned, she had it dyed and guess what? She doesn't like it. She also wore this teeny bopper-looking shirt that her sister would wear and that was an odd sight. She even spent a few minutes in the hot and muggy weather the other day tanning, which she rarely if ever does.

Yeah, what are sisters for? I'd hate to tell the one lady this, but she is in her 50s. It's not like they're both 25. No, they're more than double that. While one did seem comfortable with her hair being the way it was, the other is obsessively dying her's. I know some people who get gray in their 30s. I know some guys who go bald in their 20s. I know some who go white in their 30s. That hair isn't going to be "perfect" forever. If your sis wants to let it naturally go gray or white, then so be it. If she isn't obsessive over looking like she's 30, then again, so be it. You should be wanting her to be happy, as opposed to making her insecure about something as little as hair color. I know some may not believe this, but there are more important things in the world than one's hair color at the age of 50. It might place in the top 5 of most important things in the world, but it's not #1, I'm sorry to say. And, if couldn't read the sarcasm in that statement, then I'm sorry. Hair color isn't even in the top 1,000,000 of most important issues in the world and even that might be stretching it.

Ken Jennings back in the news...

The man who won 74-consecutive games on the show Jeopardy and over 2.5 million dollars posted a few comments about the show and its host Alex Trebek on his website.

In one post, he wrote regarding Trebek, "Nobody knows he died in that fiery truck crash a few years back and was immediately replaced with the Trebektron 4000 (I see your engineers still can't get the mustache right, by the way."

He then posted an apology not long after (if you want to call it that and I don't), saying, "We regret the insinuation that Mr. Alex Trebek is a robot, and has been since 2004. Mr. Trebek's robotic frame does still contain some organic parts, many harvested from patriotic Canadian schoolchildren, so this technically makes him a 'cyborg,' not a 'robot.'"

It's amazing how these things happen. A guy wins 2.5 million dollars off a show and has the nerve to bash it and its host. Perhaps he's still angry that he was beaten by one Nancy Zerg in 2004 and he being what he is, perhaps doesn't believe women should be allowed to be contestants on the show. He'd rather believe that Zerg could be one of his 27 wives working for him at home as opposed to actually showing him up on a trivia game show. That's too bad Kenny. Tell Joe Young and Brigham Smith I said hi and buddy, the sun isn't kryptonite. You're whiter than I am (and that's saying something). And the answer is... The Man So White He's Transparent...

Link:

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/articles/_a/jeopardy-champ-ken-jennings-blasts-show/20060725150509990002

Depressing Poll Numbers

In a new study released by the Washington Times, it shows that 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded in 2003. That number is up from 36% just a year ago. While I am confused about these results, considering poll results released today claim that 56% of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake, they're still quite depressing. The poll also showed 72% of Americans believe the Iraqi people are better off now than when Saddam was in charge (down from 76% two years ago). 64% believe Saddam to hold "strong links" to al-Qaeda. (up from 62% two years ago). 55% also said that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing democracy to Iraq. Yet, at the same time, only 37% (up from 32% about a year ago) believe Iraq will be able to succeed in having a stable democracy. 61% also believe that the war will motivated Islamic terrorists to attack the U.S. That and this next number make no sense, because another 41% believe the Iraq war has reduced the chance of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil (61 + 41 = 102). 56% of Americans believe that the huge spending on the war equates to less money to spend on Americans at home (51% in '04 and 62% last year). 68% of Americans don't believe the war has gained us any respect from those overseas.

Allright, so let me get this straight. Iraq is better off now with a civil war on their hands than they were before. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden couldn't stand one another, but Saddam definitely had ties to al-Qaeda. The war has made us more prone to being victim to another attack, and yet has made us less prone to one. If Iraq's "democracy" succeeds, the U.S. will get the credit, but the chances of the Iraqi "democracy" actually succeeding is not very likely. The billions and billions of dollars spent on the war is only partially affecting the money spent here at home. Those overseas are not respecting us for our invasion and one in two believe that Iraq had WMDs when we invaded in '03. Ah-ha.

The only weapons found were from the first Gulf War, so, back in the '80s. That was going on 20 years ago. Republican leaders have tried claiming that they didn't make any guidelines on these weapons. But, I can distinctly remember the president stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction with the ability to wreak havoc on the U.S. In other words, these weapons weren't 15-20 years old that had been used in the first Gulf War. None of those weapons have been found. Yet, one in two believe they have been. What, does one in two people watch Fox News regularly? Listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show? Read Ann Coulter books and columns? Watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on the before-mentioned Fox News Channel?

I think the number that irritates me most of all is the fact that 41% believe the war will make us less susceptible to attacks. What, do these people live in cages? Do they really believe that? In baseball, if a pitcher hits a good player on the opposing team, does that make his team less susceptible of having a key player hit by a pitch? Yeah, and my name is Prancer.

Link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060724-110410-8309r.htm

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Be careful when flying...

I say this because of an article I read today from the DenverChannel. Supposedly, there is a quota that federal air marshals must reach on a monthly basis and if they don't meet this quota, they will not receive any bonuses, raises, awards, or special assignments. Why should this concern people like you and me? Well, they fall short of this quota some months and guess who they have to turn to in order to match it? Innocent passengers. Still not concerned? What's this quota even dealing with? Well, I'll let the air marshals speak for themselves on that question.

As one federal air marshal said, "Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong."

Yeah, that's right and what then happens? These names are entered into a government database called a Surveillance Detection Report (SDR).

When an air marshal in Las Vegas was asked the question, "When you see a decision like this, for these reports, who loses here?", he responded with, "The people we're supposed to protect -- the American public."

Doug Strange, a former agent in charge of air marshals in Atlanta, was asked about the kind of impact the reports could hold on a flyer. He responded with, "That could have serious impact ... They could be placed on a watch list. They could wind up on databases that identify them as potential terrorists or a threat to an aircraft. It could be very serious.

On a July 2004 memo concerning the quota, it stated, "There may come an occasion when you just don't see anything out of the ordinary for a month at a time, but I'm sure that if you are looking for it, you'll see something."

An air marshal in Las Vegas reported as their SDR of the month a tourist taking a picture of the Las Vegas skyline.

While the agency denies any quota system (go figure), the Las Vegas air marshals have produced documented evidence to indicate otherwise. As one Las Vegas air marshal stated, "I would like to see an investigation -- a real investigation conducted into the ways things are done here." I think I'll take the air marshals word, especially if they're wanting an investigation, over the agency who just denies everything. I'll believe those who have evidence to support what they're stating and who are wanting an investigation to take place over another who has no evidence to back up their side of the argument and fear an investigation.

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/marshals_innocent_people_on_watch_list.htm

The Politically Confused

Ever know someone who is an outspoken Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative, and yet, through their everyday words and actions, they completely go against what they supposedly support? It'd be like me claiming that my favorite baseball players are Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, and Hideki Matsui, yet, the team I root for is the Boston Red Sox.

I don't know many people like this, because most the people I talk to are pretty well set in the middle of the political spectrum, that or they are rather consistent with their outspoken views and their everyday words and actions. There is one person I know, however, that makes me scratch my head. He claims to be a strong supporter of the Democratic party, yet he seems to disagree with just about everything the majority of the Democratic party says or stands for. In most cases, it has been Democrats who've attempted to ban smoking in public places and in just about all cases, it has been Democrats who've favored some kind of gun control. This friend of mine is a big supporter of two major companies: 1) the tobacco industry and 2) national rifle association. For the most part, Democrats have been more lenient and tolerant to immigrants (one definition of liberal is that of being more tolerant). My friend will start his speech with "Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Spanish people, but..." and that's when his little rant begins. He may have a point here and there that I can understand, but he'll go so far as to complain about how there are language options of English and Spanish at the Wal-Mart self-service check in line. If I were to travel out of country, to France for example, I would be extremely grateful if there was an English option at public places I went to, like the French's version of Wal-Mart, for example. Even if I partially understood the French language, I'd still be thankful for this language option, because regardless of how well I know French, "English" will always be my native language. I put quotes around "English" for the simple fact that there are different forms of this language and it cracks me up when I hear people ranting about it. There's actual English (England), American English, Australian English, etc. Why we don't just call it American and Australian, I have no idea. The truth is, I don't even know where this kid stands on things like abortion, capital punishment, minority rights (who can speak "English"), women's rights, etc. The only issue I know about where he is not conservative is that of religion. He's not religious. He doesn't believe in any religion, but at the same time, feels people have the right to believe what they want. But, the only two issues I hear the kid talk about are that of smoking and guns. I even saw that he's a subscriber to the magazine The American Rifler. I didn't even know there was such a magazine until I saw that the other day. I remember talking to a friend of mine about him and she said something along the lines of, "Wow, you have a lot of Republican friends." I laughed and said, "Yeah, and the funny thing is, he claims to be a Democrat, which I don't get." That was probably a month or so ago and still, to this day, I don't understand the kid.

Monday, July 24, 2006

The Rob Deer of Video Games

I wonder how many people remember Rob Deer. He has been known to many baseball fans as Mr. All-Or-Nothing. That guy either struck out or hit one out of the ballpark. There have been some through the years who've tried to be the equivalent to Rob Deer: Sammy Sosa, Preston Wilson, Pat Burrell, Russell Branyan, and Adam Dunn just to name a few. But, Rob Deer is still THE name to which many associate the All-Or-Nothing batter. If he makes contact with the ball, a fan will get a souvenir. But, he doesn't make contact too frequently. There wasn't any strategy to his hitting. Just swing that bat as hard as humanly possible and just hope that you make contact. I can't stand players like that. Yeah, home runs are great, but not if that's all the player provides. Most players anymore can hit at least 10-15 home runs. Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Bobby Abreu (last I checked) has only 8 home runs, but 64 RBI's. RBI's are more important than home runs. If all a guy does is hit solo shots, he may wind up with 40 home runs, but only 75 RBI's. I will take the Bobby Abreu's of the world any day over Rob Deer. Abreu typically has a batting average around .300, drives in 100 runs, scores 100 runs, steals 20-30 bases, plays solid defense, and has an excellent on-base percentage. He currently leads the National League in walks. He's a smart baseball player. There's a strategy to his game. While he may not hit too many into the stands, he's productive, gets on base, and is consistent.

That guy who I played against last night is the Rob Deer of video games. I've played him twice now and have seen him play other games. He picks the same pass play every single time. It's a shotgun formation corner route. Then, he scrambles to his left with his fleet-footed quarterback and if there's space, he'll run. If not, he'll throw. That's what he does every play. On defense, he runs a full out seven man blitz every single play. As they're all coming in the direction of the backfield, unless your running back has speed and acceleration of 99 and he's able to run to the outside of the blitz (which is unlikely), he'll be stuffed at or behind the line-of-scrimmage. So, whether you like to run or not, you'll be forced into passing the ball early and often and from the shotgun formation, so your quarterback has extra time to throw the ball. Because he blitzes seven guys every play, all he has to defend the receivers are his two corners and two safeties.

There you have it. That's it for the entire game. Even on the first Tecmo Bowl for the original Nintendo which had four plays to choose from, that'd be three plays too many for this guy. There's no strategy. He either throws the ball deep, to his square receiver, runs the ball down the left sideline with his quarterback, or, well, I guess that's it. On defense, expect the blitz early and often. So, no, you won't run for any yards, but will throw for a bunch.

It's really annoying and boring because unlike in real life where coaches will make changes in their playcalling depending upon what happens in the game and make some adjustments, this guy doesn't believe in that. He literally calls the same play every single down. I threw for over 500 yards against him in that game yesterday and had the ball for only four minutes out of twenty. So, yeah, I averaged over 100 yards per minute. If I had held the ball for sixteen minutes, I would've been breaking many records. Yet, even though I was throwing the ball all over him, he didn't make any adjustments. He didn't double team my outside receivers, my slot men, play zone coverage, bring a different blitz package, or anything of the sort. He stuck with the one play. It's hard for me to get motivated to play a guy who obviously doesn't know much about football. He could create his own playbook for offense and defense and there'd only be one play in each.

I saw him play against Miami as Florida State and at halftime it was 35-35. He played the same strategy against Miami, where he passed the ball (same play) on every single down he had it and he brought the seven man blitz on Miami, so the 'Canes receivers (many of them speedy) were wide open. I played the third quarter and Miami didn't score on me. Why? I mixed things up and made sure not to let their speedy wideout beat me. I also pounded the ball some with the run and tried balancing the offense more. The 'Canes ended up not scoring the rest of the game. When that guy was playing, it was tied 35-35. When I played, we shut them out 42-0. Just like the Rob Deer in baseball, I can't stand playing with or against the Rob Deer of video games.

My NCAA Football '07 Experience Last Night

Remember that blog I posted not too long ago about my NCAA '06 experience where that guy got ahead 14-0 and I came back to win 35-27? Well, for some reason, my friend wanted to see us play again last night in the new version, '07.

Last night wasn't my night. When my friend invited me over, I was in the mood (at that time) to play some football. After my 30-45 minute drive to his place, he wasn't home and I was not happy. I called his phone and he told me I could get in through the side door, so I did so. I waited another 45 minutes, while he went and did some things he shouldn't be doing. During this time, his cat scratched me pretty good again, so I had to clean the cut, place some neosporin on it and look for band-aids. I looked around and finally settled down at the computer playing solitaire. When they got home, my eyes were already watery and hurting from looking at the computer screen and due to that and my anger from having to wait there close to an hour after he was the one who called and invited me, I was no longer in the mood to play football. But, he insisted. So, he put one controller in my hand (a busted one I discovered soon into the game) and another in my opponent's hand.

As I just mentioned, I soon discovered that my controller had something(s) wrong with it, to which my friend later admitted that most all of the controllers had either pop spilled on them or had a lovely adventure through a river one time. Luckily for my opponent, only his L2 button wasn't functioning and he wasn't at home, so it didn't really matter. On mine, almost every button stuck: the x, o, square, triangle, direction pad, analog sticks, L1, L2, R1, and R2. Before I knew it, as my players could hardly move, I was down 21-0. I will admit that my opponent was kind enough to offer to switch controllers at halftime, but I felt a little challenge in the whole thing, so I declined on the offer.

He was up 35-13 in the 4th quarter when I started scoring fast and frequently: 35-20, 35-27 with just over a minute left in the game. I attempted to do an onsides kick (my first time) and wasn't successful there. But, I held him on 4th down at my own 7-yard line with a half minute left. On the last play from scrimmage, I launched a 40-yard touchdown pass to make it 35-33, but failed on the 2-point conversion. My opponent offered to make the game not count, since it wasn't fair due to my controller, but I again declined on the offer.

I had everything going against me in this game and still found a way to keep it close, which I must say, I was impressed with. I also must admit, I find no fun in playing this guy. He picks the exact same play on offense and defense every single time. I find no fun in playing someone like that. It'd be like watching a game where a team ran a fullback dive for 35 consecutive plays and a 3-4 outside linebacker blitz for 35 straight plays. It turns a game of strategy into a game of nothing but luck with hail mary-type passes being thrown all game long. There's no realism to it. It feels more like a game of NFL Blitz than a game of NCAA Football or Madden.

But, even though I never want to play him again because I get rather bored of doing so (perhaps that dealt with him getting the early lead as well), I suggested that I bring my two controllers next time I come over (neither have had pop spill on them and neither have gone swimming). So, we'll see. I'm still not too pleased with my friend for inviting me over and then after driving close to 45 minutes to get there, having to wait another 45 for the simple fact that he wanted to kill some brain cells. I may not be heading over there for a while because of that.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Tiger

Tiger Woods won his 11th career major today, as he finished the British Open with a score of 18 under par (-18). After he putted the ball in for par on the 18th and final hole, Tiger displayed his emotions in a manner I've never seen before. This had to have been the most difficult victory for him in his career, as when he looked over to his family for hugs and smiles, his father wasn't there. His father unfortunately passed away not too long ago from cancer and the man who'd taught Tiger the wonders of golf since he was about 3-years old was gone. I wish Tiger and his family nothing but the very best and hope he knows that wherever his father may be now, he's proud and smiling.

Judge Finally Rejects State Secrets Privilege

Where did it happen? Well, San Francisco, so, not the most conservative city in the U.S., but regardless of where it was, it's the first time I've read such a thing occur since 9/11. Any first in that regard is a good sign. In fact, as it states in this article, this was actually the first of approximately thirty such cases which challenged the electronic surveillance program that wasn't dismissed because of the state secrets privilege.

The judge refused to dismiss a privacy-rights group's lawsuit against AT&T for allegedly cooperating with the Bush administration's spying on citizens. The judge also rejected the Bush administration's claim that any such information which is leaked from the case would be a threat to national security.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker added, "Dismissing the at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."

He also said, "AT&T and the Bush administration have already disclosed, for all practical purposes, that the company 'assists the government in monitoring communication content' as part of federal anti-terrorism efforts. Allowing private parties to claim that their rights were violated by the company's role in the program would not expose state secrets or assist terrorists."

Judge Walker, who ironically enough, was named to the federal bench by Dubya's father, George H.W. Bush in 1989, also said, "AT&T's assistance in national security surveillance is hardly the kind of 'secret' that... the state secrets privilege (was) intended to protect or that a potential terrorist would fail to anticipate."

Link:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/20/MNGDRK2M0F6.DTL

State Secrets Privilege Used Again

Yeah, it seems to be happening more and more, doesn't it? This time, it concerned conversations between George W. Bush and Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War. Justice Aikens stated that "any discussion of an already partially leaked document - in which Mr. Bush purportedly said in April 2004 that he wanted to bomb the Arabic satellite TV station al-Jazeera, and Mr. Blair expressed concern about U.S. military tactics in the Iraqi city of Falluja - must be heard behind closed doors." Guess what other reason he gave for ruling it this way? "National security." That excuse never gets old, does it? Well, to their credit, if it keeps working, then why change it? Hopefully it won't for too much longer and they'll actually need to resort to some other form of reason or rationale.

Link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1823628,00.html

Friday, July 21, 2006

The National Security Excuse

I've heard and read about this excuse being used quite frequently over the past few years, especially after 9/11. Sibel Edmonds knew some secrets regarding the tragic incident, but her words wouldn't get any further than the courtroom, because these words would threaten our national security. A man who claimed he was taken away by the U.S. after 9/11, imprisoned and tortured for months, wanted to press charges, but again, the proceedings couldn't go any further, because it'd threaten our national security. There have been numerous rantings about the New York Times threatening our national security with some information that was leaked in articles.

Notice a trend here? I most certainly do. Whenever an illegal activity occurs and someone high up in the U.S. government could face punishment for these actions, then they pull out the get out of jail free card, or in this case, the "it will threaten our national security" card. Some also pull out the neo-conservative false dilemma card, labeling the New York Times and others like it as "Jihadists" or Al-Qaeda sympathizers, and the like.

I think some of these people need bifocals, because their vision is obviously blurry. The Bush administration ignored warnings of the 9/11 attacks months in advance. They captured, beat, sent away, imprisoned, and tortured numerous innocents. They spied on people, including peace groups, to "protect" our freedoms. They waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, are now getting involved in the Israel-Lebanon ordeal, and have mentioned possible wars with the likes of Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The original reason for the Iraq War was because they had weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were never found, so the original premise of the war was a lie and over 2,500 U.S. soldiers have died as a result, with another 8,000+ being wounded. This doesn't even include the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who've died as well. So, all of these decisions, actions, and more (I didn't even mention Guantanamo, for example) doesn't threaten our national security, but the truth being known does? Ahh, I see. It's just like if we all believed the world to be flat, but a scientist had proof of it actually being round, he or she would be put on a gag order, because that would endanger our national security.

The more I see and hear this administration use the secrets privilege and claim that any sort of truth that is leaked from the press and others that is leaked will endanger our national security, the more I will come to believe that they're hiding a few things that they don't want anyone to ever know about. The more this happens, the more I may buy into some conspiracy theories. When they say "national," they really only mean "personal." Do you think Bill Clinton's ordeal with Monica Lewinsky was a "national" security threat and that's why he didn't want to come out with it? No, he didn't want to come out with it, because he knew he did something wrong and it'd be a "personal" security threat. The same logic holds true in these other cases. It's obvious that someone(s) did something that they don't want us to know about, or else why would they keep hiding themselves behind this "national" security excuse? It's fortunate for them that a war is going on (a war on "terror," at that), because they can now claim anything to be a "national" security risk. Clinton didn't have that to hide behind. All he had was his attempt at philosophizing the situation and asking, "What is is?" What "is" a "national" security risk? Anything that'll prove the guilt of those higher up in the government.

The National Smokers' Convention

Yeah, I attended The National Smokers' Convention last night. I went to a friend's place and out of ten people (including myself), I was the only non-smoker there. Even a gal with asthma was smoking.

Smoking has been banned in public places in Lincoln, Nebraska and they're attempting to do the same thing in Omaha. So, smokers are ticked and there are even silly commercials appearing on television dealing with the potential ban. I saw one two nights ago that stated a high percentage of people die in their sleep, so, are we going to ban sleep? Yeah, I get what they're trying to say. If people can die in their sleep or by smoking, then why does it make sense to ban one, but not the other? A friend of mine said it brought up a good point. Not exactly. It's a very desperate attempt by smokers to hang on to those beautiful cancer sticks. Why doesn't it bring up a good point? Sleeping is an essential component to a human being's life. One needs rest in order to survive. One does not need smoking to survive. If a person is working too much, a doctor might say to try and cut the hours down some, so they can get better sleep and can therefore function better at work. The doctor will never say, "Well, I think I know what the problem is. Here's my prescription. Marlboro lights. Smoke about a pack a day and this is good for a month. Once that time occurs, get back to me and we'll see how you're progressing." No, that's not going to happen. Also, I've heard of a lot of things that cause cancer, but when's the last time that you heard of sleep causing cancer? To the throat? lungs? mouth? "Oh, that's what we call sleep cancer. If you get more than a couple hours in a given night, then you'll be more prone to getting this type of cancer." Also, people who die in their sleep usually do so at an old age. These things typically don't happen to people in their teens or twenties. So, again, that commercial brought forth a very weak argument. But, smokers won't see it that way. They'll just nod and smile in unison like they've just thought up the theory of relativity.

How much does one need to smoke? The people I hung out with last night were smoking all night. Are cigarettes like clothing for some of these people? They feel naked anywhere they go without cigarettes being nearby? That's worse than alcoholics. What, do they carry shot glasses with them everywhere they go? They wear those khakis with 5-10 pockets and a shot glass in every pocket? Many of these people complain about not having any money. Gee, I wonder why. With gas prices being what they are, being packs and packs of cigarettes on a weekly (daily for some) basis can't be helping matters any. Are some of these people still in the "smoking is cool" stage in life? Because everyone else (besides me) was doing it, they felt more compelled to smoke?

Smoking in one's own home, if they so choose to do so, is fine with me, but why endanger others to second-hand smoke in public restaurants and such places? Why not even have the courtesy to ask someone like myself if it'll bother me before they light up? They complain that they're losing their rights. Smoking will never been permanently banned. Too much money would be lost. But, let me ask them this. If public places allowed skunks inside, and these skunks weren't sweet like Flower from "Bambi," would they complain about skunk spray in public places? Would they get sick and tired of taking a couple hours to get ready for a night out at a bar, go inside for 5 minutes, and walk out wreaking like smoke? It gets very old. What gets even older is their weak arguments about their disgusting habit. Yeah, we should ban sleeping, just as we should ban living, because 100% of people who live die. Although, they may be in favor of that weak argument. With how often they light up those cancer sticks, it's obvious to me that they don't truly respect their lives or those around them.

American Arrogance (Ignorance)

Yeah, sometimes I get the two mixed up with one another. There seems to be a thin line at times between the two, arrogant and ignorant. In fact, some who are arrogant are ignorant.

I bring this up due to a discussion I overheard last night at a friend's house. I decided to stay out of the conversation, because I really didn't feel like getting into any debate. But, the more I thought about what they said, the more I have to shake my head and roll my eyes.

The discussion dealt with immigrants and speaking fluent English. I did open my mouth and pointed out, "You know, we don't even really speak English here. Our English is somewhat different than that which is spoken in England, as well as Australia." They agreed. But, that was the last time I opened my mouth about the subject.

One complaint was that at places such as Wal-Mart, at the quick chin-in service, there are two language options from which to choose: "English" and Spanish. Both parties complained about this and whined that our national language is in fact English, so all should learn the language.

"English" is learned all over the world. English is taught to kids in most European countries. English seems to be the dominant language, where the majority know how to speak it, at the very least, in a broken sense. Many do, in fact, speak it fluently. While I agree that United States citizens should either already have a firm grasp of the language or be required to learn it, that's not the reason why my friends' comments annoyed me. It seems that many people in this country (that I've spoken to, anyway) have this "It's our way or the highway" mentality. It's the Christian way or it's eternal damnation to hell! It's English or go back home! It's capitalism or go somewhere else! You're either with us or against us! I cannot stand this ignorant arrogance or does arrogant ignorance sound better? However one wants to word it, it aggravates me enormously.

So, if these friends of mine or others who think like them travel to a foreign country, should they have a firm grasp of that country's native tongue before visiting? Should that country be considerate at all and give the option of hearing something at their version of Wal-Mart in their language or in others, so that foreign visitors can understand what they're doing? Would that be wrong on their part? Should they just tell everyone who speaks only English to keep out until they learn French, Italian, Spanish, or whatever language they speak? Some countries don't even have a true dominant language. Should they make it so there is only one dominant language and people at "Wal-Mart" aren't annoyed by another language option?

I know some people and have heard of others who speak up to 12 different languages. I think that's amazing. Personally, I'd love to learn that many. It won't happen, at least not in this lifetime, but it'd be incredible to speak to people all over the world in their own language. Just because our national language here is "English" does not mean there aren't exchange students coming here from overseas or people visiting from a foreign country who may not have a firm grasp on the English language. Why penalize these people for wanting to learn in or travel to our country when we wouldn't want the same to happen to us if we were to travel to another country? That makes no sense to me. They can complain all they want to, but I guarantee they would also be complaining if they traveled to Russia and the only language spoken or written anywhere was Russian.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

The Atlanta Braves Made History

In a season when the Braves are 45-50 and well behind the first place New York Mets in the National League Eastern Division, they have made some big headlines recently. Why? Oddly enough, their offense. During their streak of fourteen consecutive division titles, the Braves were mainly winning due to their great pitching, but the pitching has been anything but great this season and if they have any chance of making the playoffs, the hitters will have to turn it up a notch. Turn it up a notch (several notches) is what they've done in the month of July, especially the past week or so.

After Tuesday night's 14-5 beatdown of the St. Louis Cardinals, the Braves became the first team since the 1930 New York Yankees (with the likes of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig) to score 10 or more runs in five consecutive games.

The last time the Braves franchise had scored 10 or more in five straight games was all the way back in 1897 when they were known as the Boston Beaneaters. Compared to the 61 runs they scored in those five as the Beaneaters, the Braves scored 65 runs in the five up until last night.

The Braves have also hit 19 home runs in the past five games which is now a franchise record and only two off of the major league record.

It's been a very strange year for Braves fans. The pitching has been down. The hitting has been up. The National League overall is weaker, but the Mets are stronger. With the help of winning seven straight (up until last night), the Braves are right back in the thick of the N.L. Wild Card race. The division title may be out of reach unless the Mets go in a tailspin, but even if Bobby Cox leads this team to the wild card and essentially, the playoffs, that'd be the most impressing thing he's done in Atlanta as a manager.

The Braves did lose last night to the Cardinals, but that was their only loss in the past seven to N.L. West leading-San Diego and N.L. East leading-St. Louis. Up next come very important divisional foes. Atlanta will have to continue playing well against them if they want a shot at the Wild Card.

Link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260718124

These Targets Better Watch Out for Al-Qaeda (Hint of Sarcasm)

The Department of Homeland Security has compiled a 77,000-item list of potential targets for Al-Qaeda. On this list are the following "targets": "a mule festival, ice-cream parlours, a kangaroo conservation centre and 'a beach at the end of a street'." Yeah, there you have it. The Department of Homeland Security illustrates their, as Bush would so eloquently say, "hard work."

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/mule_fest_al_qaeda_target.htm

"NCAA Football '07" (PS2) Review

It's finally here! Every July, when this game comes out, that means two things: 1) I have an updated way of enjoying college football until the season begins and 2) The season is almost here!

When this game comes out, when I can see it on the shelves, when I pick the dang thing up, and when I play it, I can smell football in the air. I can see the leaves changing colors and falling off the trees. I can smell and feel that pleasant mildness, where summer fades and winter is around the corner. That's especially appetizing considering it was 107 degrees here yesterday, 115+ according to the heat index. So, bring on those 50s, 60s, and 70s, with the falling leaves, and the pigskin!

It'd take a lot for me not to ever like a "NCAA Football" game that was composed for any year. It'd take a great deal of effort on their (the makers) part for me not to enjoy the game. The same was true of this year's work.

It's quite amazing how satisfying the original "NCAA Football" product was, and yet, every single year, the folks over at EA find some way to improve the game and give the fans yet another reason to be interested in that year's updated version and buy the thing. As usual, this year is no exception to that trend.

I've only had the game for two days now, but have checked out all the different options and have played it a few times, enough so, that I think I can write a decent review, where I won't be turning back five weeks from now, saying, "Oh no, I should've written that" or changing my mind about something.

For starters, the game's graphics are slightly improved, the controls seem slightly improved, and the sound (Nessler, Kirk, and Coach) is the same, but as usual, has a couple new lines by the guys. The stadiums seem to be updated a bit and I don't know if it's just me or not, but I didn't notice seeing the bands play in past versions. I have seen them in this one. Also, the game is much quicker, especially when it comes to the wondrous task of simulating: Simulating a week's worth of action, simulating an entire season's worth of action, and simulating in the recruiting part of the year. Overall, the game runs very smoothly, quickly, and while tackling those more important components of the game, is also a good piece of eye candy.

As for changes, most of them are pretty positive, but one could use a little improvement. Last year, they added the "Race to the Heisman" option, where you could make a player, select a team, and play through the season(s), attempting to win the coveted Heisman Trophy. I was a dual-threat quarterback at LSU and even though I had a great freshman year, not enough word had gotten out about me to be a serious contender for the award. I did win it my sophomore and junior years, though, and then proceeded to head on to the NFL after my junior season. That option has been updated this year and goes by the title, "Create a Legend." Just like in last year's game, you can choose your player's name, what they look like, and what position they'll play, but there's more to it this time around. Depending upon the position of your player, you will then go through some spring drills destined for players of your position. Quarterbacks will have to go through drills that test: Their arm strength, arm accuracy, speed, and awareness. Receivers go through drills that test: Their speed, catching ability, route running ability, and return ability. Halfbacks go through drills that test: Their speed, running ability, catching ability, and return ability. Those are the only three positions I've messed around with thus far. For every drill that you complete, you earn a certain number of bonus attribute points and when you've completed all your drills, you'll then be able to use those points to improve your attributes, which all begin at 50 (out of 99), excluding stamina and injury. Those numbers begin at 70 (out of 99). After you've completed that, it'll show the caliber of recruit you were (1 out of 5 stars) and show a list of all the teams that are interested. If you're a 4-star player or higher, then chances are, every team, from one on down, will be on that list. Then afterwards, you're in your dorm room like last year's version, with: Fan mail, a calendar, a newsletter, a closet, a computer, a trophy crate, and a progress report. Yeah, that's right, a progress report. Then, on the calendar, the next date that means anything to you will be the date when your major is chosen. There are three lists of majors: Easy, Moderate, and Difficult. From Monday through Friday, there are classes to attend, a practice, and a night activity. You get to pick what to do in an evening: Study, meet with a tutor, practice, position drills, and social activity. The social activities aid in one becoming popular on campus, but a grade point average is kept track of in the progress report and you, the player, have to take a mid-term and final exam during the course of the semester. Not much studying will need to be done for the easy majors, which include knowing Division 1-A Team Nicknames, but acing the mid-term and/or final exams won't boost up your attributes very much either. The same trend follows for the moderate and difficult majors. While more studying will be needed, attributes will increase higher with success in that particular major. As I simulated until the mid-term and final exams without studying, just to check it out, I should note everyone that the tests are comprised of ten multiple choice questions. When you choose to study in an evening, all that happens is you're given a possible question on the test and the answer that goes along with that question. At the mid-way point and at the end of the semester, ten of these will be asked and before the final exam, you'll be updated on what you need to score in order to be eligible for the bowl game. But, if you're not going bowling that year, then perhaps you've lucked out some, test-taking wise anyway. I thought all of these updates were pretty cool. Not only do you have the ability to create a player, you actually earn your way through several drills to play on certain teams. The student-athlete portion of the experience is neat, as well. It feels more genuine and it's amusing to see some of the majors they've chosen, anywhere from school mascots to geography to chemistry. One thing I missed about the dorm set-up was the picture of your girlfriend. I thought that was amusing in last year's game, especially during the senior season, when you'd have four or five different girlfriends throughout the season. I thought it was amusing, but perhaps those at EA felt differently. I'm only in my first season, so I've yet to see if or how much your dorm room improves in between seasons. I liked that part of it in last year's game too, so I hope they haven't changed that or, if anything, have improved it some.

Also added this year was the momentum factor. Momentum plays a huge role in sports and the same now holds true for this game. There is now a momentum bar at the top left of the screen that displays the two team name abbreviations in their team's colors with a flashing light going one direction or the other. The max momentum one team can have during the course of a game is +5. When this momentum is reached, it'll play a big factor. If you're on defense and reach this momentum, you'll get to the quarterback more, hit receivers so hard that the ball is dropped, and the opponent will fumble more often. On offense, you'll break more tackles, make great catches, and make something out of nothing on some plays. It also depends on your impact players. If your impact player is a receiver and you have +5 momentum, he'll make some unbelievable catches (especially if his name is Calvin Johnson and wears #21 at Georgia Tech!).

Another neat added feature is a spring game you can play after recruiting. In this game, you play as the first or second team and play on offense or defense for a 5-minute half and then go to the other side for the second half. Points are tallied based on first downs, turnovers, and touchdowns. At the end of the game, you can check to see who played well, who should potentially start, and who might be let go, and, if in dynasty mode, you can then choose two impact players for the following season (one on offense and one on defense). But, you're not limited to those two. When my friends and I tinkered around with Notre Dame, we selected an outside linebacker and a running back as our impact players, but there was also a receiver selected as one.

There are also many more options in this game than in others. For example, on field goals and punts, if you believe the opponent will block the kick, you can press L2, which enables you to then fake the kick and pass the ball. There are also many more plays to choose from, especially in the kicking game. In the past, I can only remember a couple of fakes for field goals and punts, one being a run and the other being a pass. There are now some crazy fakes that you can call, including a shovel pass, an option, and a play called a rooskie, I believe. When I tried this, the center snapped it to my fullback and he moved up a couple yards and handed it off to my free safety. I would not mess around with these too greatly in game mode, unless you've gotten a good feel from them first in practice mode. That's the best place to play around with these new plays.

A couple other changes to make note of also deal with the special teams aspect of the game. On kicks and returns, you can press the triangle button, which will give you a third-person perspective on the play. Blocked kicks are actually possible in this version of the game, believe it or not! So, if you're going in to block a kick, you can see the play from your player's perspective. This is also true on returns, which makes it more difficult, yet more realistic. The only problem with this is on the returns, because your peripheral vision is nil. A return option is the reverse or the fake reverse, but when I attempted this, I couldn't see my teammate coming at me, so I didn't hand the ball off to him. It's a cool feature, but an improvement could be made, either to improve the peripheral view a little bit, or to follow the eyes of your player, so if you turned to run the reverse, you could actually see the guy come right at you. But, that is my only true complaint of the game. Kicking is slightly different this year, as you kick with the right analog stick, but, after a couple tries, it becomes easier than using that darn x button. There are also some updates on options at the line of scrimmage, but I have not tackled all of these just yet.

Most everything else is the same. The match-up button option is still available at the line of scrimmage. You can still pump the crowd up and there's actually an updated decibel system on this year's game that is pretty nifty. There is still in-season recruiting. There are still rivalry and mascot games. The only thing I'm disappointed in here is the fact recruiting hasn't been altered from last year to this year. For the past I don't know how many years, it seems that EA has improved recruiting some. Perhaps they feel that there's nothing to be improved upon and who knows, maybe they're right, but I love the recruiting portion of the game, so I like to see even the slightest bit of improvements every year if I could.

There you have it. Outside of that slight complaint on returns and the slight disappointment with there being no changes made in recruiting, I couldn't be happier with this game. While it's not "perfect," it's slowly reaching that impossible goal. "NFL Head Coach" was fun for a little while, but now it'll be collecting dust, because this is definitely the better and the more fun of the two. I look forward to this game every year, and as usual, I come away very impressed with the final results.

Overall grade: 9.5/10

Monday, July 17, 2006

Top Ten List for Bush

President George W. Bush only has a couple years left in office and I've wondered, as I'm sure many others have, what will the president do when he's no longer president? Well, I have thought up ten suggestions to help aid the president after 2008.

Top Ten Post-Presidential Jobs For George W. Bush
10. Professional pretzel taste-tester.
9. Philosopher with the newfound theory, "You're either with me or against me!"
8. A cast member on Survivor, finding a way to rig the vote so that he's not voted off the island.
7. Follow in O.J.'s footsteps in his lifelong quest of finding the killer and make it his lifelong quest to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
6. Horse trainer (with possible promotion to head of FEMA)
5. Owner of the Houston Astros, trading away pitchers: Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt, Andy Pettitte, and Brad Lidge for some top-of-the-line (pun intended) coke.
4. Author the book, "A Dummy's Gude to Becoming President."
3. Along with conservative buddy Bill O'Reilly, create a 900 hotline, called Hot and 'Nuculur'."
2. Become founder and president of AOL (America Online) rival, AWOL.
1. (drum roll) Open a new national chain of restaurants called Barbecue Bush.

Bush Cusses (Big Deal)

If you're a regular or even semi-regular reader of my blog, I'm sure you know by now that I'm about as critical of President Bush as anyone. When I read a headline today, reading, "Bush Curses Hezbollah's Actions at G-8 Launch," I thought, "Ooh, this could be good." I must say, I was a tad bit disappointed.

Here's what Bush said, in regard that "Syria should press Hezbollah to stop doing this s**t." Yeah, that's it. Kind of a let down, isn't it?

Usually I've got the media's back when it comes to criticizing the president, but why in the world do we need a story about the president saying "s**t?" What, do we think he's never said that before? He's been caught saying the f-bomb a few times. He's been caught giving people in the media the middle finger on a few occasions. Then, there's a story about him saying "s**t?" Come on, as we critical of Bush should know by now, the guy isn't the smoothest of talkers, so him resorting to four-letter word lingo shouldn't be THAT surprising.

His lies leading up to the war in Iraq? Big deal. His continued lies while in Iraq? Big deal. His spying on Americans? Another big deal. Saying the word "s**t?" No, not a big deal. Again, this is coming from someone very critical of the president. If you don't believe me, feel free to read my previous blogs. I'm sure those in the media can think of something better to write about than the president slinging off a four-letter word.

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-curses-hezbollahs-actions-at-g-8/20060717081909990004?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Republicans Ticked About Democratic Ad

A recent Democratic ad depicts the coffins of soldiers coming home from Iraq. Many Republicans are not very happy about this ad and have labeled it as "'disrespectful" toward the soldiers.

If you'll recall, President Bush approved of an ad in his (s)election year of 2004 which displayed a victim's body being removed from where the 9/11 terrorist attack took place. This angered some of the victims' families, who complained that Bush was using the victims for his own political advantage in the election year.

This recent ad run by the Democrats only appears on the Internet and along with the display of coffins, it also shows pictures of gas prices and the after-effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in trying to convince the viewers that this is due to a lack of leadership from the Republican party.

Tom DeLay has called the Democratic ad "an act of pathetic desperation."

A spokesman for the Republican committee, Carl Forit, had this to say in regard to the Democratic ad, "They've cited the President Bush ad showing the firefighters carrying someone away. I'm not sure how that's the same as showing a soldier who's given his life in battle in a flag-draped coffin. Nine-eleven was an event that brought people together; Democrats are trying to rip people apart. I think there's a big difference there."

It should be known that Republican strategist and ad maker, Mark McKinnon, does not agree with his fellow colleagues when it comes to the Democratic ad. He believes that neither the Republican ad in 2004 nor the Democratic one in 2006 have crossed any lines or boundaries. He said, "It (Democratic ad) reminds people of the cost of 9/11. It reminds people of the cost of war. People die in wars, and people should understand that we shouldn't hide from that fact."

Because of the Republican ad in 2004, many Democrats feel that outraged Republicans are being hypocritical for criticizing this most recent ad. A Democratic strategist, Howard Wolfson, said, "No administration in American history has so partisanized or politicized a war as this administration. They have absolutely no grounds to make any criticisms of this kind."

While I disagree with the majority of what he said, I do agree with one portion of Republican spokesman Carl Forit's statement. The two ads are very different in a way, but not in the manner that he was speaking. Republicans have control of the House, Senate, and presidency. The reasons for declaring war in Iraq have been dismissed as false. Republican President Bush put a man in charge of the Hurricane disaster whose experience in the area was nill. He was a horse trainer. Scandals and indictments have been a-ringing in the past year or so either associated with Bush's administration directly or with the Republican party, in general. The Democratic ad is displaying images that are relevant to the Republican party's control and leadership. Through this, they hope that it'll persuade voters of a change that needs to be made.

In the 2004 campaign ad, neither the Democratic or Republican party can be held responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks are an irrelevant bit of information in terms of who should be elected president. It was used as a scare tactic and the victims of that tragedy were used for Bush's own political goal of being re-(s)elected. It was not the Democrats' nor Republicans' choice for the attacks to occur. The 9/11 attacks also feel closer to home for most than the Iraq war. It was on our soil, our land. Our buildings were destroyed. Unless we have loved ones overseas, the war often times feels like just that, overseas, to us. While the coffins of soldiers in the Iraq war may sadden most of us to an extent, images from 9/11 will probably hit home more.

While both the Republicans and Democrats had similar goals in airing the ads, the Democrats used images to illustrate the Republicans' leadership. The Republican ad hoped to strike fear into the minds of Americans, so much so, that they feared the leadership of another. So, Mr. Forit is right to an extent. The ads were quite different, but I doubt in the manner in which he saw.

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ad-showing-troop-coffins-causes-clash-of/20060714074609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Movie Quote Trivia Answers

1. "This is the first date Theresa and I have been on, since the doctor separated us." (Coming to America)

2. "She's at the parlance of her times, man." (The Big Lebowski)

3. "I work at the state department and I'm a homosexual. I feel no personal shame or grief about this, but I must keep it a secret or I'll lose my job on security grounds. Thank you." (Clue)

4. "Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but it's sterile and I like the taste." (Dodgeball)

5. "Yeah, well when I see five weirdoes dressed in togas, I shoot the bas****s. That's my policy." (The Naked Gun)

6. "Attitude? You think you've got attitude? I grew up in hell, homeboy. My grandmother's got more attitude than you!" (As Good As It Gets)

7. "That's me, masturbating in the shower. This will be the high point of my day." (American Beauty)

8. "Yogurt! I hate Yogurt! Even with strawberries!" (Spaceballs)

9. "I hate you more! If hate were people, I'd be China!" (City Slickers)

10. "Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?" (Airplane!)

11. "A gun rack? I don't even own a gun. Many men own several guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do with a gun rack?" (Wayne's World)

12. "It's like my favorite poem. Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I." (What About Bob?)

13. "She was wearing nothing but a radio. Then she sat on my lap, and I conducted the interview." (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang)

14. "It's like that old saying in Tennessee- Fool me once, shame on, shame on you, fool me, you can't get fooled again." (Fahrenheit 9/11)

15. "I'm riding a furry little tractor." (Anchorman)

16. "Make me a bicycle, you stupid clown!" (Wedding Crashers)

17. "You're just jealous, because I've talking to babes online all day." (Napolean Dynamite)

18. "I picked coffee beans in Guatemala. That was good. This is s**t, but hey, it's a police station." (The Usual Suspects)

19. "Why don't you make like a tree and get outta here?" (Back to the Future)

20. "We gotta come up with some sort of plan. We gotta put the kaybash into all this mess." (Grumpier Old Men)

21. "What'd I do? Step on a duck?" (Caddyshack)

22. "Yeah, she's like a Bangkok hooker the week after the navy leaves." (The Matador)

23. "Teh-heh, tuh-heh." (Dumb and Dumber)

24. "Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No! And we're not going to give up now!" (Animal House)

25. "Allright, I like you guys. I want to help you out. I have to tell you, this might get a little weird. Two dragons." (Starsky and Hutch)

Bush Serious About Pig

President Bush was in Germany this past Thursday and he along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke and answered questions at a news conference. Yeah, reporters and journalists asked serious questions, mainly regarding what's transpiring in the Middle East, but all George had on his mind was a pig.

To start things off, Bush said, "I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig." Bush then turned and said to the Chancellor, "Thanks for having me. I'm looking forward to that pig tonight."

A German reporter asked the president, "Apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany?"

Bush responded with, "I haven't seen the pig yet."

An American reporter then asked about an Israeli bombing and Bush's response?

"I thought you were going to ask about the pig. I'll tell you about the pig tomorrow."

No, Mr. President, you've side-stepped questions and talked about the pig enough today (Thursday). Maybe that'll be the president's next "job," a stand-up comedian. It'd be easy for the guy. All he'd have to do would be speak like he typically does and he'd have the crowd laughing. That's just a suggestion Mr. President. In the meantime, when you are actually "president," I'd suggest answering questions regarding the Middle East with answers that directly relate to the question. Again, that's just a suggestion. For some reason, I can see him following that first suggestion of mine more than I can see him following the second.

Link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003125954_bushboar14.html

Cedar Rapids Column Now Coulter-less

Ann Coulter's column has officially been dropped at The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The Shreveport Times is also considering doing the same.

It's odd how this came about. Guess what the determining factor was? Guess whose complaints did her in? Nope, not liberals, because hey, we have always complained about her. Nope, the complaints came from conservatives who claim she misrepresented them and I happen to agree.

True conservatives don't really bother me. It's the "conservatives" like Ann Coulter that drive me crazy (crazier than usual, yes). If I was a conservative, Coulter's angry and ignorant commentary would bother me, as well, because like the conservatives in Iowa claimed, her columns misrepresented them.

Ann Coulter is like the macaw I saw at the zoo the other day. She tries to make believe she's pretty and make herself stand out with those skirts she wears and caws louder than anyone else for shock, attention, and giving people migraines in the process. What the macaws were cawing the other day didn't matter because of how loudly they went about it. The same goes for Coulter. Even though I am far from conservative, I hope that Cedar Rapids and others like them find a conservative columnist that better represents they and their beliefs. Regardless if one is liberal, conservative, moderate, or elsewhere on the political spectrum, Coulter's caws are just too loud and annoying.

Link:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002838462

Slow-Pitch Softball (Braves Style)

Atlanta Braves' announcer Skip Carey said it best last night when he compared the Braves/Padres game to slow-pitch softball.

Last night was a difficult game to watch for Braves and Padres fans alike, especially if you like good pitching. Fans wouldn't see any good pitching the entire evening. There would be a Petco Field record-tying eight home runs hit in the game.

The game lasted approximately four and a half hours, until 1:30 a.m. central standard time. The Braves would go on to hold five different leads in the game, which, for a nine-inning contest (eleven, in this case), that's not a good thing. Why? Because, one has to give up the lead several times in order to "achieve" this feat, if you want to call it that.

The Braves would be up 5-1, 8-5, 11-9, 12-11, and 15-12. No, those are not typos. Like I said, Skip was right on the money when he compared it to a game of slow-pitch softball. There were eight home runs: Chipper Jones (twice), Andruw Jones, Adam LaRoche (twice), Adrian Gonzalez (twice), and Mike Piazza.

Both Atlanta closer (for the time being) Jorge Sosa and San Diego stopper Trevor Hoffman blew saves. Sosa really blew two save opportunities, but a pitcher can't officially blow more than one save opportunity in a game.

There were a total of 36 hits in the game and with Chipper's home runs, he's extended his extra base hitting streak to 12 games, the longest such streak since Rogers Hornsby did it for the Boston Braves in 1928.

I tell you one thing, it's a dang good thing Leo Mazzone wasn't around to watch that one. I can only imagine how sore he'd be when he woke up today after so much bad pitching and rocking in the dugout!

Confusion

I just checked out the site known as RottenTomatoes. There are critics' gradings on films in theaters, on video, video games, pretty much anything and everything one could possibly think of at this site. Typically, if the average grade for a movie is 6.5 out of 10 or greater, then that movie will be considered as a favorable one to critics. I just saw that the game "NFL Head Coach" had an average grade of 7 out of 10 from a total of seven critics. So, the game is probably seen in a positive light, right? Not so fast. Only one out of the seven critics graded it favorably according to the site, an approval rating of 14%. What, do video games need to score a rating of 8/10 or above in order to be considered worth playing? I gave it a rating of 7.5/10. Does that mean I gave it an unfavorable grade? Usually when I rate movies, a 5.0 or above usually indicates that I found the movie watchable. If it's 7 or greater, then it's obvious I thought the film was a pretty good piece of cinema. The same holds true for games. If it's 5 or greater, then it's playable. If I rate it at 7 or higher, then it's solid game. So, yeah, I'm confused and no, that doesn't take much for those of you who know me (so, no wise commentary).

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Crazy Weather

It was a crazy day in Nebraska. Weather might be a dull subject for many around the country, but it's always interesting here. It was 98 degrees with a heat index of 106 at around 3:00 PM. It was down to 66 degrees by 5:00 PM. A severe chain of thunderstorms had rolled into the area, the first major set of storms I can remember coming across the area since the first week of spring. It's been thundering for the past 2-3 hours. It's not raining currently, but with the cloud cover, it could rain at any given moment. We're suffering from quite the drought here, so the more rain, the better! Yeah, that's it. I don't even know why I blogged about this. I'm just easily amused, that's all. Well, golf and NASCAR don't amuse me, but most anything else does. Okay, that's it. I'm done rambling, well, for now.

My NCAA '06 Experience Last Night

Last night at a friend's place, this friend of my friend challenged me to a duel in "NCAA Football '06." While I hadn't played the game in approximately 6 months and forgot what a couple of the buttons did, I rarely turn down a challenge. I'm sure my friend was bragging about how good he thinks I am and yadda yadda yadda. He also told me how this friend of his was really good, as well. While I knew I'd be in trouble early, since it had been so long, I figured I'd get the hang of things again in the second half.

I picked Virginia Tech, as usual, and my opponent was Florida State. We played in Neyland Stadium, home of the Tennessee Volunteers to neutralize things a bit.

For the majority of the game last night, it felt as if I had done something to piss the football gods off, because he was catching every break imaginable. When a player of mine was wide open and I threw to him, he'd drop the ball. When my opponent fumbled and five Hokies surrounded the football, he somehow came up with it. A starting cornerback of mine got hurt and would be out for the remainder of the game. Something even worse happened in the third quarter, but I'll get into that in a minute.

I played briefly in this league a friend of mine composed. He made up a few rules in attempt to make the games more realistic. Ever know a person who has a quick quarterback and every single play, they run a shotgun formation play and just take the quarterback and run with him? Doesn't that get annoying? Is that at all realistic? If it's a busted play, if the quarterback is under pressure, or if he can't find anyone that's open, then making something out of nothing with their feet makes perfect sense. But, to snap the ball and immediately look to run every single play is annoying and very unrealistic, so my friend made a rule that prevented this from occurring. He also made a rule that disallowed heavy blitzes on every single play, because again, this is unrealistic. Some people are very blitz happy, but no coach in their rightened mind will blitz six of the front seven and a safety or a corner on every single play. I liked these rules, because when I play the game, I want it to feel like a chess match, as opposed to an old-fashioned game of "NFL Blitz" where there's a hit on the quarterback and long prayer throws that will either be answered or rejected. "NFL Blitz" was fun for a short while, but there's something about the strategy of the game that is truly what makes me so interested.

Well, this was not a league game last night, so there weren't any of those side rules, and my opponent blitzed heavy on every single down and ran with his quarterback on numerous occasions. Having to deal with this, all the breaks he was getting, and me not playing for six months played into his favor early on in the game.

I like a balanced offense and typically like to run to set up the pass. Throwing the ball 50 times a game makes for a lot longer of a contest than running the ball successfully and chewing up clock. But, like I mentioned, he ran heavy blitzes on every single play, so while I attempted to run very early in the game, this stopped at the outset of the second quarter, when I was down 14-0. As the old saying goes, "Live by the blitz, die by the blitz" and this is quite true.

I noticed that most all my receiver (good ones at that) had single coverage on all my plays, so I began heaving balls up for them. More times than not, the plays worked. I'd run crosses, slants, posts, even a hail mary one time that was successful. As long as I got the ball in the air before the defender hit me, I had a 1 in 3 chance of coming down with that football (the defender and an incompletion being the other two potential outcomes). Also, what's the best way to beat a blitz? Screens. The halfback screen wasn't too successful for me, but the slot screen worked beautifully. I scored two touchdowns on the slot screen. Marcus Vick would throw the ball laterally and as 6-7-8 guys were coming after him, I'd have two other receivers blocking while my slot-man caught the ball and took off with it. Unless the ball was underthrown, it ended up in a big gain, including, like I mentioned, two touchdowns. This is how the whole game would be. I finally started getting the hang of things and tied it up 14-14 at the half. I went ahead 21-14 in the 3rd before Marcus Vick went down with a game-ending injury. My back-up Sean Glennon then entered the game and at that point, I was going, oh boy, but else could happen? My opponent had another fumble where four or five Hokies surrounded the football, but for some reason, a Seminole fell on top of it. After Vick went down, my opponent tied the game up on the lone successful running play by a tailback by either team in the game. The score was tied 21-21 entering the fourth. I knew Glennon didn't have as strong a throwing arm as Vick, so I stayed away from the long pass plays and went more for the short cross and slant routes, along with the ever-so reliable screens. I went up 28-21 with a tough 2-yard run by my fullback. A slot screen midway in the 4th quarter put me up by two touchdowns, 35-21 and I was finally feeling comfortable again (mostly), as I had scored 35 of the last 42 points. My opponent squeezed a pass into the hands of a receiver to close the gap to 8, but for some reason, he went for two and failed. The game then was 35-27 and he'd never touch it again. I gained a few first downs. He called timeouts. When I knew he was out of TO's and there was about a minute left, I just took three knees and that was the game. My friend said, "Oh no, you're going to be that guy." I was just thinking, "Well, let's see here. My opponent plays 'NFL Blitz'-style ball, my starting quarterback got hurt, a starting cornerback got hurt, my team can't recover fumbles, and if I don't mess up here, I can officially win the game that the football gods wanted me to lose. What would they do in real life? Down the football and that's exactly what I did. Final score: Virginia Tech 35 Florida State 27.

It was a nice time to play the game again, as the new version comes out next Tuesday. To my surprise, my opponent never gave up with the blitz. Even when he realized I had him figured out, he still blitzed heavily on every play. While I couldn't run the ball, I threw for over 400 yards in the game. Also, while I like to run the ball and want a balanced offense, you just have to adjust to the game. If I liked to pass the ball and he had a zone defense where 7-8 men were in the secondary covering receivers, it'd be dumb of me not to run the football. It'd be 7 on 3 or 4 and unless the line, fullback, and tight end couldn't block worth a lick, chances are that my tailback would have some holes to peek and dart through. So, I just went with what the guy gave me, single coverage on all my receivers and nobody to cover on the screen passes. He better change his game around next time or I'll carve him up for a dominating victory. In the final three quarters, I beat him 35-13 and that includes a late score by him.

The moral of the story is mix your defensive formations and blitz packages up a bit, because that'll confuse the opposition a lot more than running zone coverage plays or heavy blitzes on every single down. Unless the player is a newbie gamer, they're probably going to figure things out and just take what you give them. While it's good to make a team one-dimensional, it's not good to be so bound and determined to do that, that you totally disregard the other dimension of the offense. Navy may be a run-oriented offense (option anyone?), but if there's just single man coverage on all the receivers, even Navy will be able to pass for a good chunk of yardage in the game.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

NSA Too Secretive For Lawsuit

Yet again, the Bush administration resorted to their favorite cop out line, "It'll only endanger our national security if you go through with this" when they challenged a lawsuit against the NSA spying program the other day. They asked the judge to dismiss it, because it would "risk national security."

There are cases in both Detroit and New York which hope to suspend the wiretapping program of intercepting phone calls and e-mails without a court order. In both of these cases (and what else is new?), the Bush administration has invoked what is known as the "state-secrets privilege." They've used this on several other occasions, even when the challenger to the NSA program or other incidences made a strong case of being abused on a particular occasion(s). They used this against Sibel Edmonds' testimony, even though no one in the room could point out anything she said to be inaccurate. They used this against a German man who was taken away to a prison, beaten, and tortured. Because of this "state-secrets privilege," the administration has gotten away with countless illegal acts, all because they can resort to, "If the public finds out about this, it'll endanger our national security."

Legal director for ACLU Michigan, Michael Steinberg, said this to reporters after the hearing, "If the court accepts the state-secret argument, we are truly facing a constitutional crisis in this country."

While Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit has yet to make a ruling on if the case can proceed or not, I am pessimistic from what has occurred in previous such cases that it will proceed.

It's frightening to think that some people in Washington are above the law. I can't just go around stalking people and then go to court asking them to dismiss the case on a "brother-secrets privilege," since I was only looking out for my brother's safety, claiming that it'd risk personal security if certain information got out. I'm guessing that wouldn't work for me or for any common person. But, for the Bush administration, they can declare wars based on false pretenses, spy on citizens, send some overseas to be tortured, and put gag orders on individuals who know the truth, to save their little behinds. They can't tell the truth, so they just keep on talking.

Link:

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=12793906&section=news

They Just Don't Give Up, Do They?

In this case, the "they" I'm referring to are Republicans and their insistence that Bush never lied about his WMD claims, because WMD's were found in Iraq!

As reported by Rowan Scarborough of the conservative "Washington Times," 500 munitions have been found in Iraq since 2003. They claim that this is evidence that Saddam Hussein was indeed concealing weapons of mass destruction.

Pennsylvania Republicans Curt Weldon said this, "The resolution didn't say pre-'91 chemical weapons. It didn't say post-'91 chemical weapons. It said chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein violated this resolution and others like it. In part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq."

But, from every report and study I've seen, these munitions are said to have been produced before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and thus, are no longer useable.

An anonymous briefer told reporters, "The priority of the ISG (Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hung for WMDs) was to look for post-Desert Storm (1991) munitions, newer stuff. It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."

The 35% of Americans who still support President Bush still probably buy this claim, don't they? Some may not even think about it anymore, because "The President was trying to spread freedom and democracy overseas all along." Yeah, right, and Cheney can't differentiate between a friend and a quail. Oh, well, I guess that is true. So, forget that comparison.

So, let me get this straight. Let's say that I'm young and want to do my body some good, so I make a promise to drink lots of milk. Unfortunately, because of a cow disease, milk is difficult to find anymore. But, low and behold, I find a bunch of full cartons stashed away in an attic. They are 10-15 years expired. Think that the milk will do me as much good then as it did before the expiration date was passed?

Give up with the lies. No post-Desert Storm weapons of mass destruction were found, so I'm sorry. You were wrong. Weep about it. It's over. Bin Laden hasn't been found. He's dead. Quit with the deceptive tapes. It's over. Quit saying "Mission: Accomplished." How long ago was that said? Bush still says to this day, "We will not back down until our mission has been accomplished." Yeah, he was a bit premature and wrong when he made his statement who knows how long ago. Cry about your hero being wrong. Deal with it. What isn't over are civilians being bombed, raped, and slaughtered. What isn't over are troops being kept from their homes, being wounded and killed. What isn't over is this ridiculous war on terror. Unfortunately, what isn't over is Bush's reign in his throne.

Link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060710-123909-1428r.htm