Keith (as in Olbermann) Is The Man!

On "The Countdown With Keith Olbermann" last night, Keith sounded off to end the show with what was referred to as a "special comment" in regard to Donald Rumsfeld's "fascist" remarks. I just e-mailed the show to show my thanks for having the courage to not follow the mainstream and to actually question remarks and decisions made by Bush and his administration.

I kept my e-mail short and sweet, but here it is:

"I just wanted to write and express my gratitude for last night's episode, especially the "special comment" Olbermann made at the end of the show.

It's very comforting to know that one program has the courage to question the superiors when they deserve to be questioned and when other programs such as the Oh Really Factor with Bill O'Lielly are busy praising the superiors and bashing those that question. I find it especially comforting for the very reason that it proves freedom of speech and press still exist. Directly following 9/11, I really wondered how long it would last, as most every news station held hands and sang "Kumbaya" with one another, never questioning anything the President said. If he said the sky was jungle green and the earth was octagon-shaped, the hand holding and praises would continue. But, that wasn't even the frightening part. President Bush, his administration, and right-wing media outlets began to repetitiously scream in unison the false dilemma informal fallacy, "You're either with us or against us! You're either with us or with the terrorists!" While being poor reasoning, it more devastatingly called out to dissenters as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and slowly divided the country to what it is today.

While Bill O'Lielly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others aren't questioning a word that comes out of Bush and his administration's mouth, it's very refreshing to know that we still have the freedom to do so. Thanks again and keep up the great work.

Sincerely,

Craig"

"Little Miss Sunshine" Review

The first time I saw a preview for this film seemed to be months ago, but I immediately knew I wanted to see it. Unfortunately, with it being a Sundance Film Festival favorite-type film, it took awhile to reach theaters around the area.

The film stars Greg Kinnear, Steve Carrell, Toni Collette, amongst others. It takes you on a family journey that revolves around Kinnear and Collete's daughter being invited to a beauty pageant in California. The girl's grandfather gets her ready for a dancing routine that the judges, audience, and viewers will never forget.

Kinnear's actual job title is never known, but he's either a professor, a motivational speaker, or a teacher who has a course in bettering one's life. His job is to drive everyone crazy (including the viewers) and he does a fantastic job in doing just that. Early on in the film, I wanted to smack him upside the head a few times, because the guy is obsessed with his speech and his "method" for bettering oneself. The motivational speech isn't just used in the classroom, but used at home, outside the home, even at restaurants. How Toni Collette stayed with the guy and had a child with him I haven't the slightest idea. I can just imagine the guy making the child with her. He'd be talking non-stop, "Okay, we can do this better. I know we can. Come on honey! You can do better than that! You are better than that. Say it with me! I'm better than that! Come on honey! I'm better than that! Oh, you're done? Oh okay, hold on a sec."

Toni Collette is the referee of the household. She's somehow able to tame her husband's motivational attitude and able to create the peace between he, she, their daughter, their son, and Kinnear's father. The daughter has an obsession for winning the beauty pageant and being Miss America someday. The grandfather, when he's not snorting coke, is either complaining about the food they're eating or helping his granddaughter with her dancing. The son has taken an ode not to speaking until he's accepted at flight school. When he wants to communicate, he busts out a pen and paper to do so.

Finally, there's Steve Carrell. You probably know the guy best from the likes of "Anchorman," "The 40-Year Old Virgin," or even the Emmy-Award Winning Comedy "The Office." He's the brother of Collette, a man who's dealing with some problems and has to be looked after for a while, so Collette and her family agree to do so.

The movie is very character-driven and every actor does a fine job in this dramedy. This is definitely Carrell's best work as an actor thus far in his career and as usual, Kinnear and Collette do a great job. The younger actors in the film also give solid performances.

The comedy in this film is rather dark, but funny. There are moments where even people not so keen on dark comedies will laugh. I laughed throughout the film. But, not only is the film quite humorous, it's also a solid piece of filmmaking and storytelling. There isn't a dry or dull spot in the film. It flew by like a Ferrari on the Autobahn. There are a few dramatic moments, some more so than others, but a good counterbalance of humor to keep one's mood from tilting downward much at any given point.

This may be a film that some could watch and say, "What was the point?" much in the same way I've heard a few respond to "The Royal Tenenbaums." Well, I for one enjoyed "The Royal Tenenbaums," but think "Little Miss Sunshine" was the more humorous and enjoyable of the two films. There's a very simple, but important point to the film. Families can be very diverse in behavior and attitude. There can be tension and hatred at times between members of the family. There will be ups and downs from start to finish. But, in the end, when we need our family the most, more than likely, they'll be there for us to spread their warmth, care, and love. It's difficult for me to grade a film like this, but I will try to do so. Regardless, I highly recommend this film.

Overall Grade: 8/10

Survivor Based on Race

I heard the rumors and I just did some research confirming those very rumors. The new Survivor-reality series will divide it's 4 groups by race: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Producers of the show felt the urge after receiving complaints that there weren't many minorities on the show. So, responding to those complaints, more minorities will appear on the show, segregated from one another.

I personally don't like this idea. We finally have it where competitions in this country are typically very diverse. Baseball may be the most diverse of all anymore. Why in the world televise a segregated competition?

The worst part of all is it is likely to bring out the prejudices and stereotypes in some viewers. Rush Limbaugh has already done this via his radio show, claiming that Blacks couldn't swim, that Hispanics have an ability to sneak to where they shouldn't be and do jobs that others don't want to do, that the Asians are the most intelligent but lack that natural instinct, and that Whites will cheat.

I can just imagine some obsessive people yelling at their TV set, "Go Whites! Go Blacks! Go Asians! Go Hispanics!" Please, let's not regress any. I can only imagine the bets that'll be laid down on this television show. "$200 on Black" and no, he isn't playing roulette.

It's obvious to me why they're doing this, for publicity and ratings. This past Survivor was the lowest rated of its series' history, so it's obvious to me that they're attempting to do something radically (racially) different to boost their ratings.

I've read some comment that "It's mostly segregated in real life, so why does it matter that it's that way on a show? Who cares?" I know plenty of areas where there's very much a mix of ethnicities. This is especially the case in competitions (sports). It's common anymore to see a baseball team with Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all playing on the same club. I think it's a bad idea and even though I'm not a reality television fan anyway, I definitely won't be watching this show.

I do know who/what I'm rooting for though. I'm rooting for the ratings to be poorer than they were last time. It'll be interesting to see what the public's reactions are after watching the show and on the number of viewers who do actually watch the program. Reality television? Thank God it isn't reality anymore, that's all I can say.

On the Anniversary of Katrina, Michael Brown Slams Bush Administration

Remember him? Michael Brown? That ex-horse trainer and now ex-FEMA Chief? Well, Mr. Brown said a few things yesterday that won't make the boys in Washington smile much.

"There was no plan. ... Three years ago, we should have done catastrophic planning." He claimed Michael Chertoff and the rest of the Bush Administration "would not give me the money to do that kind of planning."

When asked about the positive and optimistic statements Brown had made during the time of Katrina, he responded with, "Those were White House talking points. And to this day, I think that was my biggest mistake."

He claims that there were many points throughout the disaster that he asked, "Where in the hell is the help?"

Brown also made this comment, "I have to confess ... you want to protect the president when you're a political appointee, so you're torn between telling the absolute truth and relying on those talking points. To thi day, that is my biggest regret."

The Ex-FEMA Chief also stated that he felt Bush and Chertoff should've received some of the blame, but that he (Brown) was made scapegoat, "because I'm the low man on the totem pole."

That's funny. I can remember Bush saying that Brown was doing "a heck of a job." I can only wonder what he's saying in accordance with these comments. Georgie, you may have told the public that Brown was doing "a heck of a job," but deep down, he definitely didn't feel likewise about the job you were doing or weren't doing, in this case.

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/katrina_ex_fema_chief_blames_admin.htm

Chertoff's Odd Logic

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff an op-ed piece in Tuesday's Washington Post entitled, "How do we thwart a terrorist who has not yet been identified" the other day. In it was a puzzling statement.

Chertoff wrote, "Protecting personal privacy is a part of responding to the post-Sept. 11 world, but it should not reflexively block us from developing new screening tools. Indeed, more data sharing leads to more precisely targeted screening, which actually improves privacy by reducing questioning and searches of innocent travelers."

Okay, so if everyone's data is shared, in the end, it will equate to more privacy? Huh. I never would've thought of it that way. So, in football, if everyone has equal access to the head coach's gameplan, play book, and trick up their sleeve for the upcoming week, it'll mean more privacy for the coaches, right? That makes so much sense now (rolls eyes).

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/chertoff_data_sharing_improves_privacy.htm

Scary Technology

Technology Lets Parents Track Kids' Every Move

by Tovia Smith

Morning Edition, August 29, 2006 · For every mother who ever told her kids that she had eyes in the back of her head, modern technology can now do one better: It allows Mom and Dad to watch their kid's every move, even from across town. New gadgets can let parents know every time their children drive too fast or visit someone they shouldn't.

Mark Pawlick says he used to live in constant worry about his teenage kids -- especially his stepdaughter, Jessica.

Even at 10 years old, while growing up in a suburb north of Boston, Jessica Fairbanks was in and out of trouble. She had tried drinking and smoking, and had developed a habit of constantly lying to her parents. When it came time for her to get her driver's license, Jessica's parents were scared to death.

"We were beside ourselves," Mark Pawlick says. "There was no way I was gonna let her in the car without some way to track where she was and where she was going."

So, Mark Pawlick bought what's called a black box and hid it in Jessica's car. By using global positioning system technology to fix its location every second or so, the device is essentially an electronic tattletale. It automatically e-mails or calls Pawlick every time Jessica drives too fast, or goes somewhere she isn't supposed to.

"It was the only responsible thing we could do. We knew what we were dealing with, so we did what we had to do," Pawlick says.

Pawlick set the boundaries -- literally drawing virtual fences around the houses where Jessica isn't supposed to be hanging out, or the café where she is supposed to be working. As soon as she crosses the line, Mom and Dad know about it, and Jessica hears about it.

At first, Jessica says, she thought her parents had people spying on her. She only found out about the tracker from a friend who overheard their parents talking.

"I was … livid for the first few months," Jessica says.

But more and more teens will have to get used to the idea of "Big Mother" looking over kids' shoulders. With GPS technology getting cheaper, smaller and better, most any cell phone can be a tracking device for just a few extra dollars a month. A black box, like the one made by Alltrack that's in Jessica's car, costs a few hundred dollars, plus a monthly fee. But, it also gives parents a way to retaliate in real time.

For example, says Alltrack's Mark Allbaugh, when a teen driver is speeding, parents can remotely flash the car's light or honk the horn, until the teen slows down.

Many experts believe such tracking devices will soon be as mainstream as cell phones themselves.

"I think, over time, parents will feel if they don't have this, they're not being good parents," says Jim Katz, Director of the Rutgers University Center for Mobile Communication Studies. He says that soon, tiny cameras -- like the ones in most new cell phones -- will enable parents to literally watch over their kids 24 hours a day, seven days a week-- and even eavesdrop on their conversations. But, Katz says, all the new technology may give parents a false sense of security.

After all, the technology is not infallible, and it doesn't take kids long to figure out how to game the system. For example, if they don't want to be tracked, they can simply turn off their cell phones -- or "forget" them at a friend's home. And, a teenager can still get into trouble in someone else's car.

Psychiatrists are also weighing in on the matter, citing many reasons they think the tracking devices are a bad idea. Massachusetts General Hospital child psychiatrist Steve Shlozman says as a father, he understands parents' temptation. But, he says keeping too close an eye on kids, often backfires.

"When kids feel crowded, they tend to do things that they otherwise would not do," Shlozman says. "They take even greater risk because they have a desire to prove their independence and their individuality. There is something they need to get away with."

Shlozman says that tracking kids also undermines the trust that's critical to their development. He says kids need enough slack to learn to make good choices on their own, not just because they know Mom and Dad are watching.

"That's the moment of growth -- and you lose that if you monitor them, " Shlozman says, "They won't grow up; they'll get stuck developmentally."

But to Mark Pawlick, a tracking device is exactly what his daughter Jessica needed and deserved.

"She violated our trust and we didn't violate hers. Trust is earned, not given out," Pawlick says.

As he sees it, tracking systems can actually bolster kids' sense of independence, since Mom and Dad can monitor them from afar, instead of constantly nagging them with phone calls. Ultimately, Pawlick believes, his stepdaughter will come to appreciate what he did as a sign of how much her parents cared about keeping her safe.

Link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5725196

I'm going to have to go with the psychiatrists on this one. If people, especially kids and teenagers feel too suffocated, chances are they're going to burst and do things they wouldn't ordinarily have done had it not been for the strict guidelines and in this case, spying.

This Mark Pawlick has a rather distorted sense of reality. How can tracking your kid and them knowing about it boost their sense of independence? The only time people aren't "tracked," so to speak, is at home. Teachers are always there to monitor the kids in the classroom. There are always people at work there to watch over you in one way or another. The only time one gets to have any bit of privacy whatsoever is when they're away from the classroom and the workplace.

I'm sure Mark would give me a different answer now since he has a delusional sense of how a child feels, but I can only wonder how he would've liked it back when he was a kid. I'm sure he would've loved knowing that mommy and daddy could check on him at any moment in the day or night. That would've driven me crazy (no pun intended).

I don't care how popular this gadget becomes, I'll never track my kids with it. While Mark claims this is what his daughter deserves as she's committed wrongs before, I can only wonder why she'd do such a thing. As noted above, there are ways to beat the system and the more Mark clamps down on his daughter, the more determined she'll be to do just that.

Preventing one from making decisions that could end up being a mistake is worse than actually deciding on one's own and making that mistake. How are they ever to learn if they are prevented from making decisions on their own? While one might find temporary fulfillment from copying a homework assignment, how are they ever to learn the material from that assignment if they don't actually sit down and do it for themselves? While it might temporarily satisfy Mark and his wife to put a choke collar, leash, and invisible shock fence around their daughter to protect her from herself, this will not benefit her in the long run. What are they going to do when she turns 21? Call up all the bars in the area, give them their names and numbers and to call if she's had more than one drink? What about when she turns 18? Call all the places that play keno and all stores that sell cigarettes, give them all their information and tell the place to call if they see her? Someone should track them for a week, tell them where they can and cannot go (you crossed over the line!), and see how they like it. I'm guessing not too much.

Mark, give it up man. Whatever you want to say, trust is extremely important in relationships and by tracking your daughter, there isn't going to be any gained trust, because it shows you have no trust in her. I've heard of husbands (who cheat) tracking their wives by checking their mile meter in their car because they are paranoid about their wives cheating. Yeah, sick people. Well Mark, what makes you any different?

Dumb Cheney Statement

Richard, we call him Dick, Cheney has been traveling across country and giving speeches at Air Force bases, Naval bases, etc. In fact, he was at our (Omahans, that is) very own Offutt Air Force Base yesterday.

I read some comments Cheney made two days ago during one of these infamous speeches. One quote stood out for me amongst all the rest. All the rest I'd heard many times before. It was the same old gibberish, "Stay the course," "Leaving Iraq now would only make the terrorists happy," "There haven't been any attacks on our soil since 9/11 because of the policies Bush and his administration have set forth." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard and read those a few times before. But, there was one comment I had yet to hear and I was stuck by its stupidity.

He said, "I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact. We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

What in Zeus' pancreas is he trying to say here? I'm baffled, befuddled, and confuzzled (yes, I made that one up) by this statement. I'm trying to analyze this statement right now and it's giving me a migraine in attempting to do so and no, not because it's something deep and profound. It's anything but. Allright, so then what's the point of this war in Iraq? What was the point of it from the start? Wasn't it to "secure" this nation and make it safer from those mythological weapons of mass destruction and the mythological link between al-Qaeda and Saddam and the mythological link between Iraq and 9/11? Was Iraq not claimed to have been part of the "axis of evil?" Were they not part of this "War on Terror?"

He's absolutely right. On 9/11/01, we were not in Iraq and we were attacked anyway. Where's Homer when I need him? "Doh!" So then, what's the point of this "War on Terror?" Dick just flatly said that regardless of where we are or what we do, there will still be terrorism floating around and there will still be a chance that we're attacked. He also didn't deny anything regarding liberating Iraq of Saddam Hussein and there being an ensuing "hornet's nest" as a result of that. No, he just completely went off base in attempt to prove that somehow (as if we didn't know) the Iraq War and this "hornet's nest" that's following was not the cause of 9/11. Okie dokie! He may also want to prove that since 9/11 occurred prior to the Iraq War and there hasn't been a 9/11 on our soil since then, that this "hornet's nest" theory must be false.

One has to just love this administration. They twist words around so much that one is baffled at first, but then they repeat themselves so much that it actually starts to sink into the minds of many as being truthful. Well, just because a person repeatedly claims that a circle is a square doesn't make it so and the same goes with the claims of Cheney, Bush, and the rest of the gang.

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/nsa_spying_cheney_says_court_will_reverse_ruling.htm

Girardi On The Hot Seat? What?

I just read tonight that Florida Marlins Manager Joe Girardi is on the hot seat and has a 50-50 chance of being the Florida coach next season. I'm still scratching my head on that one, yes, while I type. I'm talented like that.

Joe Girardi is in his first season managing the Marlins. Florida got rid of all their talent and veterans this past off-season except for pitcher Dontrelle Willis and slugger Miguel Cabrera. They're the youngest team in all of baseball and started the year horribly. Florida is now 64-66 and on their way to a victory over the Cardinals to improve to 65-66. For how they started the year, that's incredible!

Because they play in the lowly National League, Florida is still very much in the thick of things in the Wild Card race. In fact, if Florida won the Wild Card along with the Division leaders NY, St. Louis, and Los Angeles, I'd pick Joe Girardi as the National League Coach of the Year. This is coming from an Atlanta Braves fan. I don't know if there's something going on there that I don't know about, perhaps the players aren't big fans of how he manages them. But, from what I've seen this year, the drastic improvements the club has made, and the fact that they're so young and will only get better, I haven't the slightest idea why Girardi would get fired or why he's even on the hot seat. I think he's done a great job this year and why I'm even having to write this blog is ridiculous. I can tell you one thing. If he does get fired, he'll be receiving plenty of phone calls from other clubs and in a hurry!

Media Poll

A recent Pew Research Center Poll shows that the American public is rather schizophrenic when it comes to their feelings on the press. When it comes to the question if the media has hurt national security interests, 50% of the public say yes while only 34% say no. However, 65% of these same people who were surveyed believe that the stories are worth knowing.

Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan research center said this, "We see it over and over again: People say maybe the press shouldn't have said that, but we really want them to keep digging."

I wonder how much the Bush Administration has influenced those numbers through their non-stop badgering of the media. The media has been referred to as "treasonous," "unpatriotic," "terrorist sympathizers," "al-Qaeda-like," etc. Anytime a bit of information arises via the press, these attacks then ensue on that outlet and the media in general. I can't help but wonder if the mere-exposure effect has taken place amongst some of the 50% who believe that the media poses a threat to our national security. Many can't help but believe something if they've heard it enough. If the Bush Administration and the Neo-Conservative media outlets know how to do anything, it's repeat themselves over and over and over again until it sticks to a portion or a majority of the public. Unfortunately, it appears that their repetition trick has been a successful one when it comes to the media.

Link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060823-105655-4270r.htm

Woman Fired By Church Because She's A Woman

Mary Lambert had taught at The First Baptist Church in Watertown, New York for 54 years, until August 9th when she was fired for being a woman.

The church has now adopted what they believe to be a "literal" interpretation of The Bible. According to this "literal" interpretation, women can get a job anywhere, anywhere outside the church that is.

In the letter Ms. Lambert received on August 9th, it explained that according to a "literal" interpretation of The Bible, women cannot teach men.

The Reverend Timothy LaBouf had this to say, "I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility she desires to," outside the church.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham was a bit bothered by the church's decision, saying, "If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age. Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

I think this is just further evidence that organized religion was a man's idea and while some were able to change with the times, some just can't handle women having equal rights as them. Women should create their own church and write rules like men can't teach women. It's only fair. Then there could be a new reality TV series entitled Battle of the Churches. Nah, let's not do that. Hey, Rev. LaBouf, I know you think males are a step above females, as only males can teach in your holier than thou church, but I've got news for you. You wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for a woman. Can I hear an Amen?

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/church-fires-teacher-for-being-female/20060821083709990008

Rummy's Ironic Statement

Feeling the heat from Republicans and Democrats alike who are not too thrilled with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he has decided to lash out at Bush critics and make ironic statements. What do I mean? Let me show you.

At a flight training base for Navy and Marine pilots, Rumsfeld answered many questions and had this to say in regard to "the enemy." "What bothers me most is how clever the enemy is." "They are actively manipulating the media in this country." "They can lie with impunity." "The enemy lies constantly - almost without penalty."

So, wait a minute. Now, I'm confused. Who's he talking about? Because, I seem to remember Bush, Rummy, and others in the administration who fit this bill pretty well. There were numerous lies that led up to the war. Bush has admitted to violating the Constitution and committing international war crimes, yet, he's still in office. They lie constantly and almost without penalty. How ironic indeed. So, Donald, may I call you Donald? Is this "enemy" that you're talking about overseas or is it sitting right here in the U.S.? Because the two of you, from how you described, sound awfully similar to one another.

Link:

http://michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=7732

Pay Based On Risk Involved?

Someone told me not too long ago that people who put their lives most at risk by what they do should get paid the most. At first, I thought, okay, maybe. What'd he then talk about? Bikers and skateboarders.

Those are games, sports, activities, whatever one wants to call them. Is he trying to tell me that firefighters and police officers would be grouped together in the same class as bikers and skateboarders? What about people who pay money in order to skydive or bungee jump? Should these people be getting paid because they're putting their lives at risk? What about actors with stunt doubles? What about Jackie Chan? Baseball players? NASCAR drivers? Golfers? A delusional paranoid individual who believes they are in constant danger when they really are not?

I really wish this guy would've laid down more specifics other than that bikers and skateboarders should get paid more because they put their lives on the line. All I can say is cops and firefighters put their lives on the line to protect and save others. Bikers and skateboarders don't risk injury for those same reasons. When there's a biking and skateboarding squad that tours the country and saves lives in the process, then let me know and we can start talking and comparing the two occupations.

McCain's Comments

Republican Senator John McCain just recently made some remarks regarding what he felt was potentially the administration's biggest mistake when it comes to the War in Iraq.

He said, "I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required. Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

In response to McCain, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had this to say, "It is difficult and the president has said it is going to be difficult from the beginning."

No offense Mr. President or Ms. Perino, but I'm going to have to agree with McCain on this one. In fact, I'm going to go one further. Didn't Bush tell Pat Robertson that there would be no U.S. casualties in the war? Didn't members of the administration call it a piece of cake or a cakewalk? Didn't someone in the administration claim that the task would be so simple, they'd be in and out in a week? That doesn't sound like a president and administration who believed the task ahead was going to be very difficult.

McCain's right. Bush has treated this war from the get-go like a game of GI Joe. In fact, I've often times compared the president to a little kid with ADHD on speed playing GI Joe's. In the middle of a war, the president gets all geared up, puts on a drama show, and claims that the mission was accomplished. Yet, here we are, how many years later and the president now claims that we won't be sending the troops home from Iraq under his watch until the mission is accomplished. Yeah, a new mission. A new mission pops up every few weeks or so. Cheney then opened his mouth about how we were in the last throes of the war and again, that was how long ago? The U.S. casualties in the War on Terror (both Afghanistan and Iraq) have nearly equaled the number of people who died on September 11th. When things are all said and done in the Middle East, that casualty number will far exceed the number of lives lost on 9/11. Perhaps McCain's on to something. If Bush and his administration had been honest from the outset (yeah right, if that were the case, there would be no War in Iraq to begin with), maybe the people would be a bit more forgiving and supportive. I know I wouldn't be, but that's just me.

Link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060823-105632-1719r.htm

Rep. Katherine Harris Makes Strong (Idiotic) Statements

Rep. Katherine Harris (Republican-Florida) made some strong statements over the past week in regard to politics and religion.

First off, when it comes to the separation of church and state, Harris doesn't believe such a thing exists. She said that it's a "lie that we have been told."

She also told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

She continued on to tell the journalists, "we have to be faithful in government" going on to say because it's God's will. She believes that the separation of church and state is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Was that all? Oh no. She went on, "And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing these godly men and women, we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn't what God intended."

Republicans and Democrats alike have not shown much love toward Harris' remarks. Even Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist had these remarks to share, her (Harris) remarks "were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican. The notion that you've been chosen or anointed, it's offensive. We hurt our cause with that more than we help it."

Harris' campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Marks made these comments following the negative remarks made in regard to Katherine Harris, "Congresswoman Harris encourages Americans from all walks of life and faith to participate in our government. She continues to be an unwavering advocate of religious rights and freedoms."

Is it just me or does Harris' logic seem a bit, how do I say it, off? She makes the claim that it's in the people's hands to elect "godly" people to office, yet she believes that God chooses "our rulers." So, does that mean that God chooses "godly" Republicans to go to the voting booths, but not the ungodly Democrats? Is that how it works? But then, what's the reasoning for there being Democrats in office? How does it work for God to have all the power and yet for the people to have the power? I'm confused Katherine. Please explain this to me. It'd be like a strict mother telling her daughter that she can't make any decisions on her own, for the mother decides all. Yet, the daughter decides (on her own) to attend a college far away from home.

I'm sorry to disappoint you Katherine, but have you actually read what the Founding Fathers wrote? While it is not written word for word that there should be a separation of church and state. It's s-p-e-l-l-e-d out in a manner that can't be missed by any objective readers. It'd be like President Bush giving hints about a potential war in a country, giving reasons why we should invade, and giving all the benefits we'd receive for doing so without actually claiming that we're at war. Wait a second. Didn't he already do that? Maybe he and Katherine should have a talk. I'm sure they could relate to one another's logical ways, or lack there of it, I should say.

Link:

http://michaelmoore.com/words/the06fix/index.php?id=151

Forbes Editorial Ticks Off Working Women

Forbes editor Michael Noer just recently wrote an editorial entitled "Don't Marry a Career Woman," where he illustrates for males what difficulties they'll face if they marry such a woman. This hasn't gone over too well with the ladies (such a shocker, isn't it?).

He wrote, "If they do have kids, they're more likely to be unhappy about it. ... The more successful she is, the more likely she is to grow dissatisfied with you."

Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University stated on "Good Morning America," "Better educated women are going to [have] more alternatives, and so they're going to be more likely to walk out of a bad marriage. They're not going to be any more likely to run out on a good marriage."

Noer has since defended his editorial, saying, "The piece was intended to be part academic and part humorous. Instead, it profoundly offended the hardworking career women everywhere."

Forbes has since placed an editorial written by a female in attempt to lessen the attacks and balance its perspective, titled, "Don't Marry a Lazy Man." Good try, but not marrying a career woman and a lazy man are completely different. Many women have worked (no pun intended) extremely hard, have battled uphill, and overcome many obstacles in order to get to where they are today. What's it take to be lazy? Nothing. Men have not had to work uphill in order to be lazy. Unlike women, men haven't had to worry about opportunity when it comes to work. Writing an editorial on why a woman shouldn't marry a lazy man would be like writing an editorial on why a man shouldn't marry an obsessive woman. Nice try Forbes, but I'm not buying the whole "part academic and part humorous" bit.

Some ladies should write an editorial on reasons why women shouldn't marry Michael Noer and claim that it was mean to be "part academic and part humorous." I wonder if he'd like that.

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/business/_a/dont-marry-a-woman-with-a-career/20060826092209990011?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Just As I Suspected (Update On Ramsey Case)

I was just about to post a blog regarding the Ramsey Case and how I felt John Mark Karr didn't kill JonBenet Ramsey. Just prior to my blogging this, I read a headline, "It Appears To Have Fallen Apart."

Prosecutors have officially dropped their case against Karr after the results of the DNA tests failed to match him at the crime scene.

Gary Harris, the spokesman for the Karr family, stated "I knew it wouldn't match." He also acknowledged that Karr has been "obsessed with the case for a long time. He may have some personality problems, but he's not a killer. He obsesses. He wanted to be a rock star one time. ... He's a dreamer. He's the kind of guy who wants to be famous."

For anyone who wants to read the article in its entirety, just click on the link below. I'm sure that the media will be talking about this quite a bit in the next few days as well.

Link:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/prosecutors-wont-charge-karr-in-jonbenet/20060828160509990012

Madden Monopoly

I've been playing "Madden" for years now. I can remember when I played that game on the first playstation. But, I must admit, I was a little dismayed when I read that Madden bought out all the other football games for the playstation 2 and would be the lone NFL football game on the system.

Why? First off, this meant no competition. If there was only one team in baseball, the New York Yankees, they wouldn't have to do much in order to win, would they? Same thing here. With no other NFL games duking it out with "Madden," "Madden" will have to do little to nothing in order to sell games and beat the competition, because that competition isn't there.

Secondly, I actually started getting into the ESPN series and felt it was the more fun of the two before it was bought out by Madden. The price tag was a lot kinder as well.

It's bad for consumers to only have one product to choose from and buy. It'd be bad for the country if we only had one party to choose from in an "election." What would be the point in having an election if that was the case?

Last year's game was the first since Madden bought itself into being the loner on the market and I wasn't very impressed. I didn't notice too many changes and the ones I did notice (Ex: Passing precision), I didn't like a great deal. I'm hearing the same comments and complaints about the newly released '07 version. There aren't many changes. It's been the same since '04. This is the problem without having competition. Where's the motivation to upgrade or improve a product if one doesn't have to worry about losing to another?

There are 32 teams in the NFL. There are 32 teams that battle it out year after year for an opportunity to reach the playoffs and hoist up the Super Bowl trophy. Every off-season, management attempts to do what they feel must be done in order to improve the club and make them competitive. Tons of moves go on during the off-season: Signings, trades, releases, re-signings, retirements, the draft, etc. Why? They all want to win and the only way to do that is to be better than the other guys. One can't just sit on their behinds and let other teams make moves and improvements while they stay the same. That would only occur if there wasn't competition and that is where "Madden" currently resides. I really wish there were other NFL games on the market and believe it to be a disgrace to consumers and fans alike, because the only ones getting shafted here by this are them. We deserve the best possible product and that's probably not going to happen with only one product available.

The "Hey" Conversation

These are fun, aren't they? I'll be walking the dogs and when I bump into somebody, they may say, "Hey," at which point, they felt they've obliged to friendly neighbor guidelines and can go on doing what they were doing. So, what do I say at that point? "Hey," also? What's the point of that?

Neighbor: "Hey"

Me: "Hey"

It reminds me of the old Hammer song, "2 Legit 2 Quit." Does anyone remember that?

"2 Legit, 2 Legit 2 Quit,
Hey Hey
2 Legit, 2 Legit 2 Quit."

But, what's the point, really? To acknowledge that someone's there and to act friendly? There will be times when a friend instant messages and tells me, "Hey, I just wanted to say hello." But, there is usually brief chatter between the hellos and goodbyes, such as, "How's it going?" or "What's up?" When someone instant messages me, they don't just say "Hey," followed by my saying "Hey" and that's it. If that ever happens, I'm sure I'll write a blog about it, but I'm pretty certain it won't.

It's the same thing if someone calls. Someone doesn't call, say "Hey," I say the same, "Hey," and then we hang up the phones. At that point, if another in the room asked who it was and what they wanted, we could actually say, "It was so-and-so and they were just saying hey."

If one is in their car and wave to a neighbor and they wave back, this makes more sense to me. Why? Well, the vehicle is moving and taking a person somewhere, so it's not like the individual driving and the neighbor can speak much at that juncture. So, waves make perfect sense. But when two people are within a couple feet of one another, making eye contact? The "Hey" conversation just doesn't do it for me. Whenever someone says "Hey" to me, I'll say something like, "Hey, how's it going?" or "Hey, what's up?" Oddly enough, they usually never answer back. If someone comes into "their" space, then they'll look up and say "Hey," but once that is over and done with, they try to imaginatively shoo that person away from their space and get back to what they were doing.

The only time I can tolerate hearing "Hey Hey" is in the song "2 Legit 2 Quit" and I haven't heard that song in a long, long time.

An Unbelievable Stat (I mean this literally)

The other day, my brother told me that someone had informed him that crime in this country is divided like so: 60% committed by African-Americans, 49% committed by Latino-Americans, and 1% committed by Anglo-Americans. I told him right there, "I highly doubt that buddy." Why? First off, add the numbers up. What do they equal? 110%. Now, I know some coaches like to rattle off that old cliche, "Allright men, I want you to give me 110% out there!" But, in all reality, it's not possible. If I have one bowling ball in my possession that I want to sell, I cannot sell that bowling ball and with 10% of another one. I cannot sell 110% of my own bowling ball when there's only one there. See what I'm getting at? So, I have no idea whose rear-end these numbers came out of, but the numbers are inaccurate and stink to high heaven. I can only wonder who informed my brother of this. Maybe this individual is affiliated with some radical group, because even if one were to lessen the African-Americans' percentage down to 50, which would make it work from a mathematical standpoint, it's still ridiculous to believe that only 1% of crime is committed by Anglo-Americans, meanwhile African-Americans and Latino-Americans commit 99% of the crime. That has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard someone say for a while and to speak of it like a "fact" was the worst part. "A friend of mine saw this in a study." Uh-huh, what was the source? The Ku Klux Klan? Give me a break.

I've got a stat that I saw in a "study" the other day. Anyone who believes those crime statistics I noted above are more ignorant and less competent than emus from a mathematical perspective (and beyond), even with a calculator in their hands.

What's So Great About "The Notebook?"

I admit, I have yet to bring myself to see the film and I just can't see myself ever doing so. I saw the previews. I've read the reviews. I've heard the hype. But, no one has persuaded me to see the film. The story I hear is usually something like this: A guy goes to Blockbuster with his girlfriend. She either wants to see it for the first time or wants to see it again and for her boyfriend to see it. Deep down, he rejects the notion, but thinks that maybe by seeing a romance like this, there will be a better chance of cuddling and such during the film. So, he agrees and off they go, to see and hear her sob and to see him want some cuddling and such during the film.

That's always comforting, especially for the boyfriend. The two are already involved in a relationship and she wants to witness a Hollywood-ized romance of something that will never happen to her, something too good to be true, something that the boyfriend sitting next to her will never provide. Yeah, very comforting indeed.

So, honestly, what's the big deal about this film? It seems that everywhere I go, I hear about someone talking about "The Notebook." Whenever my brother calls his girlfriend up and tells her he's going to Blockbuster, she always suggests he rent "The Notebook," even though she's seen it countless times and has already had him see it a few times with her. Some friends of mine viewed it the other night after a softball game with their girlfriends. Are these guys just playing "the game" right? Well, right in the sense that they'll win some action for themselves sooner rather than later? A friend of mine popped on a country tune not long ago and he told me, "Girls love this man. If you play this in front of her, she'll be on you in no time." Hmmm. So, is that what this is all about? I can't stand country music, so that's not going to happen. Sorry ladies and sorry buddy. But, is that what it's all about, just finding ways to get laid? Maybe it's true that many guys have a one track mind.

I mean, only 50% of critics liked this film, 70 out of 140, and they gave it an average rating of 5.6 out of 10. Here's what a few of the critics had to say:

Jeffrey Westoff of Northwest Herald said, "Tells a tale we've heard hundreds of times before, yet pretends it will surprise us. It doesn't."

Ella Taylor of L.A. Weekly wrote, "From the first soft piano that acompanies white geese flying toward a humongous orange sunset, The Notebook racks up the sugary cliches till you're screaming for mercy."

Peter Tavers of Rolling Stone commented, "There's now way to endure the movie without earplugs and a blindfold."

Peter Sobczynski of Critic Doctor stated, "A dumb, slightly annoying pile of glop."

Eric D. Snider of EricDSnider.com wrote, "Drearily uninspired. I suspect the couples who would enjoy it thoroughly would equally enjoy sitting at home and gazing into each other's eyes for two hours."

Jon Popick of Planet Sick-Boy wrote, "My eyes rolled so far back in my head, I actually saw my brain. And my brain was really pissed off about having to sit through pap like this."

Frank Ochieng of Movie Eye said, "Melodramatic mush...there's not much worth jotting down in Notebook that would invite lovers of all ages to revel in the sugar-tooth cliches of this drowsy, drippy drama."

Jack Mathews of New York Daily News stated, "Two hours of the worst sort of sentimental sap."

Moira MacDonald of Seattle Times commented, "It's all sweet and gooey and absolutely predictable, in a bland TV-movie sort of way, with an ending so shameless it should come with an apology."

Uri Lessing of WWW.KCActive.com wrote, "...one gets the sense that director Nick Cassevetes and writer Jan Sardi would spray the audience with teargas if they could."

Terry Lawson of Detroit Free Press said, "If there is a more cringe-inducing, badly made and excruciating movie released this year, it would have to not only star the Olsen twins, but be written and directed by them as well."

Rick Goen of Globe and Mail wrote, "Meant to be a romantic weepy, and you will shed tears -- but only from the consistent and exhausting effort of trying to control your gag reflex."

Michael Booth of Denver Post said, "One of the shallowest movies in recent memory."

Fr. Chris Carpenter of Catholic Sun stated, "A mawkish romance; one of the year's 10 worst."

Robert W. Butler of Kansas City Star commented, "For those of even a moderately cynical bent, The Notebook is likely to induce apoplectic choking."

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'll leave the hankies at home, prevent myself from gagging, laughing, and who knows what else during this film and watch something else. That or I'll look into someone's eyes for two hours. Okay, forget that, I'll see something else.

Link:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/notebook/?beg=49&int=25&page=3 (pages 1-4)

I'm Already Growing Sick Of Nebraska Football

It's about all we have here. Nebraska basketball has never been too great. Heck, Creighton has been the competitive team of recent years in this state. We've had a decent baseball team, but they tend to be the first team knocked out for some reason. No one really cares about the minor league and arena league teams, the Omaha Royals and Omaha Beef. So, all we really have are the Nebraska Cornhuskers' football team. It was insane here in the mid '9os when the Huskers were truly one of, if not the best.

I always liked to play the devil's advocate, so I'd root against the Huskers just to be the odd man out and make things a little more interesting. That wasn't as fun anymore when Nebraska head coach Tom Osborne retired and Frank Solich came walking in. Nebraska then walked into unknown territory (for those around my age in this state or even a little older), mediocrity. I almost started pulling for Nebraska to become competitive again, because no one had a team to root for then. If the Huskers' football team was doing poorly or even average, then it was going to be a long winter for most around here.

Solich was canned and Bill Callahan came walking into Lincoln. In year one, the team went 6-6 and in year two, they improved to 8-4. Now, all I read and hear from people around here is how Nebraska will win the Big XII North Title, beat either Texas or USC, and lose only 2 games (10-2). The season hasn't started yet and I'm already hearing/reading this. These people aren't just optimistic, they're making guarantees. I've got to say, I'm already getting sick of it. I'm going to a big barbecue bash on September 16th when NU faces off against USC at The Coliseum. I'll be Mr. Neutral there, but deep down, I may actually pull for the Trojans. It'll be early in the season and will let the overly-optimistic fans here know that there will not be an undefeated season in Lincoln this year.

Perhaps not being a big fan of Bill Callahan contributes to these feelings. I'm not a fan of how he handled things in Oakland and I don't really like how he calls a game. The guy can recruit, but in my opinion, he's not much of a coach. It's his time now, though. The guy has gone out and recruited the talent to fit his system. It's now time to find out if he can actually coach the talent he's recruited. Only time will tell and maybe I'm being devil's advocate again, but I don't feel that NU will improve much from last season, if at all, record wise. Fortunately for them, however, the Big XII will be weaker than in year's past and the race should be wide open for anyone who chooses to take it.

Falcons 20 Titans 6

The Atlanta Falcons improved to 2-1 in the pre-season on Saturday night with a 20-6 win over the Tennessee Titans. Like the last game, the contest was not televised where I live, so my commentary will be limited.

From what I've read, only good things can be taken from and said about this game, from a Falcons' fan's perspective anyway.

First off, Tennessee only put up 6 points. It being the 3rd of four pre-season games, starters received more playing time than they had in the first two contests, so that six on the scoreboard by way of two field goals is a welcome sight, especially after allowing 38 to Green Bay (although, the back-ups did allow the majority). More good news on the defensive side of the ball is the fact that Atlanta has recently come to terms with veteran run-stopping defensive tackle Grady Jackson, who was released by the before-mentioned Packers. Jackson is a piece of the puzzle that the Falcons sorely needed last season and will be a marvelous fit alongside fellow d-tackle Rod Coleman and ends Jonathan Abraham and Patrick Kerney. Jackson and the newly acquired Ashley Lelie did not play last night, however.

On the offensive side of the ball, Michael Vick was average, but efficient in throwing the ball, completing 7 of 14 passes, with one touchdown toss to Michael Jenkins. He also ran the ball three times for over thirty yards. All the receivers got into the action, but no one stood out from the rest. The real stand-out on offense was rookie tailback Jerious Norwood, who had a 60-yard touchdown run and over 100 yards overall in the game for the Falcons. That trade with Washington is looking better and better by the game with Norwood's efforts.

Atlanta's special team's performance had to bring the biggest smile to my face. Kicker Michael Koenen made another field goal and is now 7 for 7 in the pre-season. All I can say is, he's made a believer out of me, so I certainly hope he's done the same for the Falcons' coaching staff. He also punted the ball real wall. On top of that, the speedy, yet injury-nagged return man from a season ago, Allen Rossum, broke one for almost 50 yards last night. He's also run one back for over 30 in another pre-season game. Rossum wasn't himself a year ago, mainly due to nagging injuries, so this is a great sign.

The only injury to make note about is tight end Alge Crumpler, but coaches say it is minor. He's coming off surgery in the off-season, so I'm guessing that he just irritated his knee some. Hopefully he's fully ready by the time the season starts.

Chain Letter On Immigration

I just received a lovely chain letter regarding the immigration debate from my uncle who loves sending me this sort of stuff, even though he knows I disagree with him politically on about every issue. The individual who spread this to my uncle claims it was an editorial written by a lady. I looked it up and have found nothing as to the source, so who knows where this exactly came from. All I do know is the fact that there's nothing factual or scientific about this chain letter. It's merely a person letting their feelings be known about immigration and attempting to do so in an analogous manner. Here it is:

"House Breakers

'Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, 'I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According t o the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest um, except for ... well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Why can't some people see how ridiculous this is?Only in America....if you agree, pass it on (in English)'"

Very moving, isn't it? My jaw about dropped when I read this, not from being touched or moved in any positive manner (positive according to the individuals sending this around), but from being blown away by these individuals' denial of history, reality, and their pure narcissism.

This chain letter is written in a clever manner, in attempt to portray to readers that the immigrants are the narcissists and the ones saying "Me, me me," but it in fact says just the direct opposite to those who can actually read between the lines, as the saying goes.

It goes on and on about how immigrants are like robbers, breaking into a person's home. They may be hard-working and decent people, oh, except for the fact that they're robbers who broke into a person's home! Allright, so let me get this straight. For those who truly believe in this chain letter, mainly Anglo-Americans like myself, so, when our ancestors came to the land we call America where the Vikings and Natives had already settled before us, were we then the robbers? Did we break into their homes just as these "immigrants" are doing now? Oh, no, but that was different right? There was so much open land. It's not like we were taking it all over, right? Okay, well, isn't that the case now? I know some Anglos are very frightened of anyone who doesn't look like Casper the Ghost, but there's plenty of land, especially in certain parts of the country (Ex: midwest) and it's not like these "immigrants" are taking it all over, correct? Last time I checked, there were some people in this country who are called "minorities" and for a reason. These include: Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Arab-Americans, and what do you know, Latino-Americans. Who don't I include there? That's right, Anglo-Americans.

If these people who spread this e-mail truly believe this, then they might as well take a stand for all of us Anglos to move back to where are our ancestors traveled from: England, Germany, Poland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, France, Spain, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc. Why'd they travel here? To create better opportunity for themselves and their families. Why are the "immigrants" of today wanting to live here? The same exact reasons! To create better opportunity for themselves and their families. I'm sorry to disappoint some people, but America is not the white man's land! If some want to find that somewhere, I'm sure there are some sick white supremacist groups around somewhere that they could join.

One of the final lines in the e-mail wrote "Only in America!" Dang straight! I find it to be quite something to look around and see people who had ancestors travel from parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, and other portions of North America to this country. It's beautiful to look around a room and observe a woman from Beijing, a man from Nepal, a boy from Sudan, and a girl from Pakistan. It's diversity and it's beautiful.

I find these types of e-mails and chain letters especially humorous, because many of these individuals claim to be Godly Christ-lovers and devout Christians. Where in the Bible does it say anything in regard to a land (such as America) being only a white man's land and all other's are prohibited from entering? I've certainly missed that passage if it's in there (which it's not).

I saw in a recent study conducted by social psychologists that America is the 23rd happiest country in the world and that's quite a feat for how diverse we are. I think it actually shows our openness and tolerance for one another and that regardless of one's ethnicity, gender, age, religious affiliation, etc., that for the most part, we're able to but whatever prejudices we may have to the side and get along with people. "Only in America?" Dang straight and that's what makes this country so beautiful.

NCAA '07 Complaints

Well, I remember reviewing the game and raving about it. I still love the game, but after playing it a bunch, I've noticed a few things that aggravate me slightly. I actually may downgrade my initial rating of 9.5/10 to 9/10.

I don't know if some of these flaws attempt to prove a point about college football's flaws, but even if that's the case, they can get quite annoying.

First off, I've never in my life seen such leaping of teams in polls after a win and sometimes these leaps occur after beating a mediocre club. I beat a top 15 team in Louisville one week pretty handily, yet I was leapfrogged by Oklahoma who beat Texas. Arizona State leapfrogged me one time after beating unranked Stanford and I had beaten Louisville (I might as well stop playing the Cardinals). I played the toughest schedule imaginable, finished 1st by a long shot in the computer polls, yet was 3rd when all was said and done after the championship games. I was 2nd going into championship week, but guess what? I was leapfrogged by the winner of the Big XII Title Game.

Secondly, the penalties aren't called very often, but when they are called, they seem to happen in a very timely fashion and home-field seems to take part in the call. After I stuffed a team on a third and long late in the game when I was up by only four, a player of mine was pumped up and the ref called unsportsmanlike conduct on me for it. I've seen gestures that were a lot more dramatic in other games that weren't called for the 15-yard penalty. Also, why, from what I've seen, are there only 15-yard face mask penalties and none of the 5-yarders?

You also might as well flip a coin with the challenges. There are times that the refs get the calls right and there are other times they're wrong. I played a game the other day and on a 2nd and 10, the opposing quarterback threw a ball high. The receiver leaped up and caught the ball, rather impressively, but his backside landed five-feet outside the out-of-bounds line. Initially, the refs correctly called it incomplete. After the review, they reversed the call! I couldn't believe it. Only two camera angles are shown as well, so on some plays, one can't see the football very well and can't make out if the ball came out before one was down. Also, there's a limited range of challenges one can make and sometimes the challenges are wrong. For example, there was a play where my player might've fumbled the football, the opposing team recovered, but then their team fumbled and they recovered again. So, I challenged the fumble. They went to the second fumble and not the first. Because of that, I waste a timeout and am not even able to challenge what I wanted to challenge. I see a trend with home-field advantage with the rulings of these plays, as well.

During the game, there will be these slight pauses, where the game will freeze up for a moment and repeat the same scene a second time. I originally thought it was just my game, but have heard others' complain regarding this issue as well.

Speaking of scenes, the close-up slow motion scenes are kind of cool, but there are times where they focus in on the wrong guy and that's confusing. There are times I've thrown a ball and the focus will go on a linebacker and I'll think, "Oh great, I just threw a pick" and the ball is actually completed away from the defender the game had focused on.

I also like the idea of momentum, because it does play a big factor in college football, but sometimes this game inaccurately portrays the true momentum of the game. After a team scores the first touchdown, their momentum goes up the full five points. If a team goes up 21 points and lay a flat egg the rest of the game, the opposing team won't have momentum on their side until they have more points. If they score 17 points in one quarter, the team with 21 still has slight momentum for some reason.

Finally, there were no upgrades or additions made to recruiting as there's been every year in the series. Dynasty mode is still fun, but it's disappointing that nothing new was added this year.

Good news for EA is the fact that this game will be on the new PS3 next year, so even that fact will add a new look and feel to the game even if nothing about it has necessarily changed much. Overall, I still love the game, but think I have to downgrade it to a 9/10.

The Falcons' Trade

I'm sure most Atlanta Falcons' fans know this by now, but Atlanta was involved in a three-team trade recently, trading halfback T.J. Duckett to Washington and getting wideout Ashley Lelie from Denver. I've read some mixed feelings on the trade. I, for one, like the outcome of the trade, but am confused on why Lelie is already being set at 3rd receiver behind Atlanta's first-round draft picks last year and the year before, Roddy White and Michael Jenkins. In all the reports I've read, it claims that Jenkins and White will be the 1 and 2 receivers (or 2 and 1). I understand this for early in the season, as the pre-season is either half or three-quarters over for most teams and quarterback Michael Vick has a greater feel and chemistry with White and Jenkins than the newcomer, Lelie.

Ashley Lelie is entering his 5th season, while Jenkins and White are entering their 3rd and 2nd. Lelie has scored 12 touchdowns in his four years at Denver, posting 3,007 yards on 168 catches (17.9 per catch). He's also a good size at 6'3''. Vick loves the taller receivers. His two favorite coming into this season were Alge Crumpler and Brian Finneran, but it was Finneran's unfortunate training camp injury that prompted the trade for Lelie. While Michael Jenkins was used little if at all in his rookie season, he finished with 508 receiving yards a year ago on 36 catches (14.1 average) with three touchdowns. Jenkins also stands in at a good size, 6'4''. Roddy White produced fairly well as a rookie last season, especially during the tail-end of the year, finishing with 29 catches for 446 yards (15.4 average) and 3 scores.

Like I noted, early on, I can understand why Lelie would be the number three receiver, but if Lelie ever lives up to the hype (he did for a year in Denver), he should have the opportunity for the 1 or 2 spot. The situation partially reminds me of one in San Diego (although, not nearly as bad). The Chargers just up and let go of Drew Brees, so that they could stick with their investment, in 1st-round pick Philip Rivers. Why not give the job to the guy that's producing the best of all three of them? Why just automatically go with the two draft picks? If Vick and Lelie click with one another, there's no reason why Lelie shouldn't get a starting job. I'm not saying it's going to happen. Perhaps Jenkins or White will excel this year. I'm just saying that Atlanta shouldn't rule Lelie out as a potential starter depending on how all three of them play. He's produced well in the past, has exceptional speed, is a major deep threat, and spreads the field to open holes in the running game and to aid Vick in the passing game. Either way, I think it was a needed trade for Atlanta and they have quality talent at their top three receiver positions.

P.S. Third round draft pick tailback Jerious Norwood is already looking like a steal for the Falcons and he fits much better into the Falcons offensive scheme. He's a north-south type runner with great speed and an extra gear that most players don't have. The trade also allows Offensive Coordinator Greg Knapp to utilize him a bit more than what was originally anticipated at the start of the pre-season. While Duckett was usually solid in short yardage and goal line situations, he's not as good a fit to the Falcons offensive set-up and blocking scheme as are the likes of Warrick Dunn and now Norwood.

He's Obviously Not A Mother

Yes, I wrote that right. The person I'm referring to is my brother. He just called to whine, vent, and complain (what else is new?) about his girlfriend and how she's too nice to people. He said that she worries too much about people and feels too personally responsible for them. He even went as far to say that she nor anyone else with this kind of mentality can progress as a human being. That's right, he claimed that his girlfriend of three years can't progress as a human. I wonder if he used these exact words when speaking to her or if it was just with me and the other guys. He continued to vent by saying that it's Psychology 101 (he's never taken a psychology course) that those who put effort into being nice to others and helping them out with problems obviously have problems of their own that they're afraid to deal with. They're replacing that effort of dealing with their own problems and using it to deal with others. This comes from a guy who constantly worries about his girlfriend and himself.

All the fuss surrounds the fact that his girlfriend takes responsibility for friends of her's who've had too much to drink in an evening by driving them home. He claims that she never focuses on herself, her needs, her wants, and can't ever be happy unless she does. While he was saying this, let me just say, he sounded like the happiest guy in the world (note on the sarcasm). He also changes his mind about what he wants in life more quickly than Bush changes his story about why we're in Iraq.

I didn't feel like getting into a heated debate at the time, because I had just woken up and needed to collect my thoughts before diving into such a discussion. But, as the blog title suggests, "Obviously, he's not a mother." He doesn't have the greatest memory in the world, but even he could remember what our parents told us if we ever were out with someone who had been drinking and was to be driving or if we had a bit too much that night and had driven to our destination. They said to call, regardless of where we were or what time it was and they'd (probably our mother) would come to pick us up. Why? Well, as my brother's girlfriend said, "I feel better knowing that she's home safe as opposed to driving home drunk." Personally, I feel my brother is just being selfish on this one. He's not sick of his girlfriend being nice and responsible so much as he's sick of her helping her drunk friend get home safely over paying attention to him.

His Psych 101 may be true in some circumstances, but he mustn't generalize so much. If it were the case, his "logic" would be true for every counselor and psychologist in the world. It'd be true for the likes of Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and Jesus. If his "logic" were true, then most mothers obviously have some issues that they're afraid to deal with.

All I can say is, while she's actually playing "mother" of her group of friends, taking responsibility for her friends' drunken habits and caring for others outside her boyfriend and herself, all he's concerned about his himself and while she may need to balance her focus a bit more between others and herself, perhaps he should do the same thing.

Bullying Into Believing

While I've said that the latest Bin Laden ad campaigns have come from both sides of the political spectrum (and they have), this doesn't just pop up into advertisements for some. I've heard of this bullying tactic ever since the 9/11 attacks and they've mainly come from the right (not as in correct).

The likes of Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, amongst others, have all claimed at one time or another that the Democrats or a candidate of the Democratic Party would only aid the terrorists if they won in an election. Some have been labeled as "Al-Qaeda candidates." Utah Senator Orrin Hatch just was quoted as saying that terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Cheney was quoted as saying, after Ned Lamont's defeat over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, that Lamont's victory may encourage "the al-Qaida types." When John Kerry ran for president of 2004, some laid the claim that al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would want him to win.

The Neo-Conservative movement has altered the meaning of the word "liberal" to such a large degree that many refuse to acknowledge themselves as such and it'll only be a matter of time, if things continue down the same path they've been traveling on for about five years now, it'll be extremely commonplace for the terms "liberal" and "terrorist" to appear in the same sentence.

Why do Neo-Conservatives do this? It won them the last election, did it not? I cannot tell you how many people I talked to in regard to the election who claimed they voted for Bush because they felt safer with him as president than with Kerry. People refuse to look at the facts done by studies, even in the U.K., that claim the U.S. is not safer because of what we've done since 9/11, largely attributing this to "The War On Terror," which has expanded terrorist camps and motivations to attack U.S. soil. Many would rather just listen to political ads comparing a Democratic candidate to a member of Al-Qaeda and immediately begin to feel less safe about voting for this Democratic candidate. Even though the media elites of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly (amongst others) are full of you know what, because they yell with such vigor, some are convinced that they must be telling the truth, as opposed to liberal elites such has Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, and Michael Moore, who tend to go about things in a lighter and more humorous manner.

I don't know what angers me more, the fact that Neo-Conservatives consistently attack Democrats in this manner or the fact that some people actually buy what they're selling. There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I hope that after November, Neo-Conservatives will finally have to find another way to go about winning an election. Perhaps then, their fear factor routine will be broken and there will be a definite need for an alternative approach.

A Racial Double Standard

An old friend of mine came back in town last Thursday from the Navy for a couple weeks. I was nervous when he told me about going into the armed forces, but it's hard for me to hang around the kid all too often, even after he's been gone for a few months.

It's interesting. He bought my book and raves about it to other people, but I honestly don't see how he could do such a thing if he actually read the darn thing, because there are a lot of poems in there that he'd throw a fit about if he truly understood the message and intent. I can only imagine what he'll say about my upcoming political satire, but who knows, maybe he won't understand it.

Two nights ago, I hung out at his place for approximately three and a half hours, although, it seemed more like seven. All he did was drink, smoke, and complain about "blacks." He usually didn't use that word though. He'd typically use that other word, six letters, begins with a "n" and ends with a "r." He also rattled off some lovely racial jokes. Even though I didn't laugh at a single one of them, he kept going, because he was enjoying it. Whether he was enjoying the jokes themselves or enjoying the fact that he was making me uncomfortable, I don't really know.

He vented about certain stereotypes all night and contradicted himself when it comes to his beliefs and actions.

Then, ironically enough, his "black" friend called. Yes, he has "black" friends, believe it or not. He told me about the guys in the Navy where he was stationed and claimed that only 1,300 out of 5,000 were white and the rest were "Hispanic, Cuban, Filipino, and Black." He complained about a "black" man who was ranked higher than he was and yelled at him to do something. This friend of mine thought to himself at the time and announced to me something along the lines of how he shouldn't have to work for a "black," but again, he used another term.

I then attempted to change the subject and hopefully illustrate his contradictory ways by asking him, "So, do you get along with most the people there?"

To which he responded, "Yeah, and of the four best friends I have there, three of them are black."

Right there, I was hoping he saw what I saw, but no, of course not. He commented, "I get along with them fine. I just shouldn't have to work under them." Uh huh.

Then, he turned on this "Cops"-like show and when a man was pulled over and told the cop that the car was not his but his girlfriend's, my friend spoke out again and said, "Of course it's not yours. You're 'black.' You stole it." But, when a white driver was drunk and crashed into a semi truck, my friend said, "That wasn't his fault."

He even told me about how there were so many "blacks" in the Navy because they were too "pansy" to be in the Marines or Army. "They'd rather be alive so they can steal than to actually put their lives on the line." I gave him the oddest of looks, because, well, he's in the Navy and last time I checked, in terms of skin color, he's the furthest thing from black imaginable. This was right after he said that, "Some like to claim that the Navy is the pansiest of the armed forces, but that's not true. The Air Force is."

This ignorance drove me nuts until I finally said I had to go home. I don't care how long he's been away. I can't subject myself to that kind of stupidity. In his mind, it's okay for "blacks" to entertain or work the lowest-paying jobs on the market, but it's not allright for them to be ranked higher than a white person. If whites are in the Navy, then they truly wanted to be part of the Navy and no other armed force. But, if blacks are in the Navy, then it's obvious that they were too weak to make it in the Marines or Army. If a white man commits a crime, then there has to be something more to the story. But, if a black man commits that same crime, then there's no question about it. He's guilty.

The "N" word in and of itself does not signify racism. It depends on the context in which it's used. My friend used it in a racist manner, because he used it in an attempt to portray "blacks" as inferior to whites. If one believes all males to be superior to females, we can classify them as sexist. If one believes that one ethnicity to be superior to all members of another, then we can classify them as racist. My friend likes to deny this claim, but it's blatantly obvious to any observer. The funny (not haha) part of this whole thing is the fact that this kid is a very angry person who claims to have gone through a lot growing up. All his bad experiences came at the expense of whites. None of them dealt with "blacks" in any way, shape, or form. So, how did he get to be like this? I couldn't say for sure, but have a few ideas.

The War On Terror Is A War On Freedom (And Vice Versa)

It truly baffles me that some want to believe in the so-called "War On Terror," what it "allegedly" represents, and in what the president's "claimed" intentions are with the war.

It's not like I can tell a girlfriend four different stories about a night I was out and about with the guys in which I got into a bit of trouble by being caught with another girl.

Story 1) "We're just friends. She was down that night. She had just broken up with her boyfriend, so I was being a good friend, listening to her."

Story 2) "She was really wasted that night and I didn't want her driving home. That's the only reason she was over. I swear!"

Story 3) "We're in the same sociology class together. We have a final on Monday. You weren't around, so I thought it was good to study with someone."

Story 4) "The truth of the matter is that we're in the same play at school, so we were just practicing our lines."

Okay, by about story number two, that's when my "girlfriend" would slap me silly and call it quits.

Why wasn't that the case with Bush's story-telling? "They have weapons of mass destruction!" "They have the ability to make weapons of mass destruction!" "They have the materials to make the weapons of mass destruction!" "We're there to spread freedom and democracy!" Okay, what? Did I miss something? And that gal was wasted, had just broken up with her boyfriend, was studying with me for a sociology final, and we were practicing lines for a play. Uh-huh.

I don't care how many times an abusive husband claims that he is not abusive. It can't deny the fact that he is. I don't care how many times Bush changes his story and I don't care how many times he claims to be spreading freedom and democracy to the Middle East, that does not deny the fact that he's stripping away freedoms and liberties from this so-called "democracy."

After 9/11, security reigned supreme over liberty. Bush was the leader, so he reigned supreme overall in America's eyes. Clever wording has helped the Bush Administration ultimately hide from the majority what they are doing. The PATRIOT Act said it all. To be "patriotic," one must ultimately follow the act, right? If one reads the entire document, they may begin to think differently. The NSA wiretapping was altered to "the terrorist surveillance network." Even though thousands of non-"terrorists" are in the database, the wording makes many believe that there's no possible way they or others close to them could be filed in the database. Think again.

If one so much as utilizes their First Amendment rights and speaks out against the Bush Administration, then they are cast as "traitors," "unpatriotic," "anti-American," "terrorist sympathizers," or even "terrorists."

Bush, his administration, and his strong media supporters were quick to use the false dilemma informal fallacy just following the 9/11 attacks and in the following months. This has left quite the imprint on the very polarized America. "If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." If one is anti-war, then they're pro-terror. If one voted against the PATRIOT Act, then they don't value security. If one does not approve of the NSA Wiretapping, then they want America to get struck again. Much of the thinking and reasoning has been nothing but very simplistic, bland, black-and-white thinking that a two-year old could understand. Perhaps even two-year olds would be above that, because they're not afraid to ask, "Why" or "How come?"

Directly following the "alleged" terror plot in London, the Bush administration immediately tried to take advantage of the situation and the fear factor involved. Some even said that the U.S. should go to more of a U.K. MI5 approach to surveillance. If you don't know what that is, feel free to look it up. We might as well kiss that First Amendment goodbye if we took on that approach.

If there happens to be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I can only imagine what might happen then. The more "alleged" attacks that occur, the more fear citizens feel and the more our leaders can take advantage of that to gain more control and power. Bush and his administration claim to be making America safer by prolonging our "efforts" in the Iraq War, but as studies have indicated (even those done in the U.K.), the Iraq War has increased the number of terrorists over in the Middle East. It's the transitive property: more attacks (a) = more fear (b), more fear (b) = more power and control (c), more attacks (a) = more power and control (c).

Do the likes of Bush and Blair necessarily want attacks on their soil? No, of course not. But, if they do occur, I'm sure the two of them wouldn't mind all that much. The "alleged" terror plot in London was the perfect scenario for the both of them. They could strike fear into the people's minds without anyone being killed. If they could kill freedom without anyone physically being killed, that'd be a heaven-like scenario for them, because with all the freedom that they kill, the more power and control they can attain. President Bush was halfway right regarding the war being about freedom. But, it's not about spreading it to the Middle East. It's about taking it away domestically.

George Allen

Need I say anymore? Before this past week, many would probably be looking at me in total and utter confusion. "George Allen? Who's he?"

Let me give you a one word hint: "Macaca."

Last week at a GOP rally in Virginia, Senator George Allen called Sidarth, an Indian-native volunteer for Allen's opponent James Webb, "macaca."

The term "macaca" is considered an ethnic slur in some cultures and is also a genus of monkey.

Do I think Allen knew that it was an ethnic slur in some cultures and a genus of monkey? No, I don't. But was it completely stupid to say it? Yes, most certainly. That's not even close to his real name. Siharth. "Macaca." Yes, they both have an "a" in the name and are similar in the number of letters in the name, but that's about all they have in common. That's like saying the names "Zach" and "Lisa." Yeah, sure, they both have an "a" in the name and are both composed of four letters each, but are they the same? Are they even similar? No. While I think the Democrats are making a little too much about this issue, I think late night talk show hosts should have a field day(s, yes, plural) with it. The Democrats may need to ride this out for as long as it'll take them, though, for the simple fact that Virginia is a pretty conservative state and it may take something like this in order for them to prevail in the upcoming election.

This should be a wonderful election for the state of Virginia. His opponent, James Webb, was criticized for handing out fliers during the primaries that were anti-Semitic. Webb's primary Democratic opponent was Jewish. So, Virginians have a Democratic "alleged" anti-Semite to choose from or George Allen. Boy, the list is long with him.

Not only did he call a guy "Macaca" (Pronounce that. How could someone be so stupid to call a person that?), he's also quite fond of the Confederate flag, and opposes celebrating Martin Luther King Day.

So, there you have it. Who to vote for? Or, should it be, who not to vote for? Maybe that'll be the easier strategy. Good luck to all Virginians having to choose.

Link:

http://michaelmoore.com/words/the06fix/index.php?id=144

Bin Laden Is A Politican's Best Friend Come Election Time

I'm getting a little tired of the stupid political adds on television. I'm especially fed up with ads comparing a candidate to Osama Bin Laden. They may not even compare the two, but will have pictures of them side-by-side. I've heard this occur from both sides of the political spectrum.

Bin Laden is a politician's best friend. He's like that old good luck charm that a person might bust out when he or she feels desperate.

When a scandal is brewing in the White House, Bush is receiving a lot of heat for a decision he made, or his poll ratings are low, then wah-lah, out comes Bin Laden from his grave to strike fear into the people's minds, hearts, and souls and wouldn't you know it? The people were distracted and the attention suddenly diverted from "The War on Terror" being lost to Bin Laden.

When there's a disagreement between the two parties, then they can pull out their Bin Laden card and say something along the lines of, "They're the al-Qaeda candidate" or "Osama Bin Laden would vote for them." First off, Bin Laden is dead, so the guy couldn't vote in the first place and secondly, even if he was a U.S. resident and could legally vote here, how in the world would we know who the guy would vote for? I could say something, but I'm not going to even speculate here.

Both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats need to stop the false, ignorant, and fear-provoking ads to compare the other candidate to Osama Bin Laden. Even if Osama was the "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks (of which there's no proof), how in the world can we compare a candidate to a person who is "claimed" to have killed 3,000 people in the attacks? The only candidate(s) we could conceivably compare that to would be people in the White House for their decision to go to war, as 2,600 U.S. soldiers have died, another 10,000 wounded, and 40,000 Iraqis have died as a result. But, thank God, Bush cannot run again (knocks on wood), so we won't have to witness those ads come election time.

Give it up guys! Fear is not going to win my vote. Talk policies and what you're going to do differently and then you'll have my attention.

Packers 38 Falcons 10

I did not actually watch the game, so I will be limited in what I can say (write) about it. It was shown on the NFL Network at seven this morning and I really didn't feel like getting up extra early to view a pre-season game.

Fortunately, the only notable injury was to cornerback DeAngelo Hall and coaches have already said that it's very minor. So, that's good news, not that he's hurt, but that it's extremely minor.

Even though the scoreboard looks horrendous from a Falcons' fan perspective, it sounds like the 1st teamers played pretty well last night. Vick was 5 for 7 for almost 60 yards and a touchdown pass. The score was tied 7-7 at the end of a quarter.

But, when the back-ups came in to play, that's when the momentum (along with the score) shifted dramatically.

Some players need to step up and into their roles on this team. Three of the four spots on the defensive line are set with Jonathan Abraham, Patrick Kerney, and Rod Coleman. The defensive tackle opposite Coleman has to step up into the starter's position. A receiver needs to step forward. Vick has complete 8 of 11 passes this pre-season, but either Roddy White or Michael Jenkins must step up into that go-to receiver's role, especially now that Brian Finneran is out for the season.

One guy who has stepped up is kicker Michael Koenen who added to his already impressive pre-season debut against the Patriots with a 51-yard field goal last night. I don't know what Mora thinks of the situation, but like I said after the Pats game, make sure to keep Koenen around for field goal duties, even if you have to get a kickoff man or punter in there. If he thinks it's too big a chore for Koenen to handle all three, then have him handle two, but make sure one of those two is the field goal chores. He handled two jobs last year in being the kickoff man and the punter. He can handle two again this year.

The score looked ugly, but there were some positives from last night's game and hopefully a lot was learned by the younger players. The great news is the fact it was only a pre-season game, so it doesn't matter come the regular season. The even greater news (knock on wood) is the fact that two pre-season games are done and over with and only two are left and we don't have any major injuries yet (outside of Finneran, whose injury came in camp). That's the most important thing. Stay healthy guys and be ready come the real season!

The Random Know-It-All

Well, I went to a "friend's" earlier today and for some reason (I'll get to that in a second), he and his sister seemed to have a good 'ol time by claiming that I'm The Random Know-It-All. How do I mean? How did they mean? I'm not sure exactly. But, let me go to the dictionary for some help.

Random means "having no pattern or objective." Okay, I think I have a firm enough grasp of that concept.

So, what did they mean? Well, when talking about it (me), they brought up sports and movie knowledge, mainly movie knowledge, because I beat my friend in this DVD game called "Scene It: Movie Edition" pretty badly every time we play. So maybe, just maybe, he has felt the need to gab about it to friends and family of his to, I don't know, make himself feel better that he doesn't know this "random" information.

They didn't let up about this. One joke or even two and I wouldn't gone along with it. But they wouldn't drop it. It's not like I was over there playing them in the "Scene It" game. I voluntarily came over to help my friend's sister with a Fantasy Football Draft.

When I finally got irritated enough to say something, I blurted out the fact that I've scored very high on intelligence tests (most notably, the IQ test). When I mentioned my score, which exceeds the so-called "genius"-level, my friend just said something along the lines of, "Well, good for you." But, then again, all the questions on the test were very "random," so they were directly in accord to my "lack of pattern or objective."

According to the dictionary, "random" would simply mean that in this blog I'd wander from this subject to the Holocaust to waterslides without any hesitation. "Random" would mean, at a party, when all is quiet, I'd just blurt out that San Diego is beautiful. So, what exactly is "random" knowledge? They also used the word "useless," so, "random" and "useless."

With their thought, it can be said that all knowledge is "random" and "useless," because no one can see what all will occur in their life on a daily basis, so how are we to know what knowledge we'll "need" to know and what knowledge we won't? Trivia buffs who play "Jeopardy," is that knowledge "random" and "useless?" To most people, probably, but to those winning money off the game show, the answer to that question is no.

Is movie knowledge "random" and "useless" to most? Again, the answer to that question is yes. But, what about for directors? Screenwriters? Producers? Critics? They make a living based on their cognizance of movies. Same with sports. How would managers, coaches, announcers (some of them), general managers, and owners be successful and make money if they knew nothing about sports? While it may be "useless" knowledge to most, it is most definitely not "useless" to some.

The terms "random" and "useless" when referring to one's knowledge is "random" in itself, because it lacks an objective truth. It's purely subjective. Just as knowledge about cars may be completely "useless" to some missionaries, the knowledge of law may seemingly be "useless" material for the president, and the knowledge of housekeeping may be "useless" to some who pay someone to do the work for them, sports and movie knowledge may be termed "useless" for those who don't earn a living off it.

If that's the case, then we might as well just live and die with work and not enjoy anything else. What else is there to enjoy? It's all "random" and "useless" anyway. What will it matter that I know a bit about San Diego now that I've been there? It's "useless" material that won't get me anywhere in life. It was a waste of money evidently.

While one may see no purpose in learning about a particular subject, there is no such thing as completely "random" and "useless" information, because someone out there is earning a living by knowing a little bit about this "useless" topic. It's better to learn and be willing to open one's mind to multitudes of information than to close the doors upstairs so tightly that no new information is allowed in and ignorance reigns supreme. Am I a Random Know-It-All? "Random" only to some, as are we all.