Always the Exception...

Why is it that many (most) believe their relationship to be THE exception to the rule? If a guy has had an issue with gullibility in the past to his girlfriend's lies and catches his current one with a lie, why will he still say, "Yeah, but it's different this time. You don't understand."? If a guy insults a gal's family and disrespects her opinions, similar to other boyfriends of her past, why will she see him as THE exception?

It's like a neverending cycle with these people and even though they seem to be understanding when they're given advice, they almost never act on it, even if they claim to agree with your sentiments. These people just want yes-men, even when they're asking questions, which makes it very difficult to be a yes-man.

So, what can be done? They won't take advice seriously. They tend to believe that their situation is the exception to the rule. That would classify as denial.

I don't know why so many people think this way. Perhaps they want to believe that their story will play out like a Hollywood romance, a romance novel, etc. They just don't want to believe the similarities their relationship shares to that of others. Dinner and a movie date? Oh, like that's never been done before. A walk in a park? Picnic? Play? Art museum? Watching a film at one's homestead? Going to bars? Clubs? A zoo? Talking 'till late at night/early in the morning? Yeah, the situations involve two different people, but the events and feelings shared between the two people are not unique and isolated. They're commonly shared between people all over the world.

Even though some may be in denial that their predicament is THE exception, if they were to look back with an unbiased eye on previous relationships of theirs and others, they'd be ignorant to maintain that opinion.

We can look at numbers all we want with IQ's and the like, but it's difficult for me to look at a person as very bright when they consistently make the same mistake over and over again. If someone can truly gain insight from each and every mistake they make and are able to improve themselves as people by not admitting the same mistakes time and time again, I can look at them with a more appreciative eye, regardless of what a test may state their intelligence level is.

Cameron's Jesus Documentary

Oscar award-winning director, James Cameron, is about to air a documentary based on the possibility that Jesus' tomb (bones) have been discovered, which will be aired on the Discovery Channel in the next week.

I'm curious to hear the uproar by Christians before and after the program. Will many watch it or just complain about it, like the Da Vinci Code?

Why would there be such an uproar? Well, some may believe that Jesus resurrected spiritually, but, most people I know believe that after three days, his body was no longer in the tomb and his physical body had resurrected. The documentary will also make the claim that Jesus had a son, Judah. The thought of Jesus being romantically involved with Mary Magdalene created a stir as it is, but to bring a child into the mix? I can only imagine the reactions to that claim.

I'm always curious and interested in any form of "controversial" art dealing with religion, especially Christianity. This will be no different. Whether the claims in the film are true or false, it brings new possibilities to light than are believed by the majority, and that's important. The Pat Robertson's, James Dobson's, and others in the world will condemn it and other such art forms, but without difference in opinion and multiple interpretations and possibilities, where would we be? I don't want to even think about that possibility.

The Nebraska Bias Runs Deep

I got into a discussion the other night with a couple friends. We all live in Nebraska, where the sport of college football reins supreme to all others for 12 months of the year. They talked about how the NU quarterback of the 1994-1995 National Championship teams, Tommie Frazier, could have been a NFL quarterback. A friend of mine then said that if Michael Vick can play in the NFL, so can Tommie Frazier. I responded with, "I don't know about that," but laid low the rest of the conversation, because they were on a Husker rant.

Even though I was critical of Vick a couple days ago, because of the lack of fire and passion I felt from his play this past year, I have to defend the guy here.

There's no doubt that Tommie Frazier was a leader and winner at Nebraska. He ran the option about as well as one can. He made use of the weapons in his backfield and could take the ball himself for a good chunk of yardage, as well. He was a great college quarterback, but an option quarterback in college will not be a NFL quarterback. He could've maybe played in the CFL or in the Arena football league. Perhaps he could've switched positions and played in the NFL as a safety.

Even though Frazier led the Huskers to two National Championships in four seasons and Vick only led the Hokies to a runner-up in the 1999 season, Vick still had a better winning percentage as a starter than Frazier. Frazier was 33-3 (.917) as a starter at Nebraska and Vick was 20-1 (.952) as a starter at Virginia Tech.

As I had mentioned before, Tommie Frazier was an option quarterback. Vick ran the option once in a while, but was, by no means, an option QB. In his four years at Nebraska, Frazier completed 232 of 469 (.495) of his passes for 3,521 yards, 43 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. He ran the ball 342 times for 1,955 yards (5.7 average) and 36 touchdowns. Combine those numbers and on 811 attempts, Frazier accounted for 5,476 yards (156.5 p/game) and 79 touchdowns.

In just two seasons, Michael Vick completed 177 of 313 passes (.565) for 3,074 yards, 20 touchdowns and 11 picks. He ran the ball 212 times for 1,202 yards (5.7 average) for 16 touchdowns. Combine those numbers and Vick accounted for 4,276 yards on 525 attempts (213.8 p/game) and 36 touchdowns.

In about half the time played, Vick completed just 55 less passes in 156 fewer attempts, and 447 fewer yards. Unless Vick played blindfolded, even for a single season, he would've easily surpassed those numbers. It is debatable on who would've accounted for more passing touchdowns. Frazier definitely held the edge in interceptions and touchdown to interception ratio. But, there are a lot of factors that play into account. Seeing that he threw the ball only 469 times in four years, defenses had to defend the run first and foremost. When the run was successful (which it usually was), Frazier would have no problem dropping back to pass around the goalline for an easy score.

Rushing the football, Frazier had just 753 more yards than Vick in two more seasons. Again, the touchdowns accounted for is debatable, as Vick had 20 fewer with two years left to play.

Looking at their combined offenses, Frazier was just +1,200 on Vick in two additional seasons of playing football. Vick averaged 57.3 more yards a game in his short college career than Frazier. The one stat where Frazier may have reigned supreme is in his total quantity of touchdowns.

In 4+ years of starting in the NFL, Michael Vick has thrown for 11,505 yards and 71 touchdowns. He's also run for 3,859 yards and 21 touchdowns, to account for 15,364 yards and 92 touchdowns.

Tommie Frazier is not nearly as quick as Vince Young, let alone Michael Vick. He has less throwing strength than Chad Pennington. Vick has one of the strongest arms in the game. Vick is not known for his passer precision, but next to Frazier, he'd be seen as Tom Brady.

It's a shame that Tommie Frazier's career had to end the way it did, but let's not kid ourselves. The guy was a great college quarterback, much like Heisman winner Eric Crouch, but would have never amounted to anything in the NFL. This friend of mine has never seen Michael Vick play, so yeah, he's making quite the biased statement, but even then, it's ridiculous.

"Epic Movie"? Anything but...

I enjoyed the first "Scary Movie," but the rest of the series attempted to attract a younger crowd with a PG-13 rating and the films in the series have been getting worse ever since. Then came "Date Movie," which I thought looked funny from the previews. It's a spoof on, well, date movies. But, it had to of been one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was dreadful. I silently laughed to myself one time. Critics hated that and rightfully so, but the people (teens mainly) enjoyed it, and it made enough money to allow for "Epic Movie" to be produced.

I have not and will never see "Epic Movie," unless it's a free viewing, just so I can see how awful it is and if a film can top that which is date movie in its stupidity. Again, critics hated this movie, even more so than its predecessor. But, again, it's done fairly well at the box office, so I'm frightened that their may be another awful film to come about in this series. I and critics around the world pray to the gods that no other film in this series will make its presence known to the public.

The biggest problem is that writers Aaron Setzer and Jason Friedberg don't know what a satire is. They attempt to satirize Hollywood films, but satire is more than just reciting the same exact lines of the original with different actors. That's not satire and rarely, is that funny.

Only one critic out of 47 gave this film a positive rating (2%). The critics averaged to give the film 2.1 out of 10 stars. Ouch.

Here are a few comments that the critics have made regarding the shameful attempt at art:

"It's generally considered bad form for a critic to advocate the kidnap and torture of specific filmmakers, but I'll tell you this: If you did it, and you confessed to me, no way would I turn you in." - Jeremy C. Fox

"An amateur-hour game of Spot That Reference, intended for people who crack up simply at the mention of anything topical." - Jim Ridley

"What was the last studio picture this bad? Maybe 2002's 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash'. I've seen more talent in my cat's last dump." - Dustin Putman

"On January 26th, I have witnessed what is assured to be the worst film I will behold all year." - Brian Orndorf

"It is just too bad that the film isn't called 'Miniscule Movie' because that is a better description of this epic-less piece of garbage." - Zack Haddad

LIE-berman

Connecticut Independent (Democratic) Senator, Joe Lieberman, said recently that he may switch parties if the Democrats refuse to support funding for the troops. Connecticut is a dark blue state. I can only wonder what their reaction would be if he were to do such a thing.

Next to Vice President Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales, it seems that Joe Lieberman is President George W. Bush's best friend. Troop escalation? Yeah, Lieberman hopped on board. Even though Joe (for the time being) gives the Democrats a slight 51-49 edge in the Senate, it feels as if he's been on the other side of the spectrum for quite a while now. There's a reason Bush and company wanted Lieberman to win the Connecticut Senate seat, even if he was/is/might be a "Democrat." Whether the Senate is at 51-49 or 50-50, I see it as evenly split because of LIE-berman's presence.

The Talker

Think you know someone who talks a lot? I imagine the person I know talks more. It baffles me how a person could talk this much. Even if a conversation begins with the heavy subject of you having brain surgery, this individual will get that out of the way in 1-2 minutes and then talk about something entirely different for another 12-13. If the discussion begins with chatter regarding a recent break-up of yours, this person will transform it into one dealing with their relationship and problems.

Once they start talking, there's almost no stopping them. If there is a milli-second pause, that's your only chance to say "Hey" and get in a few words. Even then, they may not hear you and will continue venting, ranting, complaining, or just flat-out talking.

They're like the energizer bunny, but their speaking batteries never die. They TRULY keep going and going and going. I've laid the phone done during certain rants for a couple minutes and when I pick it up, guess what? They're still talking! I don't hear a dial tone from them hanging up. I don't hear them asking, "Hey, are you there?" No, they're still talking!

The other night, they supposedly called to ask about how a mutual friend was doing following a break-up. I had just spent time with this friend, so I attempted to be of service and answer the questions. Right after I muttered my few words in answering a particular question, they'd go off, like a stock car that was revving itself up for a few minutes. They went into their current relationship and how they could relate, but then went off onto the other end of the spectrum, which had absolutely no relevance to the original topic and then came around full circle to try and make sense of their rant. This happened a few times. I answered a questions and then....bam! Off they go! They even drew conclusions that weren't there, made false assumptions, and just went with it. I attempted to find that millisecond pause here and there, but was only rewarded once for my efforts.

It's getting to be difficult for me to pick up the phone anymore when I know this person is calling, because I know what the talk is going to consist of...a LOT of talking on their part, mucho listening on mine, my attempting to get a word in here and there but failing the majority of time, and at the end of the conversation, wondering where my money is for the session.

I thought my brother talked a lot. I thought some other friends of mine and friends of friends talked a lot. But, nobody can match this person. They're incomparable in the land of talking. English (American) is my native language. When I learned Spanish, I always felt that they were speaking a bit too rapidly for my ears. Well, I feel the same way regarding this friend of mine and he speaks English (American).

Just an observation...

For anyone who's read this blog in the past will know, I'm quite the Atlanta Falcons and a big supporter of Falcons' quarterback, Michael Vick.

As opposed to many critics out there, I have not harped on Vick's passer precision or passer rating or how he plays the quarterback position. But, I got to thinking about things and think I know the area where Vick can genuinely be criticized and that deals with his leadership.

This probably deals with the media, as well. In Vick's first couple seasons starting for the Falcons, the media was excited and he hardly received any criticism. There was no talk about back-up Matt Schaub taking his place. It was Michael Vick's team. There was some talk and worry that, due to Vick's playing style, he would be prone to getting injured, but other than that worry, the media didn't bash on him too often.

Life was good during his first two full years starting. He led the Falcons to a 9-6-1 record and a playoff win at Lambeau Field. He then led Atlanta to an 11-5 record, a first round bye, and a whooping of St. Louis. The 2005-2006 season started off very well for he and the Falcons, as they started the season 6-2. But, the defense was depleted by injuries in the second half of the year, en route to an 8-8 season.

The 2006-2007 season started off rather similarly to the previous one, as the Falcons started the year off 5-2 and Vick looked poised to break some records on the ground and some personal records through the air. During this season, I just think he lost focus of what was truly important. He was all smiles following a loss to Baltimore. Throughout the season, it felt that Vick was more focused on proving critics wrong than he was on leading the team to victory. I just didn't feel that passion for winning this past year as I had in the past. Vick set an all-time record for rushing yards by a quarterback in a single season, eclipsing the 1,000-yard mark. This came in a loss and even then, he seemed very content on the record. Veteran kicker Morten Andersen broke a record in that very same game and he responded very differently, as a veteran and as a leader.

Next season, if I was coach Bobby Petrino, I would cut the team off from the media. I know that sounds extreme, but they never found a consistent rhythm as a team last season and why? They didn't have a true success formula that they attempted to go by each and every week? Why? They attempted to just prove skeptics wrong on a weekly basis. If a group of reporters thought they couldn't pass the ball, Vick would come out and throw seven touchdown passes in wins over Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. If critics then claimed they weren't running the ball enough, they'd go back and pound the ball at the defense for four quarters. The media should never dictate to a team or coach how they should play football, but they did with this group of players a year ago. Vick is very sensitive about his play and the media made him larger than the team last year. It was never about defensive issues, offensive line problems, the running game being less effective in the second half of the season and in the red zone. It was almost always about Michael Vick and the comments weren't typically very kind. Whenever Atlanta's offense lined up against a defense, Carolina for example, Michael Vick and the team weren't out there trying to beat the Panthers; they were trying to prove skeptics wrong. Doing this, they lacked an identity last year. Who can we pin the blame on? A host of people. The coaches, the media, and the players.

Coach Petrino and the guys will have to stay focused on what the team identity is and stick to it. They can't waver week in and week out like they did a season ago.

There was a certain electricity and charisma Michael Vick displayed when he stepped onto the field in his first two and a half years starting. The fans would erupt. The media would be all smiles. The team itself would always believe that they could win the game. With all the criticism that's been directed toward Vick over the past year and a half and his high level of sensitivity, Vick has appeared to be more flustered than anything else.

What Petrino has to do is bring the team concept back and make sure that Vick truly shrugs off the critics and just plays football. He spoke up last year about how the negative talk didn't bother him, but there was no hiding that it irked him immensely.

Most of these critics are traditionalists in the game of football. Even if a quarterback is a legitimate dual-threat, they believe the QB and team would be better off if he were to develop into a pocket passer. Vick will never be that type of quarterback, so if he stays focused and doesn't allow the critics to bother him, the way he can truly shut them up is by winning a Super Bowl. Traditionalist or not, they'd have to give the guy and more importantly, the team, credit.

Richard Cheney being a Dick

That's right. Hard to imagine, isn't it? He seems like such an amicable character, always smiling, laughing, drinking, shooting friends, having a good ol' time.

Well, Richard has been touring across the world to spread the good word of the Iraq War, War on Terror, etc. and exclaimed while he was in Australia that the Democrats are basically aiding Al-Qaeda with their beliefs and strategies toward the war(s).

President Bush supposedly told new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, that if any of his cronies (yeah, I'm sure he used that word) stepped over the line with their linguistics, to let me know. Well, following Cheney's complimentary commentary in Australia, Pelosi called Bush to let him know she was offended, but Bush wasn't in his office. He was out...reading...or something and he has yet to call back. In fact, he said that he agrees with what the Vice President said.

It must be a lonely feeling in the White House these days. For the first six years, Bush and Cheney had the majority to back them on any and every decision made. They don't have that luxury anymore, so it's George and Dick vs. The World. They can make insulting statements toward the world, but cannot accept equally insulting language from the world. If the world wants to speak to them about an issue, they run and hide, but they're not reluctant on lecturing the world. With the way things have been transpiring since the Democrats took control of Congress, it's going to be a long final two years under the Bush reign, because even though he's spoken of compromising, the guy isn't going to budge much, it seems. This seems particularly true of the war(s).

Bob Kohn is an idiot...

Former right-wing columnist and author, Bob Kohn, appeared on Scarborough Country tonight with former House representative of the Republican party, Joe Scarborough. What was the topic? How Faux News' Bill O'Reilly seems to be obsessed with NBC. He ripped on the station last night, claiming that they have a clear left-wing agenda.

Even though Scarborough showed statistics which supported his belief that O'Reilly spends a bit too much time ripping on NBC, Kohn wouldn't have any of it. He referred to Countdown's host, Keith Olbermann, as a "liberal nutjob" and that there was no reason to have such a person hosting a 7:00 CST news show. Scarborough was a Republican representative. Tucker Carlson is a known conservative. Chris Matthews seems to lean that way overall. There is no mistaking Sean Hannity as an uber-conservative. Even though O'Reilly denies that he is a Republican, his altered status to "independent" doesn't fool me any. What, if Michael Moore changes his status to Republican tomorrow, are we going to buy that? I don't think so.

Kohn ignored the statistics and defended O'Reilly every step of the way, saying that there was nothing wrong with Bill-O's statements, since he was right. He also pointed out that Bill-O spoke to two guests following the statement, one conservative and one liberal. Although, it must be noted that Faux News idea of "balance" would be similar to the world's largest man getting into an ice skating rink. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes... It was called (at first) the Hannity and to be named show. That shows you how much stock they put in the "liberal" and in actual "balance."

This Bob Kohn kook this got Joe Scarborough laughing rather hysterically with a few of his asinine comments. Kohn started preaching about MSNBC's miniscule ratings in comparison to Faux News and Olbermann's ratings in comparison to the ever so superior Bill O'Lielly. He then claimed that MSNBC was attempting to preach to Faux News on how to run their station and their programs and how ironic it was since Faux has the better ratings. Scarborough turned the tables some and said it was truly ironic how, even though Kohn exclaimed that O'Lielly's show and Faux News, in general, has superior ratings to that of MSNBC, they chose to stock so much of their time by ripping on the "lesser" of the two news stations.

It's also ironic on how Kohn wrote a book on the "liberal-bias" in the media, when he's the one showing a strong, consistent amount of bias. "Liberal nutjob?" I'm not going to label Kohn as anything, but an idiot. Conservative, liberal, moderate, that doesn't enter the equation. He's just an idiot, plain and simple. Way to go, Joe, for standing your ground and allowing Kohn to make a complete fool of himself. It sounded as if you garnered a few good laughs while hosting the show. Believe me, I was laughing quite a bit, as well.

G.I. Britney

One has to love these pop stars who seemingly made the opposite sex drool and one point in their careers. Former N'Sync band member Lance Bass came out of the closet. While this was no surprise to me, it crushed the hearts of many teenage girls out there. It's now Britney Spears turn. She got married, had a child, and is now divorced. Many guys may have been taking their eyes off her during her annulment, but she's single again, so have back at her guys! Wait, what made them drool when looking at her in the first place? They may want to look again. How do I put it? George Costanza has more hair on his head now than Britney Spears. Britney Spears had her head shaved. She's trying to pull off the Snead O'Conner look for some reason. Good luck with that one Britney! If only she had looked like this when Michael Moore interviewed her for Fahrenheit 9/11. She received a Razzy for her performance, anyway, but this would've only added to the humor involved with her witless statements.

What happened to McCain?

Arizona Republican Senator and Presidential-hopeful, John McCain, used to be known as a maverick to many righties. Whenever the majority of Republicans sided either for or against a particular bill, it wasn't a rarity to see John McCain's name voting with the other side. Just a year ago, I blogged about how I wanted to see the Republican McCain and the Democrat Russ Feingold (senator of Wisconsin) to run for the '08 presidency. A lot has happened since that time and like many others, I have no idea who McCain is, what he stands for, and what his intentions are if he were to become president.

Because of his "maverick"-like image to many on the right, McCain obviously wanted to garner some steadier support from his conservative base. But, through that, he has lost support from the moderates on both sides, the Democrats, and Independents. Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani was up by over 20 percentage points in the last poll I viewed (over McCain). McCain has been insistent on the Iraq troop surge. In fact, he's really the one that got the ball rolling on that topic at all. Just recently, he called for the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. While McCain may think that this is aiding him with his conservative base, I think this change in attitude and ideal will only hurt the senator's chances in the '08 election. Because, now that we've seen a completely different John McCain than we're used to, how will the majority buy into his new act? How much will they buy? Even of his conservative base, who is going to believe the supposedly renewed and ultra-conservative John McCain? Sure, the other McCain's plan failed in his run up to the presidency, but he still had his supporters on both aisles of the political spectrum. Before this sudden transformation, he and Guiliani were neck and neck in most polls, with Guiliani up by only a couple to a few points. This "rebirth" for the Arizona senator has ultimately doomed any hopes or chances he has of becoming president in '09. Knowing that the public isn't buying his new act, he could attempt to transform into his old "maverick"-self, but then that would confuse the public even more. I don't know what happened, but as of right now, John McCain may want to think more about joining Rush Limbaugh on a radio show than about the presidency.

It's never fast enough, is it?

The speed limit on one of the four main streets in Omaha, Dodge, frequently chances. The max speed limit was 55 at one time. That was risen to 60 not too long ago. Before we knew it, there were speed limit signs reading 65. From west to east, the speed limit goes from 65 to 55 to 50 to 45, etc. When the max was 55, I'd go from 55-60, and yet, there'd be people zooming around me, going 60-70. When it was risen to 60, I'd go somewhere between 60-65, and there'd be racers going around me at 65-75. When it was recently risen to 65, I'll drive at about 65-70 and even now, people zoom past me at anywhere from 70-80.

People are always trying to expand the speed limit boundaries a little extra until the limits are actually raised, aren't they? When the speed limit is 40, 45 isn't enough. Let's go 50 and see if the limit is raised to 45. The only area where this doesn't seem to be the case (not to my knowledge, anyway) is in residential zones, where the speed limit is 25. Everywhere else though, that number posted on a sign at the side of the road isn't large enough to appease the masses. It's as if many are salespeople, just trying to garner a few extra bucks from their potential customer. How far can I/we take it before we get busted/rejected? I wonder how these people would react while driving on the Autobahn.

Haggard Gone Straight

That's right, after just three weeks of treatment at a holy clinic, Pastor Ted Haggard is now a 100% straight man. That's right! No more "massages" between he and a male prostitute he paid. No more drugs he bought to be thrown in the trash! Nope, Ol' Ted, after three weeks, does not find males sexually attractive in the same light that heterosexual males find women attractive.

Does anyone else find this hard, I'm sorry, impossible to believe? We're supposed to believe a homosexual pastor overcame his sexual attraction toward males in three weeks? What was the secret potion, scripture, drug, electric shock therapy? Did the clinic pull a Clockwork Orange by strapping Haggard to a movie theater seat and keeping his eyes open as the Village People's music played to the scenes of war, murder, rape, and other acts of violence? Did a bottle of everclear do it? A short 2-minute prayer? Oh Teddy. Where are the oddsmakers for this one? When Haggard will again get caught with a male prostitute "masseuse"... I'm betting within a year. But, no, I won't put any money down on it.

Entrapment on Television

Before I go into this, let it be known for the record that I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. But, after first hearing about it, then watching it, something didn't feel right to me about NBC's Primetime "To Catch a Predator." I've done further research and am now thoroughly convinced that my intuitions were correct.

What the premise is of the show is to supposedly catch pedophiles in the act of engaging in sexual conversations with minors and then arresting them when the "pedophile" shows up at the minor's door. What's wrong with this? Several things.

First off, let me give you some background information on what NBC's show doesn't tell its viewers. Are true police officers and detectives involved in these "investigations"? No. It centers on a group know by the name of Perverted-Justice. The people at this group have several staffers and "baiters" which they use in chat rooms to lure people to converse with them.

Alright, now, the problems. First off, like I said, these are not true law enforcement officials, detectives, or investigators. Secondly, the majority of their staff are above legal age (in terms of sexual laws regarding age of consent). Thirdly, the staffers or "baiters" are known to initiate the sexual chatter with the "pedophile." Fourthly, even if the person has no record of pedophilia and in no way, came onto the "minor" online, Perverted-Justice has been known to illegally harass its "victims" through threatening e-mails, phone calls, faxes, fliers, has gotten people fired, and one individual even committed suicide. Fifthly, how can one be guilty until proven innocent. Lastly, what does one think that the coverage will truly do to actual predators and victims out there?

This hasn't just occurred in regard to online "predators." I've heard of shows where paranoid wives will set-up their husbands (or vice versa) to see if they're unfaithful. Many people's reaction is, "Well, it just shows he/she would've done it anyway." How? Says who? According to who? This is a little too Minority Report for my liking. If a wife is paranoid that her husband is cheating on her and attempts to prove this faithfulness by paying a gorgeous woman to hit on him, touch him, whisper nasty things into his ear while he's drinking alcoholic beverages at a bar, I'm sorry lady, but you're asking for trouble right there. The man may have been 100% faithful up until that point, but how will a set-up like that truly show that he has or has not cheated up until then? If someone wants to see if I'm a robber, so they put a $100,000 check made out to no one in my mailbox, if I took the money, would that truly make me a robber? If I asked around first and then took the money, would I be constituted as a robber then? I'm sorry, but if a person is set-up, entrapped, that only proves that they may have fallen through had it been a real scenario. If you put a $1 bill in front of a person, that won't catch their attention much. But, if the $1 bills pile onto one another in the hundreds and thousands, then it'll be more difficult for a person to turn away.

"To Catch a Predator" is different though, because a true law is being broken. Alright, yes, in a way. But, let's go back to the six issues I had with this.

1) Not handled by legal officials- Just as I wouldn't want to be pulled over and given a speeding ticket by a carpenter pretending to be a police officer, I don't think it's in the public's best interests to have this group of people in charge of outing supposed "pedophiles."

2) Most of the people who engage in these sexual conversations are in their 20s and 30s. Some may still say, well, they thought that they were younger. This may be true and may not be true. There have been some minors who've been known to elicit themselves in sexual talk with these "pedophiles." Again, how healthy is that, to use 14-15-16 year olds and expose them to these sexually-heated conversations? Some who were arrested have stated that the person online claimed they were older than they actually were. So, what gives? There is some inconsistency in the storytelling here.

3) The staffers/baiters are known to initiate the sexual chatter. This is one of the most important points, in my opinion. How can we legitimately prove that the "pedophile" would've brought up such talk if the "minor" had not started it in the first place? It's virtually impossible to prove that.

4) Perverted-Justice has been known to scrounge up all information possible on these "pedophiles" and drag them down as far as they possibly can to make their life hell. They've been known to bring family, work, friends, children, school into this.

5) I'm sorry, but until someone has truly committed a crime, how can they be convicted? If a 30-year old woman posing as a 15-year old girl initiates sexual chatter with a 35-year old man online and he follows along with the topic that she brought up in the first place, how can he truly be convicted? How can he be convicted of speaking sexually to a 30-year old woman, whom came on to him as part of a set-up?

6) What is NBC truly attempting to do here? Save the world? No. All they want to do is garner good ratings. Do you truly think that the reincarnates of Mother Theresa and Gandhi are working at NBC? I don't think so. Plus, now that true predators know about this program, there's loads of information at Perverted-Justice regarding what they'll do to garner information and where they'll go to find/spread it, don't they (predators) have a bit more information at their disposal than we'd like to slip themselves around such programs and problems? The last thing I want to tell a group of terrorists is where they can find my group of soldiers who will try to capture them. No, that's not a wise idea.

The Arizona Supreme Court even ruled out any evidence that Perverted-Justice put forth, because of the fact that the "pedophiles" did not actually talk to minors. Because of this, the Justices said that no Perverted-Justice evidence would be allowed in their court of law.

Childhood is one of the most important (if not the most important) period in one's life. Everything that can be done (legally) by law enforcement to punish those truly guilty of such crimes as pedophilia, along with other types of abuse, should be enforced. But, again, this should be left to those legally responsible for taking care of such individuals and cases. Even though I strongly agree that pedophiles should be punished, imprisoned, and kept as far away from their demented "interests" as possible, I also believe that all should be innocent until proven guilty and that entrapment is not a genuine enough manner to assert one's true guilt. There are many more efficient and legal manners which law enforcement, detectives, and investigators can punish true online predators. Even though NBC may be attempt to convince the public that their true intention is to nab these "online predators" before they harm their "prey," their true motivation is their rating. If the show did not do too well, I can guarantee NBC would not care what potential "good" they may be doing through the show. They'd ditch it. When weighing the ends of morality and potential consequence, the negatives far outweigh the positives in the long run. The over-abundance of surveillance, the notion that one is guilty until proven innocent, and the punishing one of a crime before they commit one is a very dangerous territory for a country to get into. As is true with everything, technology can be utilized for good or bad purposes. Unfortunately, we're feeling that balance with the negativity some have in their obsession with power and control. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that trend end anytime in the near future.

Christians are the only victims in America... Give me a break!

I received a lovely forward e-mail from a relative of mine yesterday. It's entitled, "New School Prayer" and relays to us how Christianity is truly victimized in this country.

It compares Christians losing rights to people having pre-marital sex, dying their hair different colors, piercing themselves, studying witchcraft, swearing, birth control, and dressing out of the realm which is considered normality.

When one is in grade, middle, and high school, if it's not a holiday and someone dyes their hair green and keeps it that way for an extended period of time, there will be some talk behind his or her back. During those years, when someone has a few visible piercings, again, there will be some staring and some talking behind their back. If someone prays loudly in the hallway in between periods, again, there will be some staring going on, some laughing, and chattering. For those that do not "fit in" to the social norm during those years of their lives, they're going to hear about it from some others. Is that right? No. But, it's common and whether one wants to acknowledge the facts or not, it's going to happen.

Everything will offend someone in the world. Dyed hair, piercings, tattoos, praying in the hallway, clothing styles, certain music, art, or film, language, jokes. Just pick a random noun or a verb in the dictionary, and chances are, someone in the world is offended by it in one manner or another.

So, why is it so that Christians are the true victims in this country? Why? I'd like to know. Christianity is the most practiced religion in this country. It is very much in the majority. Just because there are other religions practiced does not deny that fact. What? No organized prayer in school? What are public schools there for? To teach religion? To focus on Christianity? No. If you want your kids to be in that type of environment, take them to church and send them to a Christian school. Regardless, people can still silently pray at public schools. What, are the public school gods going to strike a person with a bolt of lightning every time he or she bows their head before a test and silently mumbles to themself? I don't think so. What, taking "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? It wasn't there in the first place. It was placed there during the Cold War to combat Russia's philosophy, to differentiate ourselves from their communistic culture. That's all it was placed there for. There's no reading scriptures in class? Again, if you want your children in that kind of atmosphere, take them to church and send them to a Christian school. It's not the public school system's job to shove Christianity down each child's throats. That's not what the majority of parents are sending them there for. If they wanted that, then again, they'd send them to a different type of school.

I hate to get under this person's skin (not literally- ew), but this is America and from what I know, we were founded upon our liberties, which includes freedom of religion. People can practice Voodoo, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. That's their right. That's their freedom. That's one major reason many people come to this country in the first place. Just because Christianity is the most practiced does not make it right to shove it down every child's throat in the public schools. Anglo-Americans are the majority here, as well. That does not make it right for professors to only teach about the White Man. Schools are for educating and attempting to broaden children's minds to the fullest of their potential. That can only be done through the teaching of a diverse array of subjects and topics within those subjects. No child's mind will be able to reach its capacity if they're only taught about one ethnicity, one religion, one theory, one fact, one claim, one formula, one recipe, one stretch, one lift, one sport, one song, one film, one poem, one book, etc.

There are schools out there that focus more on Christianity than the public ones do. They will involve the students in prayer, in the reading of scriptures, etc. Of course, churches involve that and thensome. These types of activities can also take place at home. Christianity is not THE victim in this country, but it is not the sole proprietor either. Just as many of these people can't understand why Anglos- aren't the only ethnic group here, why there are any bi- or homosexuals walking the streets, they can't seem to understand why other religions are practiced here as well. To them, the freedom of religion is just that, the freedom to practice THEIR religion and the freedom of speech is the freedom to practice what THEY think and believe. They're free to believe in Christianity. They're free to bow their head while in an airplane and have a quiet conversation with God. They're free to bring a Bible to a car shop and read it while the mechanic works on their automobile. They just have to realize that others have this right too, with their respective religion and beliefs.

Tim Hardaway's Comments

Former basketball star, Tim Hardaway, made some rather hateful and derogatory remarks toward gays in an interview yesterday. He admitted to being a homophobic, said that he could never play basketball alongside a gay player, would demand that either he or the gay teammate be traded, and basically said that there's no room in the universe for a homosexual.

I have some words for Tim Hardaway and others like him. Whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, gays do live in this world and I can all but guarantee that a friend, family member, or co-worker (teammate in Hardaway's case) of theirs is gay.

When I read and heard about these comments, I was shocked. I could not believe that a person in the public eye would just rant about how much they hated gays like that. I don't condone such remarks against anyone. But it especially befuddles me when one minority discriminates another. It made no sense to me why Michael Richards would use despicable language to describe African-American hecklers at his show. It makes no sense why an African-American like Tim Hardaway would rant about how much he hates homosexuals. It'd make more sense to me that minorities would be sympathetic and empathetic toward one another, from knowing first hand what it was like to be ridiculed over innate traits.

Whether one agrees with homosexuality or not, whether one believes it's sinful or not does not make it alright to hate an entire group of people with such an ignorant passion. Former basketball player John Amaechi was not the first gay NBA basketball player and will not be the last. Homosexuality is not a late fad or trend sweeping the nation. It's been around since man has existed and will continue to make a presence so long as we're alive and well. I just hope that studies will continue to support the notion that homosexuality is very much in-born, and that people believe the consistent results in these studies over their own ignorance, like Tim Hardaway's.

What's with Jim Carrey's new role?

I've read and heard this question posed by many in relation to his upcoming role in the film "Number 23," a psychological thriller which will begin showing in the next couple weeks.

What, Carrey is just allowed to perform in silly comedies, such as: "Dumb and Dumber," "The Mask," "The Cable Guy," and "Ace Ventura"? Have these people followed Carrey's career at all?

"Man on the Moon," "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," "Lemony Snickets," "The Truman Show," "Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind," amongst other films aren't of the silly comedy variety. Carrey's most acclaimed performance may have been in the romantic drama, "Eternal Sunshine..." I heard a while back that Carrey was going to focus more on serious roles than he had been previously, on expanding his acting scope. Robin Williams has been famous for doing this. Why can't Jim Carrey give it a whirl? Jamie Foxx has also been successful with this level of expansion.

Personally, I've been more impressed with Carrey in his non-silly comedic roles than in his famous comic characters. Who knows if Carrey will be able to pull off the serious roles as well as the before-mentioned Foxx and Williams, but he got off to an excellent start with "Eternal Sunshine...". Some people need to lay off and let the guy feel his way around in different roles and genres.

Cupid Died...

Yesterday was Valentine's Day, or as I like to call it, Capitalism's Fall Back and Convenience Fest. It's almost obligatory (many believe) to buy candy, chocolates, and flowers on this day. Then it's show-and-tell time. Ooh, he got you what? You're so lucky!

There are lovely commercials displayed before the holiday, attempting to guilt people into spending more money than they should. I'm getting a little sick of hearing the Kay commercials. They must have a demented way of spelling where they come from, because if what they say is true, loved ones would be giving one another hugs and kayisses. To my knowledge, I don't go around kayissing the person/people I love. It'd get to be a bit of a tongue twister if a couple talked about kissing on a kayak. Kayiss me on the kayak. It'd get really bad if a guy said that to a gal by the name of Kayla. Kayla, kayiss me on the kayak.

One has to love this day. I overheard my father telling a story about where he works. They had a room full of flowers for ladies to pick-up throughout the day. I guess some even called flowers in for themselves, so they didn't feel left out. Oh, come on. Is it worth it? Spending that money, so one doesn't look like a misfit, even though, deep down, they know they bought the flowers for themselves? What is with this holiday? It seems to do more harm than good, doesn't it? Oh, wait, nevermind, it makes the capitalist gods content. Overcommercialized, guilt ridden, capitalist holidays have to make one smile, or cringe, depending on who you are. I used to cringe. Now, I just laugh. It's more fun, trust me.

The Chargers Being the...well...Chargers...

Have back-to-back solid seasons at quarterback and what do the Chargers do? Let go of you. Just ask Saints' starting quarterback Drew Brees, who would've won MVP this season had it not been for LaDanian Tomlinson. Need help in the secondary and what do the Chargers do? Draft a Florida State corner in the first round, a guy who had been injured the entire season coming into the draft. Go a league best 14-2 and what do the Chargers do? Fire their head coach, Marty Schottenheimer.

Yeah, so Marty and the General Manager didn't get along too well. I don't care. What's the goal of the team? To win. Winning = more fan turnout, more merchandise sold, and therefore, more money. San Diego went 14-2 last season. Sure, they lost in the second round of the playoffs, but let's not forget, it was Philip Rivers' first year as a starting quarterback. Did the non-biased expert and analyst (even the biased fan) truly expect Rivers to lead San Diego to a Super Bowl victory in his first year as a starter? Not likely.

This is one of the most ridiculous moves I've seen in sports in recent memory. If Joe Torre had been fired by the New York Yankees, it'd rank near that level of ridiculousness, but not quite. Torre wasn't fired though, so this move exceeds the other (for now).

The General Manager claims that the move dealt with losing offensive coordinator Cam Cameron and defensive coordinator Wade Phillips to head coaching positions. What, that's Marty's fault? It's his job to shade off potentially better offers for his coordinators? This GM was obviously looking for any excuse possible to let go of Schottenheimer. Who does he think he'll get in the head coaching market that is more proven and better than Marty? There's talk of Pete Carroll. I have all the respect in the world for Carroll as a college head coach, but the guy has not proven himself at the NFL level. If I was him, I would not want to leave USC for a NFL club whose GM just let go of a coach who led the team to a 14-2 record and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Carroll just pulled in the top recruiting class in the country and has an excellent shot of leading his team to another National Title next year following a disappointing season, in which they pounded Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

I tell you what, being a Falcons' fan, I now wish Atlanta would've waited some in order to sign a coach, because Marty Schottenheimer has been successful wherever he's gone and would have been an excellent fit for the Falcons. Heck, he'd be an excellent fit anywhere. I hope Marty lands himself a good job and all I can say for the GM of the Chargers. Good luck, buddy!

Dumb Political Statements

I've heard quite a few over the past week+. I've already mentioned what Delaware Democratic Senator Joe Biden stated about Barack Obama. Biden may want to call it quits, because unless a miracle (at least three of them) occurs between now and the primaries, he's got no chance.

I also heard W. mess up an old saying (imagine that!). Instead of saying that Vice President Dick Cheney was a glasses half full kind of guy (as opposed to glasses half empty), Bush claimed Cheney was a half glass full kind of guy. What a "half" glass is, I'm not sure yet, perhaps a shot glass.

Rush Limbaugh stated on his radio program that those who aren't for the Iraq War are with Al-Qaeda (the terrorists). Recent polls indicate that 72% of the U.S. disagrees with how Bush is handing and directing the war, so, according to Limbaugh, almost three-fourths of the country are with the terrorists.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews (host of Hardball) stated the other day that America "wants a little bit of fascism." America wants a little bit of "a dictatorship from the extreme right," eh?

Hillary Clinton refuses to admit she made a mistake in voting for the Iraq War back in 2002. She seems to come up with a different excuse each and every time. I don't care one way or the other how she truly feels about it, but stop moseying around the issue, and make your true thoughts and feelings known.

Finally, the Australian PM just mentioned following Barack Obama's announcement of running for the '08 election, that the terrorists are rooting for Obama to win, since Barack supports a troop withdrawal.

First off, Biden has a history of opening his mouth when he shouldn't and may want to pull out now before he damages his rep any more.

Secondly, George should be a talk show host when his presidency is over. I'm not a fan of the guy, politically speaking, but I may even watch/listen to the show, for the pure entertainment value of it!

I know times are tough for Rush Limbaugh. His beloved Republicans lost control of the House and Senate. Bush's approval ratings are consistently around 30%. About 60-70% of the country is against the war currently. I'd say a good 75% wants a different strategy than what Bush has proposed. So, yeah, why not pull out an informal fallacy? Limbaugh is famous for those.

Next, if Chris Matthews wants a little bit of fascism, perhaps he better move to a land where dictators regularly make their presence felt.

With the likes of John Edwards and Barack Obama making it known that they'll be running for the '08 election, Hillary better not take representation of the Democratic party for granted and may want to make it known that she's honest and consistent when she speaks to the public.

Finally, it sounds like the Australian PM and the Bush Administration are close allies. It was the strategy of many in the Republican think tanks back in '04, claiming that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would vote for John Kerry if they had the chance. That strategy has waned as time has progressed. It was ineffective in the '06 elections. Even though many Republicans claimed that a Democratic-controlled Congress would be a win for the terrorists, the Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate. Because of the results there, I can't see this strategy being very effective anymore.

In just over a week, we've run into quite a number of idiotic political statements. This has to make late night talk show hosts happy.

The Girl Without A Clue

I wrote a longer version of this last night, but don't have access to that at the current moment, so I will copy and paste the shorter version I sent to a friend of mine the other day. Hopefully, I'll get the opportunity to get to the longer version later in the day. Here it is:

My folks and I met up at the restaurant earlier today. Whew. To say that our waitress wasn't with it and seemed to fit in with the stereotypical cheerleader, would be quite the understatement. She came up to our table and asked if we had ever been there before.

My dad said, "Yeah, 73 times."

She looked confused and said, "No, really? 73 times?"

My mom then butted in and said, "No, you can't take anything he says seriously."

The gal (her name was/is Ruth) said, "Oh really. Okay," with a serious look on her face.

All right, since the menus had been different than what we remembered them, she went through the menu and noted on the Buffalo wings, that they had barbecue, mild, and spicy, but no teriyaki yet, which she thought was lame. She asked if we wanted anything as a starter.

My dad responded with, "Yeah, we'll get the teriyaki buffalo wings."

I watched her as he was saying that and she looked right at her pad of paper, wrote, and didn't hesitate once when he said that.

My dad had to say, "You don't have teriyaki buffalo wings." lol At this point, she looked pissed.

Later, when my folks got their salads, she asked if they wanted pepper. After she got done with them, I asked for some pepper. Please let it be noted that my plate was bare. I didn't get a salad. I was salad-less. My plate was naked. She was about to lean over and give me pepper, until I butted in and said, "I'm just kidding."

Oh, and I didn't even mention we got there at 6 and she asked if it was before 7, because Happy Hour ended at 7. She said at 6, "Well, I guess there are a couple minutes left in Happy Hour." Whew... She was special...

Ever love and dislike a person simultaneously?

A family member? A longtime friend? Ever felt this way? This odd ambivalent emotion has dawned on me recently and its presence is more strongly felt by the day.

There's nothing I can do about it at this given point in time. I'm stuck with being surrounded by this person's thoughts, feelings, words, and behaviors on a consistent basis. If I open my mouth and let it be known how I feel, all hell will break loose.

I just cannot stand to talk to or even be around this person for an extended period of time. There needs to be a pain reliever nearby when I'm around this individual, because there is an 80% chance that I will develop a pounding headache.

At the same time, if this person was caught in a train track, I'd push them out of the way to save their life. Yet, as my soul was being transferred elsewhere, I'd probably look down, wondering why in the world I did that.

This person is just all about him/herself. It's always "me, me, me" and it's never enough. If they won a $5 million lottery, they'd complain about it not being $6 million. If they won a prize for a free trip to the Caribbean, they'd complain that it wasn't to Hawaii. Yet, when he/she's not complaining, venting, whining, or ranting about something going on in his/her life, they're going on and on like an Energizer Bunny about how great, wonderful, and perfect they are.

"So and so said I'm great."

"They said I've got real talent."

"He said that I'm the best he's ever witnessed."

"She said I was hot."

That's all it is. There is never any back and forth conversation. Never does he/she show candor when asking friends or family about their lives, if he/she even asks at all.

Even if I try to go out of my way to have a decent discussion with the kid, he/she doesn't allow it to happen. If I make any statement, they have to argue about it, even if it's a fact. If I were to say that the capital of North Dakota is Bismarck, they'd argue about it, until I would finally just shrug my shoulders, roll my eyes, and say, "Whatever you say." But, if (s)he says anything, then it's to go unattested. They could pull false numbers right out of their backside and since they're the "genius" that they are, no one is to question them. Heck, (s)he told me about a "study" one time where (s)he claimed 70% (somewhere around there) of the crime in this country is committed by African-Americans, another 60% (somewhere in there) is committed by Latino-Americans, and 10% is committed by Anglo-Americans. Let's see here...70 + 60 + 10 = 140%. Now, I've heard the cliched coach's expression of giving 110%, but an empirical study, which calculates an additional 40% to the population? I don't think so. Where'd (s)he find those numbers, some White Pride's version of the National Enquirer magazine? Give me a break. Yet, no one's to question him/her, because he/she is basically the second coming of Christ in their eyes.

His/her values are at an opposite end of the spectrum to mine. Family and friends come first to me and last to them. My goal in life is to positively influence others. Theirs is to convince everyone in the world that they're the brightest, sexiest, best person ever to walk the green earth. I just don't know how much longer I can tolerate the selfishness, ego-centrism, and arrogant ignorance.

I do apologize for being so vague when it comes to this person's identity. I'm not sure if he/she reads this blog, but can't imagine they do (take time out for someone else? Ha!). Like I said before, I just don't want to create drama and I know that'll happen if this is outed in any way. I just hope I don't burst sometime down the line. There are few people in this world who know how to push my buttons to a point of making me angry, and this is one of those few people. I just hope and pray that I catch a break in the next year, so that I can move far away from this and so that I may not be consistently stuck hearing/watching this person's thoughts, feelings, words, and actions.

Super Bowl Pick and Result

Chicago vs. Indianapolis: Regardless of how they've done it, the Colts have just been finding ways to win this post-season. Their defense stepped it up a notch against both Kansas City and Baltimore, before their offense came alive in the second half in a come-from-behind win over New England. After last season's distraction of Tony Dungy's son death came around to keep the team from being as focused as they had been earlier in the season en route to a post-season loss, I just don't see any distractions keeping this team from winning it today. This is a much better match-up than if the Pats had won against Indy, because Belichick would tear Bears' quarterback Rex Grossman to bits. Rex has a better opportunity to showcase his skills, without getting torn apart in the backfield, against this Colts' defense. Even then, I look for Indy to find a way, whether it be on offense, defense, or a late field goal by the one and the only, Adam Vinatieri, to win the game. With it, all the talk about Peyton not winning THE one can and will finally be put to rest.
Indianapolis 27 Chicago 24
Indianapolis 29 Chicago 17 (1-0)

Super Bowl Weekend Record: 1-0 (1.000)
Overall and Final Record: 154-111 (.581)

Good News for Falcons' Fans!

Well, we have yet to see what Bobby Petrino and the rest of the coaching staff can do during a game, but I'm already liking a couple of the decisions made by Petrino. First off, the whole zone-blocking scheme that I've been complaining about? Fuh-get about it! It'll be no more. Petrino said this week that, while it'd be difficult to carry out a major transformation on the line, he will ask them to beef up and add a few pounds. On top of that, owner Arthur Blank has mentioned the idea of signing a couple big free agents in the off-season, free-agents, as in an offensive guard and tackle. So, that's great news, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, Atlanta's led the league in rushing the past three years, but they've also been near the bottom in passing. Yeah, people can solely blame Vick all they want to, but if they're regular viewers of the Falcons, they'll know that he typically doesn't get much time in the pocket when he drops back to throw. Yeah, the smaller, quicker linemen can be beneficial in the zone-blocking scheme between the twenties, but that size can very well work against them in the pass-blocking game, as well as the short-yardage and goalline-running game. So, this is great news. I was ecstatic when I read this!

Secondly, Petrino is going to do something that Mora and his coaching staff never did, allow Michael Vick to call audibles. That was stupid of Mora and the coaching staff, as far as I'm concerned. Any quarterback will know when they face death right in the eye on a certain play call when they see a particular defense. But, he still has to go with the play the coaches called? Eh. This will get Vick more involved in all phases of the game and will prevent there from being "wasted" plays, as I call them.

We never know what it may translate to on gameday, but thus far, I like what I'm hearing from Atlanta's new coaching staff. We still have solid running backs, in Warrick Dunn, Jerious Norwood, Justin Griffith, and Michael Vick. The zone-blocking scheme won't help or hurt them any. Vick will be given more time to throw. Receivers will be given more time to get open. The tailbacks will be given more of a push forward on short-yardage or goalline situations. Those are all good, very, very good! And now, the quarterback, can truly be referred to as the leader and captain on the field. Before, he was just a follower, like everybody else. Now, he can truly lead the team, like he should.

It's quite the bummer that today is the final football game of the regular/post-season. There is always the Pro Bowl, I guess. When's the draft again? ::sighs::

Is Biden Still Going To Run? Seriously?

Delaware Democratic Senator, Joe Biden, just recently announced that he's going to run for president in the '08 election. Then, that very same day, he made some bonehead comments. He was heavily critical of Hillary's potential war plans, was uncertain that John Edwards had any idea of what he was doing, and then the most bonehead of them all came at the expense of Barrack Obama. Biden stated that Obama is the first African-American running for president who is clean, articulate, good-looking, etc. Yeah, not smart. He had to make some apologies thereafter. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann even joked on his show by saying something along the lines of, "So, Biden announced today that he's running for president in '08. Will he announce tomorrow that he's no longer doing that?" Seriously, I don't think Biden had much of a chance anyway. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and even Gore are better liked than him. Then after making the statement(s) he made this past week? Good luck, buddy. You know, he and Bush should just get into a televised debate. That'd be one comedy I may have to sit down for!

Super Bowl Prediction

Chicago vs. Indianapolis: Regardless of how they've done it, the Colts have just been finding ways to win this post-season. Their defense stepped it up a notch against both Kansas City and Baltimore, before their offense came alive in the second half in a come-from-behind win over New England. After last season's distraction of Tony Dungy's son death came around to keep the team from being as focused as they had been earlier in the season en route to a post-season loss, I just don't see any distractions keeping this team from winning it today. This is a much better match-up than if the Pats had won against Indy, because Belichick would tear Bears' quarterback Rex Grossman to bits. Rex has a better opportunity to showcase his skills, without getting torn apart in the backfield, against this Colts' defense. Even then, I look for Indy to find a way, whether it be on offense, defense, or a late field goal by the one and the only, Adam Vinatieri, to win the game. With it, all the talk about Peyton not winning THE one can and will finally be put to rest.

Indianapolis 27 Chicago 24

Super Bowl Weekend Record:
Overall and Final Record: