Falcons' Draft

The NFL draft took place on Saturday and Sunday this past weekend. The Atlanta Falcons, coming off a dreadful second half of the season and a disappinting 7-9 year overall, had a lot of holes to fill, especially with a new coaching staff taking over in Atlanta whom has a completely different philosophy than the previous one.

It's been a busy off-season already for the Falcons. They let go of middle linebacker Ed Hartwell. Defensive end Patrick Kerney signed with Seattle. Fullback Justin Griffith signed elsewhere. Guard Matt Lehr was let go. Back-up quarterback Matt Schaub was traded to Houston for some draft picks. They then signed former Baltimore fullback Ovie Mughelli, ex New Orleans receiver Joe Horn, guard Tonui Fonoti, and back-up quarterback Joey Harrington.

With new head coach Bobby Petrino's new philosophy of doing away with the smaller offensive line and the zone-blocking scheme, the Falcons were in desperate need of some size on the line in the draft. Cornerback Jason Webster and free safey Chris Crocker have been anything but effective at their positions, so Atlanta needed some help at safety, in particular. They seemed pretty set at linebacker with veteran Keith Brooking in the middle and the quick and talented Michael Boley and DeMorrio Williams on the outside. John Abraham and Rod Coleman are set at DE and DT along the line. But, it's uncertain on Grady Jackson's future at the other tackle spot and with the loss of Kerney, the Falcons needed some help at the end position. Receiver is always a need position for the Falcons. Depth at tight end and fullback wouldn't hurt and Atlanta is in need of a kicker.

Well, the Falcons addressed many key needs in the draft. With their first selection, they drafted Jamaal Anderson, defensive end out of Arkansas. With he and Chauncey Davis, the Falcons have some young, solid players for the future at the DE spot. With their two second round selections, they drafted Justin Blalock, guard out of Texas and Chris Houston, a cornerback out of Arkansas. They also drafted Stephen Nicholas, a linebacker out of South Florida, Lauverant Robinson, a receiver out of Western Illinois, Martrez Milner, a tight end out of Georgia, along with another corner, a safety, a center, a defensive tackle, and a fullback.

Overall, I was pretty satisfied with Petrino and his crew's first draft. They drafted six defensive and five offensive players. Milner should provide some depth behind Crumpler at the tight end position, as Crumpler was the only Falcon tight end that was any threat with the football. The Virginia fullback, Snelling, will add some depth behind the recently acquired Mughelli. Robinson will add some depth and hopefully push some of the underachieving receivers to new heights. Blalock and Daisel will add some much needed size to the line and Blalock should be able to start in his first season. The most interesting selection, I thought, was Chris Houston. With the Falcons drafting a corner in that spot and not a safety, it seems pretty obvious to me that Petrino and company are going to move Jimmy Williams over to free safety. This will provide a very quick, athletic, and dangerous secondary for the Falcons, with DeAngelo Hall and Chris Houston at the corners and Laywer Milloy and Jimmy Williams at safety. The biggest disappointment was the Falcons neglecting to select Mason Crosby in the 5th round to take over their kicking duties. It was made painfully clear that Michael Koenen could not take on all three kicking responsibilities last year, so he should stick with kickoffs and punting. Morten Andersen, the Falcons' kicker last year, is a free agent, so at this point, I have no idea who will be kicking for the Falcons this upcoming season. Crosby had the strongest college leg that I've ever seen. The guy consistently made 50-59 yard field goals, either at home in Colorado (with the altitude) or away from Boulder.

Offensively, I like how the Falcons are set up. The biggest concern I have is on the line. While the Falcons addressed some concerns by signing guard Fonoti and drafting guard Blalock and center Daisel, but with a completely different philosophy up front, I'm pessimistic on how well the veterans and rookies can come together this season. I'm also curious on how much the Falcon linemen from last year bulked up into the type of linemen Petrino wants.

Defensively, I see a lot of quick and young talent, but a lot is going to depend on injuries, maturation, and cohesiveness. Abraham, Coleman, Brooking, Hall, and Milloy are all veterans. Jamaal Anderson or Chauncey Davis could start at the end opposite Abraham. Justin Babineux could start next to Coleman. Boley and Williams (when he's healthy again) will start at outside linebacker. Second-year player, Jimmy Williams, may move to free safety and rookie Chris Houston could start at corner. They're quick and talented all over, but extremely young, which will many times, result in errors and through those, big plays. The defense will be exciting at times and college-like at others, it seems.

I'm uncertain on their special teams. Allen Rossum has been hampered by injuries off and on the past couple seasons and it remains a mystery on if that will continue throughout this season. Koenen wasn't as consistent or solid a punter last year as he was his rookie season. I'm curious on if he will regain his rookie-season form. The position I'm most concerned about is place kicker. From what I know, I have as much a chance to kick for the Falcons as the next guy and trust me, that's not a good thing.

Overall, I'd give the Falcons a B+ grade in the draft. Hopefully, Arthur Blank, Rich McKay and company make a few more off-season moves to help mature the lines and hopefully, coach Petrino and his crew can help mature the young defense quicker than anticipated.

The Braves blow another one...

For the second time in a week, Atlanta Braves' closer Bob Wickman blew a save opportunity Sunday. The Braves led Florida 3-0 in the bottom of the 9th inning a few days ago. Starter Tim Hudson dominated through eight innings, but fell on some rough times in the 9th, as he loaded the bases with nobody out, when Wickman was called in to pitch. All three of Hudson's runners came around to score and Wickman allowed another, the game winner, to complete the dynamic duo of a blown save and a loss. He struggled in Friday night's game against Colorado, almost blowing a save, before Colyer and Moylan came in to bail out the closer. Then, on Sunday, Atlanta led the Rockies 7-5 going to the bottom of the ninth inning. Wickman walked the bases loaded and gave up two runs, before Bobby Cox yanked him in favor of Tyler Yates. Atlanta wound up losing 9-7 in extra innings.

For his career and especially during his short tenure in Atlanta, Wickman has been a very steady and reliable closer. One thing that separated Wickman from Atlanta's previous closers last year was the fact he threw strikes. Rarely, did he walk anybody. Right now, the guy is having problems throwing strikes. A stat read across the screen in yesterday's game that Wickman had walked 4 of the last 8 betters he faced. I'd like to believe it's just a short slump for the closer, but am slightly worried that it's injury-related. The only positive, if that was to occur, would be the fact that Atlanta has other relievers with closing experience, such as Mike Gonzales.

I don't know what the ordeal is, but the Braves lost two games this past week that they had through eight innings and blew. While the season is still in the early stages, the early games matter just as much as the late ones and whenever the Bravos blow these games, it makes me wonder if any/all of them will cost them in the end. I hope Wickman gets back on track, but if he doesn't and I was Bobby Cox, I wouldn't hesitate to switch he and Gonzales in their roles. We shall wait and see.

Ah, yes, aren't we all so perfect?

I just read a column by one Jamele (something like that) Hill at ESPN.com about how she's fed up with Michael Vick. I wrote a bit yesterday regarding the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and how I was sick and tired of hearing his name in the news, but that the public and the press should not assume people to be guilty until proven innocent. The press get warm and fuzzy from having a story to tell and what information to they relay to the public? Speculation, direct and indirect connections, hypothetical clamor, etc. These "news"bits are anything but physical geography lectures regarding pressure points.

She stated that there are no excuses regarding people that Vick has or had associated with, that the people we have or had associated ourselves with shows what kind of person we are, they're a direct reflection of us. You know, I think she has a point. I think...for the most part...the people we associate ourselves with are a reflection of us, a part of us. How many "friends" do we just go to for one thing or another, talk about one topic with, etc.? There are some friends I may regularly party or hit the bars with, but don't do much else with. There are others I just talk sports with. There are others I may play the role of counselor for. If I look at each and every one of them individually, absolutely none of them are a direct reflection of me. If I group them all together and combine one piece of their personality together, then one could say that combination is a direct reflection of me. I think this is even less accurate when it comes to long-time childhood friends from back home. These are people we've associated ourselves with for the majority of our lives, since we were 4, 5, 6 years old. They're like family, people we've known almost all of our life. Some of their lives may go awry. They may make poor decisions that we don't agree with. There may come a time when we reflect on who they were 10 years ago, what they are today, and how they're not quite the person they were. But, I find that many times, we still make time for them, whether that's once a week, once a month, or once a year, they're never completely out of our lives. ...and family, it's not like we have any choice of which family we're born into. ...and unlike Vick and other celebrities like him, the majority of us don't have to worry about stories getting into the nightly news or the newspapers, because we have a friend or family member causing problems.

So, while I completely agree that Vick needs to be much more careful on whom he shares his wealth with, I don't believe it's fair or right to say that these people are a direct reflection of Vick or that Vick should be suspended before he's found guilty of any wrong doing. Ms. Hill may want to deny it, but I'm sure there are some in her life that she has to wonder about, people whom could give her a bad name if she was as famous as Vick, and whom might give her a different perspective on this situation.

Mel, Jaws...

The NFL draft is taking place at this current juncture, as we just started round 6. They just devoted an entire session on Michael Vick. Out of Mel "look at my hair" Kiper, Ron "I wish I were Randall Cunningham" Jaworski, and Chris Mortensen, only Mort defended the Atlanta quarterback.

Look, I'm sick of hearing Vick's name in the news. But, unlike a lot of people in the media or people at home, I believe in one being innocent until proven guilty. Vick's little airport run-in earlier this year garnered more media attention at the time than the Iraq war. The reports were all speculatory. There were no hard facts. There was no concrete evidence. It was all speculation. The testing came back and guess what? No drugs were found. Now, in a home that Vick hasn't been to for I don't know how long, where some friends and family reside, some neglected dogs were found. There also seemed to be some proof of organized dog fighting at the home, as well. Do I like hearing this news? No, of course not. First off, I love dogs. I have two of my own, have had three in my life, and I'm sure I'll own more in the future. It saddens me to hear such stories, even though I know it goes on in certain areas of the country and especially in some parts outside the country. I truly hope that Vick is not involved in any way and it'll be difficult for me to pull for him anymore if I find out that he is involved, but why do we jump the gun so quickly?

First off, Kiper and Jaws both commented on Matt Schaub being the better quarterback in Houston that Vick in Atlanta. Schaub is a guy who has started two NFL games in his career and has lost both of them. He has a total of 6 touchdown passes and 6 interceptions in his career and a completion percentage right around 50%. Obviously, what Mel and Jaws like about Schaub is what they don't know, because there's no possible way they can legitimately state that based on what the two quarterbacks have done throughout their careers on the field, Schaub is the better of the two.

Secondly, Jaws scowled as he said that he's fed up with the excuses, that Vick needs to be devoted to football 365 days of the year, 24 hours in every day, and that he needs to take responsibility of all those in his life (friends and family). How is this possible? If Vick wasn't involved with the dog fighting and what he said was true, that he bought the house for his cousin and other family members and that he never goes there, how is he supposed to try to provide opportunities for friends and family, babysit them, and devote himself to football every day of the year? How's that possible Jaws? If my father buys me a car and I use it to intentionally run another off the road, how is my father responsible? If my father paid me to do that, then yeah, he's partly responsible, but if he lives on the other side of the country and knew nothing about it, then how can he be held responsible? It's almost a no-win situation. If my friends and family had always been poor and I experienced that right alongside them when I was growing up, it'd be very difficult for me not to provide more opportunities for them with my wealth, if I was selected first in the NFL draft, like Vick. I mean, what's the parents job? To do all they can with what they know to prepare their child for a healthy personal and professional life? But, once the child leaves home, it's up to them to make their own decisions and the responsibilites now lie on their shoulders. The parents may feel some guilt if their child gets into trouble with the law, asking themselves the questions, "What did we do to provoke this? Could we have done anything better?" But, from a legal standpoint, the court is not going to send the folks to jail for their child's wrongdoing. If what Vick said is true, was he not attempting to play the role of a parent, providing opportunities for those closest to him? If what he said is true, how can he be held responsible for his adult children who are on their own and old enough to make mature, responsible decisions on their own?

In regard to the excuses, I don't really know what Jaws is talking about. I hear/read a lot of Falcons/Vick fans making excuses, but I haven't heard many coming from Vick's mouth directly. Jaws commented that the entire offense under the Mora regime revolved around Vick. Let me comment on these notions.

I don't know how in the world Jaws can say the Mora regime's offense was revolvant around Vick's talents. Immediately, when I heard that Mora and Knapp were installing the West Coast offense, I commented to friends and family that it wasn't going to be very effective. I heard the coaches claim that Vick would thrive in such an offense and that it would compliment his special talents. Right from the outset, before a game was played by the Falcons in the West Coast offense, I knew it wasn't going to be very efficient and I can't, for one second, understand why Jaws or anyone else would believe that it was based on Vick's talents. Quick, short passes, a precision passing game, a small offensive line to aid the zone-blocking scheme, do not provide for a winning formula if you're a Falcons fan. Vick has always been a much better intermediate and deep passer than he's been with his short passes or dump-offs. Because of that, he needs time in the pocket to allow the receivers to run their routes and get open. His height is also a factor in this, as Vick is just over six feet tall. The passes are much more apt to being batted down in the quick and short passing game (ala, the West Coast offense) than with his intermediate throws or the deep routes. Vick has one of the strongest arms in the league and the Falcons have underutilized that throughout his career. All around, Vick's best passing year was his first year starting under Dan Reeves, where the line was larger and Vick was allowed to throw the intermediate and deep routes at an equal or greater clip to the short dump-offs. If anything, the West Coast offense under Mora and Knapp went directly the opposite route of playing to Vick's strengths, as it limited them quite a bit, especially in the passing game.

Jaws has always had a problem with Vick, even though he claims to like and route for him. Jaws was replaced by a dual-threat quarterback in Randall Cunningham when he was with the Eagles. It seems that he doesn't much care for those dual-threat QB's.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about Vick, especially off-the-field. When's the last time we heard or even talked about the Falcons as a team? It seems to only be about Vick. Will he ever be able to lead the Falcons to a Super Bowl? Has he lived up to the hype? If not, will he? How can his skills be utilized most effectively? Should they give Schaub a chance? Is his job in jeopardy? Does he run too much? Does he throw too much? What can he do to improve his game? Does he limit the offense any? Is he too quick to pull the ball down and rush? What about the rest of the team? The Falcons have some pretty solid players elsewhere: Warrick Dunn, Jerious Norwood, Joe Horn, Alge Crumpler, John Abraham, Keith Brooking, DeAngelo Hall, Lawyer Milloy, Allen Rossum, etc. This is a team game if there ever was one. The talk, the chatter, the discussion, should not all revolve around Vick. These are the Atlanta Falcons, which Vick is a part of, not the Michael Vick Falcons, which the rest of the Atlanta players are a part of.

A Week of Dumb Quotes

-We'll start with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who, not once, not twice, but count them, 71 times, denied remembering/recalling the events surrounding the firings of the U.S. attorneys, which occurred just about five months ago. It was so bad, that at one point, he even claimed to not have recalled remembering what transpired last November. Yet, he seemed to remember just about everything else, even events that occurred longer ago than November of 2006.

-After the Gonzales testimony, President Bush stated that he (Gonzales) did a good job and answered all the questions he could answer very honestly. Did I miss that question and answer session entirely? What, did he answer that he was indeed Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States? That was a toughy. Did he answer that George W. Bush is the current president and Commander-in-Chief of the United States? Alright, he's rolling now. Did he answer anything prevalent to why he was testifying in the first place? Not exactly.

-Just recently, 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Rudolph Guiliani, stated that a Democratic win in the 2008 election would equal another 9/11-type attack on U.S. soil. This is why the Democrats don't need a plethora of ideas to win (as they proved last November). All they have to do is point to guys like Guiliani and say to the public, "Did you hear him? That's not like me at all!" Ever since 9/11, the Republicans have been trying to convince the entire nation that they are the party more responsible for ensuring our security, even though it was on their clock (the president, the house, and the senate were Republicans or a Republican majority) when 9/11 occurred. The scare tactics worked for the 2004 election, as the dead Bin Laden appeared a week before voting day, and ensured President Bush a re-(s)election. But, the fear factor didn't work in the Novemeber 2006 elections, as the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate and even came away with the majority of governorships. So, because it obviously didn't work just five months ago, the big red, the GOP, they have to alter their strategy some, right? Evidently not, as Guiliani has illustrated.

-Sean Hannity spoke in depth about the Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell situations. Imus was fired from his radio spot for referring to Rutgers' women basketball players as "dirty ragged hoes" or something of the sort. Rosie O'Donnell has made it known that she's leaving the View for aspirations of hosting her own show again. She has not been coy about her feelings toward President Bush and the War in Iraq, and even recently let it be known that she does not fully believe in the "official" 9/11 story. Hannity claimed that Imus' firing is a scare to our first amendment rights and we should all be worriesome because of it. But, according to the same Hannity, O'Donnell's commentary endangers America greatly. Alright, so let me get this straight, if I'm in a class, it'd be alright for me to make derogatory remarks toward either people in the class, the teacher, or people we were discussing, but not alright for me to question the legitimacy of the materials, source, or topic at hand? Look, I don't think Imus should've been outright fired. I think he should've been handed a lengthy suspension, been forced to perhaps take some racist/sexist/etc. sensitivity courses, and been given another shot in a year or so. But, can I blame the network for firing him? This wasn't his first run-in with this type of controversy. This was his second or third that I know about. If it was his first time, I would've been surprised to see the network fire him, but since it was his second or third such occurrence, I am much more understanding of the decision. With Rosie, how can we keep harping on the questioning of our president, his policies, and his decisions endangering America? Aren't we supposedly fighting for "freedom" (even though, we're not)? What is "freedom"? Did soldiers in the past fight so that we may not question our president? So that we may not dissent? What decade and what part of the world are you living in, Sean?

-The first lady, Laura Bush, just recently said that the Iraq War is toughest on she and the president. Wow. I always wondered why she married W. Maybe the fact of the matter is that they have identical IQ's. Yeah, it's tougher on George and Laura, who are snug in their homes, with a fireplace and couch to cozy on with one another, able to watch their favorite shows at any given time, are able to see their children throughout the course of the year with little worry, and who are given the benefits of no one else in the world, than on over 3,000 American families who have lost a loved in the war and tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and their families that have lost loved ones, as well. Either George's wherewithal has rubbed off on his wife or perhaps they were made for one another.

-Bush stated at a press conference this week that the people spoke out on wanting a change in the course of the war with their November votes and he's given them exactly what they longed, by sending 10,000 more troops over to Iraq and thereby, changing the course. Is that what the public was really asking for? Oh yeah, I'm certain of it. The Democrats won control of both the House and the Senate, because the people wanted to up the troop amount in the Middle East. What an idiot. Does he look at any polls outside of Faux News? The majority of the public has wanted at least a timetable, if not a complete withdrawal of troops for quite some time now. That's what they've/we've been asking for, not a troop surge. Wait, this just in. The Detroit Lions fans want a change, so the Lions have decided to make Matt Millen the head coach and bring in ex quarterback Andre Ware to start for the blue and silver.

-I was caught off guard last Friday when a guy said that I looked like Daunte from "Clerks". I've never seen the film before, so I had no idea what he was talking about and I admit, was quite tipsy at the time, so I really didn't care. I looked this guy up on the Internet(s) the following day and what was similar? The goatee. That was it. Different hair, completely different physique, different facial structures, different percentage of fat, different colored eyes, etc. But, there was the goatee. If I didn't have that thing, would this dimwit have said that? No, of course not. So, everytime I see a guy with a goatee, whether he's 2 foot 3, 7 foot 6, Asian, African, Arab, Caucasion, Latino, or Iowegian, I'm going to say, "Huh, you know what? I look like that guy."

-I've been reading some movie reviews lately. Why is it that people feel so inclined to dismantle our having "taste", in any sense of the word, if we dislike a particular movie. Whether that flick be "Gone With the Wind," "Tommy Boy," "Saving Private Ryan," or "Date Movie," if you speak out against any flick, there will be an attacker following your post, claiming that you have no taste in movies, have no taste in humor, have no humor at all, etc. So, according to these people, unless we like every single movie ever created, and yes, this includes "Dude, Where's My Car?", "Gone Fishin'", and the previously mentioned "Date Movie", then we have no taste in cinema and have no sense of humor whatsoever. Not to get philosophical (because, well, it's not), but people have different tastes, whether that be with foods, women/men, music, and yes, even movies. Why some people love country music is beyond me, but, that's their personal taste. Why some thought "Gone Fishin'" was a funny film, again, is beyond me, but again, that's their own humor, their personal taste. I didn't know there was a personal taste meter to detect how great or pathetic one's taste actually is. If anyone knows where to find that, please let me and others know. It could benefit us greatly.

My book is now available!

Just to let everyone know, my second published book is now available. I just sent an e-mail to spread word to friends and family. I will copy and paste that e-mail right here...

Hey everyone. How's it going? I hope well. I'm actually writing to inform everyone that I have another book out, about, and available for purchase. I feel rejuvenated in the new year, have several projects either finished, halfway complete, or in the starting stages, and have a feeling that you'll see more than one published work from me this year (hopefully).

The book that I just finished, entitled The Serious Scale of Sarcasm: More Balanced Than a Drunken High-Heeled Clown on a Tight Rope, is a nice bit of creme-filling in between the two crunchy bits of cookie. My next project (which is complete) is a non-fiction book that won't be winning any Marcia Brady Awards for smiles it provokes throughout its reading. Between that and a compilation of poetry, I thought it'd be a good idea to write a book that is a bit lighter in substance and hopefully provokes a good chunk of laughter, especially to those who don't have a tendency to waddle around while they walk from a gigantic stick having been implanted into their derrière.

I like to compare this book to a hybrid of authors/works: David Sederis-George Carlin-Al Franken. No, I'm not nearly as famous as those three (and perhaps not as talented), but there are humorous personal stories that are shared in this book, much in the manner of Sedaris. The book doesn't shy away from wise cracks, kind of like Carlin (without the profanity). I also discuss, in depth, a few topics of interest, especially in the political world, reminiscent of Al Franken.

I had a jolly ol' time writing and organizing this book to be what it is. I hope others get just as much pleasure from reading it. The book can be found at lulu.com at first and hopefully amazon.com, bordersstores.com, and barnesandnoble.com in the upcoming days/weeks. The specific Lulu URL is: http://www.lulu.com/content/722238
You could also just type my name in the search option or the title of the book at Lulu's homepage (lulu.com). As the book hasn't been posted at other retailers quite yet, there is no specific URL to find the book at those sites. But, their homepages are at: Amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, and bordersstores.com.

Just a side note here. While this book doesn't truly contain any profanity, it does contain material that may not be suitable to children, because of certain jokes and certain topics that it covers. If I had to rate these as films, I would've rated Seasons Come, People Grow: A Poetic Journey with a PG and I would rate The Serious Scale of Sarcasm: More Balanced Than a Drunken High-Heeled Clown on a Tight Rope with a PG-13.

I keep attempting to legitimize the final price of the book to myself, but I have to admit, I'm not too thrilled with the price this time around. There were some changes in the Lulu world from when I published my last book there. For some reason, customers "allegedly" complained about there being different prices on Amazon and Lulu, so Lulu enforced a new policy of the prices needing to be identical. Unfortunately, other retails (amazon, border, barnes and noble, etc.) seek a great deal of profit for each and every book sold, so unless my book was 100 pages or less, the chances are that it may be a bit on the overpriced side. It being 236 pages, the absolute lowest I could price it was $15.80, so that's where we're going to start. Because of that, and get this, for every book sold outside of Lulu, I will receive no profit. I initially priced the book at $12.50, so I felt it'd be ridiculous to raise the price any for a slight profit. But, since the initial price was $12.50 and I will receive no profit from any other retailer, I thought I'd make a deal with everyone. For every book bought off Lulu, I will send you $3.00 back, so that you're only paying close to the $12.50 I had initially proposed. All you'll need to do is forward me the thank you letter you receive from me to ensure me that you did indeed by a book off Lulu, along with the address which I should send the money to. This can only take place, however, if you buy the book off Lulu. I won't receive any profit money from any other retailer, so I won't have any royalty money to send back to the buyer. You're welcome to buy it at Bordersstores.com, BarnesandNoble.com, Amazon.com, etc. The book's circulation is more important than the money it generates. Also, if $12.50 is even too much, the book can be downloaded off Lulu for $3.25. This book is 52 pages longer than the first with 60,000 more words, so the $0.80 hike in price isn't awful, I suppose, but I was iffy on the initial price of the first book, so I wanted to drop it this time around. But, what can you do? If the $15.00 was too much, the price of the first book has been lowered to $10.00. Also, the cheapest form of shipping is the USPS Media Mail option, which is $2.48 for one book. With this, it'll take approximately one week to manufacture the book and ship it.

Breaking down the price, it costs two cents per black and white page on the interior (236 x .02 = $4.72), costs an additional $4.53 for the cover and binding, which brings the total production cost to $9.25. Retail makes $6.55 off every book sold. That's equivalent to 41.4% of the total book value. Those greedy punks. Because of that, the final price is $15.80. On Lulu, I receive 80% of the profit, so 80% of $6.55 is $5.24 (33.2% of total price) and Lulu receives 20% or $1.31 (8.3% of total price). I'd like to note that the three blank pages at the very end (234-236) were a necessary requirement to make the final page total divisible by 4. It was initially 233 pages, but, as math will tell us, that is in no way divisible by 4. I also made sure to include a table of contents section in the first edition. I'm also going to work harder at the marketing game this time around. I'll probably try to utilize MySpace a little more fully, will attempt to spread fliers, set up book signings, contact celebrities who are affiliated with book clubs, sarcastic humor, etc. I'm also going to walk around and ask random people if they're millionaire investors and if they'd like to aid a young, aspiring author. We'll see how that goes. If any of you know any millionaires willing to dish a few bucks out here and there or would be willing to help spread word in any other way, please feel free to let me know.

Alright, well, that's all I can think to write for the time being. I hope all is well. Feel free to write any time, and I hope you enjoy this book as much or more so than the last. Take care.

Sincerely,

Craig

Gun Debate Swirling Following School Shooting

One comment I read in relation to the Vick donation revolved around the gun debate. This individual said that if there were people at school with guns to defend themselves, the incident would've never occurred.

I've tried, for the life of me, to stay as close to the center as humanly possible on the gun debate. It's our second amendment right to own a gun, I know. But, I cannot agree that more guns equals less crime. What did the ownership of a couple guns result in this past week in Blacksburg, Virginia? The deaths of 33 people. Could people with guns have shot and killed the know famous gunman before he assailed his rampage? Yes, of course. But, let's look at this a little more closely, shall we?

How are the words guns and school most often associated with one another, especially over the past decade? School shootings. Most times, it seems that troubled and/or bullied kids let anger build up until the point of a psychotic shooting spree. Do we really think that more guns will be beneficial or will result in more school shootings and deaths?

Many times, I hear the argument, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Eh, people with guns kill people. While the gun doesn't fire itself, the person cannot fire a gun without, well, a gun. It's not rocket science. While it is our right to bear arms, troubled and psychotic individuals like the gunman in Blacksburg should not be guaranteed this right based solely on the second amendment. Just as the firing of Don Imus proved with with first amendment not being impenetrable, the same can be said of any amendment in the Constitution, and this includes the second. It's very unnerving to know that people such as the gunman in Blacksburg can just go out and purchase guns without any questions or obstacles whatsoever. Why do school shootings occur? Anger in the perpetrator of the assault is one factor. The other is the ownership of guns. School shootings can't be prevented if more guns are owned on campus. They can be prevented if psychopaths, like the gunman in Blacksburg, don't have access to them.

Vick Bashed for Donating Money

I just read an article concerning former Virginia Tech and current Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, donating $10,000 to the victims' families at Virginia Tech. I then read the ensuing comments by commoners across the country. I'd say at about a ratio of 2:1, the comments were very negative in nature, bashing the Falcons' quarterback for only giving ten grand.

What can or can't this guy do that won't result in him getting bashed by the media and the people at large? Before test results come back in the water bottle incident, chalk it up, he's guilty. The results come back drug-free and it's a conspiracy. He speaks about the incident and he's lying. When he's a pocket passer for a game or two, he should've run more. When he gallops for record-breaking rushing yards, he should've thrown more. When he throws four touchdowns in the game with no turnovers, he should've converted that one third down play in the third quarter. This guy could go overseas tomorrow, kill every single terrorist in the Middle East, donate his entire career salary to improving life in Africa, and become involved with Oprah Winfrey and Jimmy Carter in their humanitarian efforts, and people would still find something to gripe about. "He's still overrated." "He's still a running back trying to play quarterback." "He's still a thug." "He can't pass the football accurately."

The man donated $10,000 to thirty-two families who just lost loved ones. Spread that out and that's $312.50 per family. Is $10,000 a minimal amount in comparison to what Vick makes on an annual basis? Yeah. But, what are most people told to give? $5? $10? $20? These are families who make between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. If some families in this country donated just a very small portion of what they make, $20 for example, then funeral arrangements, transportation, medical bills, etc. could be paid for. It'd be crazy to ask anyone to donate their entire salary or even a bulk of it. Vick donated $10,000. That's nothing to scoff at. The man did what he could do to help a little. With his salary, he could afford to hand out a much larger total than the majority. While he's sending ten grand to aid the families, what good does it to do for us to criticize a man for donating $10,000, when we could be donating, as well?

Put personal feelings and biases aside and do something yourself. A donation of money is great, but that isn't even essential. If nothing else, just keep the victims' families and others surrounding the incident, in your prayers.

"Jesus Camp"

I viewed the documentary, "Jesus Camp," last night. While it would be ignorant for me to say and believe that all Christians or Evangelicals are as they're portrayed in the film, it still angered, disturbed, and saddened me some.

The film revolves around the lives of three children: Levi, Rachael, and Tori, their parents, and their church/camp leader, Becky Fischer. It follows the three children on their journey being home-schooled and at summer camp.

I went to Vacation Bible School back in the day. The teachers attempted to make learning about Christianity fun, through games, sports, art, etc. There was never a political agenda involved. The teachers never lectured us on why to vote Republican, on how there's no separation between church and state, about why the death penalty is moral, about why immigrants are ruining this country, etc. They attempted to illustrate the fundamentals of Christianity to us kids and do it in a fun manner. Peace, love, forgiveness, and sacrifice are all examples of topics they attempted to teach us about through scripture and games.

That brings me to the film last night. I didn't hear the mention of peace and/or love. Becky Fischer sermonized about how Harry Potter is evil and if a Warlock were alive in the time of the Bible, he would have been executed. A cut-out of President George W. Bush was brought out onto the floor and the kids put their hands on it and prayed for him. Yes, Bush is worshipped in some parts of the country, I guess. She and other church leaders spoke out against abortion and eve went as far as to cover the children's mouths with this red piece of cloth with the word "Life" inscribed on it. Another teacher brought out these plastic fetuses to illustrate the size of a child at such points in the birth cycle. The leaders led the kids in prayer for Bush to appoint righteous supreme court judges, so that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned. The Iraq War was looked upon as just. When Levi was getting homeschooled, his mother (the "teacher") asked him if there are any truths in science, to which he "correctly" responded, "No." She asked about global warming and if it's a big deal, to which he responded, "No, it's risen just 0.6 degrees." During prayers and confessions, Fischer would lead the kids into a speaking-in-tongues session. Some kids even went as far as to have seizures on the floor (so it appeared). Ted Haggard spoke negatively about homosexuality to the children, claiming the Bible scorns and condemns it. (That's even funnier now, knowing what we know about the guy. After seeing this film, I can say, Teddy, three weeks didn't cure you from being attracted to the same sex. You're gay. Get over it.)

Fischer continually refers to she and the children as an Army of God and as soldiers. She continually analogizes they to soldiers in a wartime battle. The kids are led away to an abortion clinic, where they pray on the walls that the women there will elect not to have them (the abortion).

Levi's mother contends that kids can't be forced to serve the Lord. Directly following that statements, she states that she thinks a little forcing may be necessary and beneficial to the children and then claims not she nor her husband ever needed to force their children. So, they can't be forced, but they can and should be at times? That makes sense. Fischer and other leaders believe that what the children know and believe by the time they're 7-9 years old will stick with them for the rest of their lives, so it's important to get them while they're young. Yet, there's no manipulation involved. It's all a choice.

Watching this film simultaneously angered and saddened me. There was hardly any choice in the matter. The kids were being manipulated to the very fullest of their early age innocence and vulnerabilities. One cannot tell me that a five-year old kid is an outspoken critic of abortion and an avid political connoisseur. No five-year old could give me an objective analysis of Samuel Alito. They'd have to be passed a cue card with what to say in response to my inquiries. So, it's painfully obvious to me that this is not a choice for the children.

This all can have a very damaging short and long-term effect on the kids. Their social life, for one, will be hindered. They're in a cult-like atmosphere, where they're made to feel like an Army of One, and anytime they attempt to socialize outside that Army, they will feel out of place and perhaps even guilty. Whether one believes in God or not, it's not our job to forcefeed our subjective interpretations of a religion down a child's throat, when they are most vulnerable. This is the point in their lives when they soak in information unlike at any other point and they should not be limited in their thirst and scope for knowledge.

The film made me chuckle at several points, because I just could not believe what I was watching and I could not believe the ignorance that was spewing out of people's mouths. They were thanking God/Jesus for their freedoms, to freely worship them on this land, and yet, believed in the false dilemma fallacy of, "You're either with us or against us. You're either a Christian or you're not." They thanked God for the freedom to worship them, yet, couldn't respect others' freedoms of believing something else entirely.

Toward the very end of the film, Becky Fischer notes that "liberals" are probably shaking in their boots after watching the film. I'm a liberal and the only things I felt after viewing it were anger at the adults using and maniuplating the children and saddened that the children's infinite learning potential had been limited and ruptured by the brainwashing of others with a certain agenda.

Becky Fischer and others like her are very much free to believe what they want, but just as a sober man should not take advantage of a drunk woman, adults should not take advantage of eager and vulnerable children.

A new take on the fakeumentary, "The Death of a President"

I watched the fakeumentary last night, "The Death of a President," which portrays President George W. Bush being shot and killed. The majority of critics disliked this film, about 6 in 10. I read many of their reviews and many commoners reviews, as well.

Some commoners laid claim that this was an immoral piece of filmmaking (they hadn't seen it yet). Others stated that the writers and directors were obviously anti-American. I read one person state that it's a very weak film, for the simple fact that it contains no hard facts. Some stated that it was made for pure shock appeal, with their being no true substance underneath. Many critiqued it simply based on the fact that Bush was assassinated in the film.

I have a new take on the film after watching it. First off, it is fiction. Of course, it's not true. That's what fiction is. If it were non-fiction, that'd be another story, but it's not. It's fake. It's false. It's untrue. It's fiction. So, no, there are not going to be any hard facts produced in a fiction film. But, I think a lot of these people are missing the point. While the "shock" value is in depicting the president get assassinated, that was a very minor point in the film, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'm overanalyzing or thinking this (I do that sometimes), but President Bush's death in the film, to me at least, symbolized the attacks of 9/11 and what followed. The Patriot Act (III, in this case) was signed into permanence, which gave the president and executive branch of government even more power than before, and trampled on the civil liberties of US citizens, anti-war and peace protesters, in particular. Not much time passed before the US declared a Muslim, native of Syria, as the assassin. He was found guilty in court on very little evidence. The actual assassin's son came forward about profound evidence he found of his father's to link him to the murder, but the Syrian man remained in prison and on death row even after this fact. Then President Cheney used the incident to launch an attack on Syria, something he had wanted to do for years. Aren't there a few too many parallels to ignore? What transpired following 9/11? The signing of the first Patriot Act and all the powers it abuses. President Bush used the event to strike who was it again? Oh yeah, Iraq, considering we're still over there. This was just an overnight thing too, right? No, I don't think so. He and his administration were attempting to find any slight connection between Iraq and/or Saddam to the attacks, so they could invade. Not long following the attacks of 9/11, we immediately knew who the supposed perpetrator was, one Osama Bin Laden. Nevermind that the guy never came forward about the attacks, that fake tapes were made in his name that the CIA claimed were authentic, and the fact the man has been dead for a while now, he was clearly the mastermind of the attacks. It wouldn't even matter if the true mastermind made his/her presence known tomorrow, the name and face of Bin Laden has been implanted into the American mind to be associated with the 9/11 attacks.

For me, personally, this film didn't show me anything new, because unlike most people I know, I actually do my reading and research and don't just take the government's word for it. So, while it didn't show me anything I didn't already know, I do feel it presented the material in a clever manner, which many others could find useful, to hopefully expand their horizons and provoke them to do a little more reading and research on bills such as the Patriot Act, on racial profiling, on the fake Bin Laden tapes, on the Bush Administration's abuses of power, on the false pretenses for the war, etc. While the FICTIONAL film doesn't provide any concrete facts and didn't show me anything new, there were enough interesting real world parallels to make it a worthwhile watch.

Didn't We Learn From Columbine?

First off, my heart goes out to the entire University of Virginia Tech. I actually got accepted to the school about four years ago and if it hadn't been for the drastic difference in tuition price between they and an inner-state school, I would've headed off to Blacksburg for my Bachelor's.

Since the gunman is deceased, we now have this obsession of putting on our CSI glasses and finding out the whys, the hows, and where the blame should be spread. Should the president of the University have handled things differently? Security? Should the gunman have been sent for some aid following some violent and vulgar writings in a creative writing course?

I'm not going to lay blame down right now. Would I have handled things differently if I was the president of the school? Yes, but until we're put in that situation for ourselves, it's all speculatory. We can think and talk all we want to about how we would handle a certain situation, but until we're put into that predicament, we ultimately don't genuinely know how we would go about it.

One question I do have is, why weren't classes canceled following the first shooting and death on campus? A friend of mine called me extreme for saying that yesterday. How is that extreme? I can guarantee anyone that if a student shot and killed another on campus at any University around here, classes would be canceled for at least that day. We cancel classes due to inclement weather, which may or may not cause accidents. We cancel classes due to threats, where nobody is killed or even harmed. So, why then are classes not canceled after a student is murdered by another? That doesn't make an inkling of sense to me. Extreme? Would it be extreme to cancel work for the day if a co-worker was shot and killed by a would-be robber? No. In fact, it'd be mandatory, as the police would need to interview witnesses and conduct an investigation.

But, enough of that. I read this gunman's (no, I will not mention his name) writings last night. They were violent and vulgar and if I was the teacher, I would've had spoken to him about the material, just as I would for every student of mine. If during the conversation, he truly struck me as a person who wasn't just writing for shock value and I became fear-stricken just to be in his presence, then I would send him to counseling and alert the school authorities, to inquire on what should be done about it. But, I'm not going to assume that Steven King is capable of such a massacre because of some of his writing material. I'm not going to assume that John Malkovich is capable because of the character he played in the film, "In the Line of Fire". Because the killer is dead, we're trying as hard as humanly possible to find out why it happened, what could have been done to prevent it, what can be done to limit such occurrences in the future, and who all we can blame. Look at any kind of art, there are going to be controversies, oddities, violence, obscenities, etc. It'd be ignorant on our part to be wary of all artists because of this fact. Remember the show, "Everybody Loves Raymond"? I remember in one episode, Ray and Debra's child, Michael, shared a story he wrote at an open house. The story centered around a boy and his troubled and verbally-abusive family. Because of this, his teacher spoke to Ray and Debra about the story and kept asking what may have provoked it. They then went to a parenting class, were told how to and how not to go about things with Michael and their other children. Just in the end, do we find out that the true influence of the story wasn't Michael's actual family, but something he had seen on television. So, what were the gunman's influences for his stories? We will probably never know. Either way, we can't sit here, read his stories and tell ourselves, "Gosh, they should've known! That was the warning right there!" If he wasn't the gunman, we wouldn't have even known about the stories. If it was someone else who conducted the same abhorrent acts, we'd scrounge around into his past to find SOMETHING there, ANYTHING to which we could point to, scapegoat, and say, "You see? That right there tells you something."

Didn't we learn anything from Columbine? The media obsessed over the school shooting and what was the result? Miserable kids in school had idols. The two boys were given more than their fifteen minutes of desired fame. They were given weeks of it. This gave similar-minded kids weeks of seeing their new-found heroes on television and in the tabloids. What resulted? More school shootings. Just a day following the masscare in Blacksburg, the University of Texas at Austin received a bomb threat. Coincidence? I think not. The media obsession may even be worse this time around, because it's "the worst shooting spree in American history." Yeah, that doesn't give like-minded individuals something to shoot for, does it?

The media's non-stop obsession over the school shooting put things into an even greater perspective. Thirty-three people died as a result of the shootings in Blacksburg this week. Countless more have perished overseas this week, yet, I hardly hear a peep about them. The proximity of deaths seems to be an unfortunate factor for most people. If the incident and death(s) occurs within this country, it's front-page news material. If the incident and death(s) occur overseas, they become nothing more than statistics. No life, whether they're a victim of the school shooting in Blacksburg or by a bomb overseas, should be treated as a number.

Ironic O'Reilly Statement

I just read some recent quotes by Fox madman Bill O'Reilly that made me giggle some, not because they were truly funny. I'm not stating O'Reilly will be the next George Carlin. But, in a twisted, ironic fashion, Bill-O cracked a joke without even realizing it.

He's been on Rosie O'Donnell of The View's case recently, in regard to her 9/11 comments and theories. Here are two such statements:

"I'm interested in protecting Americans from hateful comments and protecting our forces overseas."

"Surely you can't allow someone to come on the air everyday and vent hateful dishonest propaganda, you just can't do that."

Those deserve a couple of wows right there. To hate basically means to dislike or loathe, right? Let me check this pocket dictionary over here. Yes, the ol' omniscient one agrees with me. Surely, Bill-O has never made any "hateful" statements on air, right? His constant insults toward the likes of O'Donnell, Mark Cuban, Charlie Sheen, and "liberals", in general, are never derogatory, angry, or hate-filled, right?

He just recently said that Cuban should be thrown into jail, that Sheen's career will be ruined if he contributes a narrative to 9/11 conspiracy video, and basically that O'Donnell's television career should be all but finished. He recently cut a 29-year Army Colonel's mic due to comments he didn't agree with. He performed this same stunt with a kid, whose father had died in the 9/11 attacks, after the kid stated that war was not the answer and that his father wouldn't have wanted his death to be used in such a barbaric manner.

Bill O'Reilly may be the most angry man in television. His commentary here is downright funny, because the content is a direct reflection of the speaker in this case. It sounds like a tongue-in-cheek statement Stephen Colbert may throw down on The Colbert Report, in making fun of Mr. O'Reilly (The Godfather to Stephen).

If O'Reilly's truly interested in protecting the people from hateful comments, he may want to alter his routine and if he truly believes one can't spew hateful propaganda to the people on a daily basis, he may want to look for a new job.

O'Donnell questioned the "official" story. That is not hateful. She didn't go on a five minute rant, claiming that she hated the country in which she resides, hates everything we stand for, hates the soldiers, hates America through and through. She simply questions the official story. If I question a girlfriend about a guy, whom I'd heard slept with her when I was away on a business trip when she said otherwise, that does not translate to my hating her. That simply translates to my hearing different stories, being shown potential evidence which counteracts her's, and because of that, being uncertain of her "official" version.

Bill O'Reilly does not believe in the first amendment for all. He simply believes in freedom of speech for himself and those who agree with him. If anyone disagrees with anything he has to say, then their mics should be cut.

Link:

http://infowars.com/articles/media/fox_news_oreilly_who_is_real_hater.htm