I'm such an idiot. Somebody smack me.

Yeah, I've won math competitions, spelling competitions, have four degrees to my name, have scored above genius level on the IQ test, had all of the state's, province's, and country's capitals memorized when I was 7 or 8, have two books published and more either completed or on their way, but when it comes to women, I'm a complete idiot.

I have no problems talking to them, giving advice, understanding them, or giving my fellow males advice in regard to them, but when it comes to me dating? Forget about it.

The latest story is just like any other in my life. I met this gal about six months ago, in late November. We hung out twice with a bunch of friends and then once by ourselves. While I awaited my change from the waiter, she walked out on me. The "date," if you want to call it that, had gone fairly well. She seemed a tad uncomfortable, but there were no long pauses. I made sure to ask questions, hopefully get to know her better, and continue conversations with wise cracks, input, and opinions. She didn't ask any questions. She didn't ask about employment, school, friends, family, hobbies, interests, anything. After I inquired her about something, she simply answered the question and that was that. She didn't curiously finish her statement and then say, "How about you?" No, it was obviously an interview for her and she was there about a job she wanted.

So, I e-mailed her the next day and asked why she walked out on me and asked why she didn't ask any questions. She insisted that she HAD to leave that instant to study for a final (not a minute or two later) and that this may be the reason she doesn't have any friends, because she lacks and I quote, the "cognitive resources" to carry out long-term friendships. I wrote back, tried to be as kind as possible, as it seemed she was rather hard on herself, but that was it. She didn't write back.

Through the six months we've known each other, we've had communication breaks of 1 month, a month and a half, and two and a half weeks. So, in actuality, we've communicated off and on for 3 months.

Things had become more intense between the two of us as of three Fridays ago. We saw one another 6 times in the next 10 days, but haven't seen one another since, which was two and a half weeks ago. She rarely picked up the phone when I called, up until a few days ago. The only communication we had was via e-mail. Through all this, I received an odd vibe and was a tad confused on where the two of us stood, especially since she chose to express herself in a showy manner on MySpace. Even after receiving several perverted comments, she left the photo(s) up. She claims to be an outspoken feminist, but I have a hard time believing that.

Anyway, so, about three days ago, I talked to a friend of mine whom I had met this gal through 6 months ago. I hadn't spoken to this gal for a while, so she had no idea what all was transpiring in my dating world. After I told her about how things had intensified and how this gal instigated some things physically with me, she became quite upset, and then let me in on a little secret. She said she was going to let it go, but couldn't do that following the news I just told her. So, she told me that a mutual aquaintance of theirs had told her on her birthday (which was after the "dating" had intensified) that this gal said to him (in reference to me), "I don't know why he likes me" and "I haven't hinted or encouraged him at all or anything." This guy also noted that she has quite the reputation of being flaky with guys.

That was kind of the last straw with me. She's horrible at communicating. A deep discussion to her is a chit chat session of, "How are you?" and "What's up?" She's not great at calling or even writing back. One five-minute talk per week will suffice. Hanging out once a month will also do just fine.

So, we've been discussing the situation back and forth via e-mail the past couple days (can't do it via phone or in person, oh no). Considering this gal and I have talked off and on for three months and has only asked me one or two questions in that time span, she doesn't know much about me. She knows where I went to school, what I do for a living, that I love football, I'm not a GWB fan, and that's about it.

Initially, she went the red herring route and said that she figured I couldn't understand how busy she was with school and how she is there for her friends (she had been over at a couple friends' places the previous two nights, two people whom had broken up not long before). Considering I hadn't seen her for two weeks, hardly talked to her in that time span, and have had communication breaks with her of a month, month and a half, and two and a half weeks in a six month span, I really don't see where she can legitimately say I don't understand how busy she is. Also, knowing how I'm there for my friends a great deal and spend a lot more time with them than her, I also don't know where she can go off saying I don't understand how she's there for them. The last straw had absolutely nothing to do with her busy schedule or her being there for her friends. It dealt with her bad communication and inconsistent/contradictory actions and remarks.

She then e-mailed me, stating that MANY had wondered why she was talking to me again and she said I should get a second chance. She commented on how she's "really" tried to understand me and that I'm not ready for anything beyond a friendship. She said that she's still willing to be friends, but that it's all we should be for now.

So, let me get this straight. After she walked out on me at the restaurant and I calmly inquisitioned on the leaving early and not asking me any questions, I became the bad guy? What kind of stories did she make up? She's giving me another chance? To, what? Walk out on me again? Oh, I'm sorry. What, is that the Cheney philosophy? He shoots a guy and he must be apologized to? Unreal.

I also found it quite humorous that she declared that she was trying to be understanding. Understanding of what exactly? She hardly knows anything about me and hasn't attempted at getting to know me at all. I thought about just letting that e-mail be, but felt she needed a smack upside the head (literarily speaking, of course). I wasn't mean or cruel, but was very straight-forward, honest, and blunt. How she'll handle it? Well, if that first go-round was any sign with me just asking why she walked out on me, I'm not very optimistic. Given the fact she told wild and illegitimate stories about me when she walked out on me, I can only imagine the juicy stories this will provoke. I'll apologize for being straight-forward and honest this time. It's just what a guy has got to do.

Death to Mosquitoes!

I'm typically a very peaceful-minded individual. I oppose the death penalty. I'm anything but a war lover. I don't even like getting into or overhearing heated discussions. One would be much more correct in labeling me a pacifist than a fascist. But, when it comes to the dreaded mosquito, I wish they would all perish!

There's typically a balance to all living things, with what they can provide to benefit us and what they can provide to hinder us. Bees are a prime example. Bosses can be seen in this manner, even parents. But, what about mosquitoes? What on earth do they provide for us that is benefitting us in the end?

They suck our blood, make us itch, which can result in bleeding and even scarring if scratched enough, ala the chicken pox. What else can they provide for us? Disease. Hello West Nile Virus, yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever, Rift Valley Fever, Ross River Fever, epidemic polyarthritis, etc.

Not only that, but they can tend to make us stink ourselves up with bug spray. Many claim to be odorless, but this usually isn't the case.

Itching, odor, blood, scarring, disease, and death? I may be a pacifist in all other areas of life, but when it comes to the dreaded mosquito, I'm ready to goto war!

Pride in Looking the Same

Why is it that in an individualistic country such as our own the majority of people tend to want to be like a regular cow in the herd like all the rest? It seems that even though many claim they want to make an impact in the world and to be remembered, most do all they can so that this doesn't happen.

The fact is that there are different types of stand-outs: positive ones, negatives, and neutral. The majority of people will be less prone to remembering the neutral as they will be of remembering the positives and negatives. But, all three types of stand-outs will be more likely to be remembered than a regular cow in the herd.

LeBron James is a stand-out in basketball because of his amazing athletic ability. Ben Wallace is a stand-out for his defensive presence and his hair. Kiss is a stand-out because of their incomparable shows. George Bush is a stand-out for his knack at slipping up at the mic. These are the things people remember. Not many will remember Mark Lemke of the Atlanta Braves. Not many will remember Chris Dudley, except for his horrible free throw shooting. Some "stand-outs" would rather not be remembered, like Bush for his infamous Bush-isms. Others, like the before-mentioned Kiss, should take great pride in knowing they put on a great live performance. Yet others (the neutral), in the long run, become blurred in with the rest of the herd.

Last night, I was a neutral stand-out at a wedding in how I presented myself. I was more dressed up than usual, but not in the traditional wedding sense. As it was not a themed wedding, I didn't wear a sombrero or Dr. Seuss hat, didn't draw any attention to myself with politically-themed t-shirts or speedos, and didn't wear sneakers. I looked different than most, but not necessarily in a positive or negative manner. My outfit on its own didn't draw any attention to itself. But, in a crowd of almost identical looking outfits, it may have stood out some.

So, why is it that people "feel" so good in looking the same to many others? Do they genuinely feel good when they look at themselves in the mirror? Is it more them feeling good when walking into a crowded place in knowing that tradition states that they are well dressed and look good? When people compliment them. Are many of those compliments sincere? Are they simply habit? Do they truly believe the individual looks nice or is it based on their belief that the particular attire is adult, mature, and shows the person in a somewhat new light?

Regardless of the answers to those questions, I find it humorous that so many people decide to dress almost identically at an event where clothing selections are voluntary.

Since it is the big day for the bride and groom, they'll always see themselves as stand-outs on their wedding day. But, to outsiders, who've been to several different traditional weddings, no one person serves as a major stand-out. If one is talking about themed weddings, then we can start talking about stand-outs, but that's a whole another circumstance right there.

Wedding Fashion Extravaganza

I'm buzzed, so I apologize up front for any misspellings or gramatical errors.

So, I went to a wedding tonight (Saturday night). An old friend of mine of I don't know how many years tied the knot to a lovely young lady. I'm happy for the guy. He's good people and deserves a lovely young lady like the one he married.

Anyway, I'm not one for "dressing up". Dressing up for me is khakis. Dressing up for me is anything but a t-shirt. Dressing up for me is anything but a pair of sneakers. It's reminiscent of the movie "Sideways" and Paul Giamatti's character. He's a writer, just like me, so it seems those who know him know not to expect an all out fashion extravaganza from him.

Most of the males at the wedding wore suits, almost identical to one another's. I wore a dressy short-sleeved shirt (it was 85 and somewhat muggy), long tan khakis, some nice dress shoes, and black socks. For me, it was dressing up and I admit, I looked pretty good.

But, as expected, nobody said anything all night regarding the attire and that was just fine by me. They didn't say anything positive or negative. I don't expect anyone to come up to me and compliment or insult me because of my attire. Big deal. In the grand scheme of things, what's it matter? Who's going to remember an individual's fashion preference for a wedding 10 years down the road? I don't know either.

Well, a friend of mine, a friend of mine's sister, and her friend all met up at a bar after the wedding reception and this friend of mine's sister was laying it to me hard in regard to my attire. She said my selection was not appropriate for a 4:00 wedding. I asked her, "Says who?" She said, "Everyone." I wanted to go further, "Oh yes, so you asked every single person at the wedding what their feelings were on my clothing and they ALL told you the same thing, that it was inappropriate for a 4:00 wedding?" But, no, I just laughed, drank, and blew it off. Again, who cares? Like the bride, the groom, or their families are going to remember what lil' ol' Craig wore at the wedding. It's not like I came nude or anything. This gal wouldn't give up on the subject though. She kept repeating that I had to go out with she and some friends and they would decide my clothing. What? Why? I wear what I'm most comfortable in. Well, usually. If I had been a groomsmen, you would've seen me in a suit, but I wasn't "involved" in the wedding at all. If I had a foreign suit, I would've worn that, but an American suit? What's the point of wearing something in attempt to blend in with just about everyone else? I don't see the point. It's not like I look all around me to find a consistent odor or shaving style or shoe brand and I follow suit with what everyone else is doing. An old friend of mine there was wearing sneakers and this gal complained about that too. Do I care? No, of course not. Who all is going to peruse everyone's shoes at the wedding? Only this young lady, it seems.

It just cracks me up. Where is this "how to dress" manual? Who wrote the darn thing? Is there any objectiveness to it? How can we be certain? Clothing preference is subjective. Just because one person feels a particular clothing selection is inappropriate for a time or a place, doesn't make it so. I may think it's goofy for someone to wear a sweatshirt on a 70 degree summer night, but that's up to them. Their body is different than mine.

I'm going to come up with the excuse that this girl was drunk. She started calling my friend Matt Mr. Grumpy toward the end of the night when the guy wasn't muttering a word.

All I know is that I think I looked good tonight, that there was no objective finding in this girl's statements tonight, and am not going to allow one's subjectively biased views hamper the perception of my night any.

Fat pad?

I had a catscan a few days ago and the results showed that an abdominal fat pad had twisted. I was told that it typically untwists by itself, but that it could take several weeks. This was the first time I, some friends and family of mine, or even the pharmecist I went to had heard of such a thing occurring. I attempted to do some online research on the twisting of an abdominal fat pad, but found nothing. I was wondering if anyone out there could aid me with a link or any information regarding this condition. Thanks a bunch.

Marilyn Manson's "Eat Me, Drink Me" Is Different, but Rockin'

I've listened to the upcoming Marilyn Manson album, "Eat Me, Drink Me", two full times through now and even though it's quite different from previous work on multiple levels, it's a quality rock album that seems to improve with each listen.

It appeared that Marilyn Manson had fallen off the rock'n'roll earth for a time, as this is his/their first album (LP) since the 2003 disc, "The Golden Age of Grotesque". Guitarist Tim Skold made his debut for the band on that disc and makes his presence felt even more fervently on this disc. Madonna Wayne Gacy is utilized less in this album than in previous ones and it's unknown (by me, at least) who all are responsible for the drums. For the most part, it's a two man record, in Marilyn Manson and Tim Skold.

I typically have an array of mixed feelings when I hear or read about a band's evolution from one record to another or from one sound to another. Critics and/or fans may claim that the band has grown, matured, and their work obviously shows that growth and maturation. There are many different ways a band can evolve. It's my belief, however, that from a musical standpoint, Manson has improved on every record, and that includes this one. From "Portrait of an American Family" to "Antichrist Svperstar" to "Mechanical Animals" to "Holy Wood (In the valley of the shadow of death)" to "The Golden Age of Grotesque" to "Eat Me, Drink Me", Manson has shown improvement as a musician.

One reason I've always been excited about upcoming Marilyn Manson albums is the fact that I've never known what to expect. With a band like Static-X, one can predict fairly accurately what they're going to hear on the record, lots of noise, whether it be Wayne Static screaming at the top of his lungs, loud and fast drum beats, or hard and heavy guitars. If I ever picked up a Static-X album and it played like a hybrid of Tom Petty and The Beastie Boys, I'd be in shock. I'd have to scrub my eyes nice and clean, so that I may look again to see if the name on that case was indeed Static-X. That's never been the case with Manson, though. With their first album, "Portrait of an American Family", the album was strung-out with a creepy, Halloween-esque (Rob Zombie-like) sound to it. "Antichrist Svperstar" illustrated more of the Trent Reznor influence on Manson, as the album played more like Industrial Metal. The band went a completely different direction with their third LP, "Mechanical Animals", as it was very glam rock, David-Bowie-esque. They formed a hybrid sound from their previous two records to construct "Holy Wood (In the valley of the shadow of death)". "The Golden Age of Grotesque" was a bit more mainstream sounding than any of the previous records. It sounded like "Holy Wood" with a bit of a poppier edge to it. Finally, that brings us to "Eat Me, Drink Me", which plays like a hybrid of "Mechanical Animals" and "Holy Wood", in that it's very reminiscent to an '80s rock CD with a darker, Manson-like edge to it.

Lyrically is where one may have to adjust the most. All throughout the band's history, the lyrics have dealt more with the outside world, whether it be religion, government, school shootings, or what have you. Three albums ("ACSS", "MA", and "HW") compiled a story that Manson wrote in book form, but has never been released. The lyrics in this album are much more personal and true to Manson's actual life, in that the inspiration to even make another record came with the break-up between he and his now ex-wife. This album is not attempting to provoke thought or anger, as has been commonplace with previous works, but is simply trying to express emotional pain with the fans and use the music as a form of catharsis.

On to the songs. The CD starts off with perhaps the best overall track on the album, "If I Was Your Vampire", a very dark, multi-layered, gothic rock track that sets a certain mood and tempo that is rarely swayed away from.

"Putting Holes in Happiness" has more of an upbeat feel than the previous song. It's a decent song, but doesn't quite have the catchiness and strength in chorus as the first.

Following that is "The Red Carpet Grave", which returns to a darker form of rock, similar to that of the first track, but a bit heavier in guitar riffs.

Fourth is "They Said That Hell's Not Hot" sounds a bit like Tom Petty at first, then thrusts with a darker edge following the "Free Fallin'" intro (not really).

"Just a Car Crash Away" is the fifth song on the disc and plays somewhat similarly to "Fundamentally Loathsome", the 12th track on "Mechanical Animals". But, for the record, while I love the ending to "FA", as a whole, "Just a Car Crash Away" reigns supreme between the two. It's quite possibly the slowest song on the disc, but a very good one. Manson experiments vocally in the chorus lines and comes away with a very gut-wrenching, heart-felt effect because of it.

The first single off the album, "Heart-Shaped Glasses" is sixth and one of the better tracks, in my opinion. There are many quality songs on the album, but this very well could be the catchiest track, as even though it's not my all around favorite on the album, I've had it stuck in my head on a number of occasions.

The song "Evidence" comes next at #7 and starts fairly strong before a great riff and chorus bolsters it to another level. This is one of my favorite tracks on the album.

"Are You the Rabbit?" may be the heaviest song on the album and it's probably one of my least favorite. It's not bad, by any stretch of the imagination. But, the riffs are rather generic and not too catchy, in my opinion.

Up next is the song called "Mutilation is the Most Sincere Form of Flattery" and this is another of my favorite tracks, as it starts with a great drum beat, includes fantastic guitar riffs and solos all the way through the song, and a solid chorus.

At #10 is my least favorite track on the album, "You and Me and the Devil Makes 3". To say that it's the worst is to say something about the album as a whole, because it's not a bad song. There's just something lacking in this song, as opposed to the others. It feels a bit monotonous.

Finally, just as the album started strong with "If I Was Your Vampire", it finishes strong with "Eat Me, Drink Me". It's a very good and fitting final track on the album, as Manson shrieks his heart out in the chorus and then mutters the words, "Eat Me, Drink Me".

Alright, if I had to grade the songs out of 5 (or 10) stars, here's how I would do that:

1. If I Was Your Vampire - 5/5 (10/10)
2. Putting Holes in Your Happiness - 3/5 (6/10)
3. The Red Carpet Grave - 3.5/5 (7/10)
4. They Said That Hell's Not Hot - 3/5 (6/10)
5. Just a Car Crash Away - 4/5 (8/10)
6. Heart-Shaped Glasses - 4.5/5 (9/10)
7. Evidence - 4.5/5 (9/10)
8. Are You the Rabbit? - 2.5/5 (5/10)
9. Mutilation is the Most Sincere Form of Flattery - 4.5/5 (9/10)
10. You and Me and the Devil Makes 3 - 2/5 (4/10)
11. Eat Me, Drink Me - 4/5 (8/10)

40.5/55 (81/110) = 73.6%

For only listening to the album two times thus far, that's a very solid score, with only one song scoring below an average 5 out of 10 and only two songs scoring at an average of 5 of 10 or lower. From what I've heard thus far, I'm quite impressed and have a feeling that it'll only improve upon each and every listen.

Nine Inch Nails' "Year Zero" Has Zero Emotional Appeal

Trent Reznor has been the God of Industrial Rock since he burst out onto the stage with Nine Inch Nails' debut album, "Pretty Hate Machine". With songs such as: "Terrible Lie", "Down In It", "Head Like a Hole", and "Sin", amongst others, Reznor put NIN on the map for good and his/their stature only grew from that point forward. "The Downward Spiral", "Broken", and "The Fragile" built upon the momentum garnered from the first record and catapulted Reznor to God-status in the Industrial Rock world. From that point forward, every Industrial Rock act to come along would be compared to the king of the genre, Nine Inch Nails. Then came "With Teeth", where Reznor and NIN seemed to focus less on their industrial forte' and swing more in the mainstream rock'n'roll direction. Many fans were disappointed with this new direction. I admit, I was surprised and maybe a tad disappointed, but the album grew on me some, especially a few of the songs, such as: "Getting Smaller", "The Hand That Feeds", "Only", and "Every Day is Exactly the Same".

It usually takes Reznor a number of years to compile another masterpiece. This was true in the cases of "The Downward Spiral" and "The Fragile". But, the same was not true this time around with "Year Zero" and I was, for lack of a better word, stoked to hear this album, especially due to the reviews I'd read from fans on Amazon. Many either compared it to "Pretty Hate Machine" or "The Downward Spiral" or made such remarkable claims as, "It's his (Reznor) best work since 'The Downward Spiral'." or "It's their best album ever!" "Nine Inch Nails is back!" "Reznor is back in genius form!" I read all of these exclamatory remarks and others. Through that, I admit, I was more excited than usual to hear a new album.

I don't know if it was due to all the excitement or what exactly, but I am (through two full listens in) very disappointed. From song one through sixteen, it's very monotonous, with little to no melody, little to no emotion, and hardly any catchy portions to any song.

I admit, I think/thought a concept album was a neat idea, especially since it dealt a bit with the corruption of the current administration and what direction their leading us toward. But, a concept album is nothing without the music. I haven't looked at the lyrics too carefully yet, but I don't know that I even care to after hearing the cd in its entirety. That's saying something coming from me, a long-time critic of Bush and his administration and a long-time fan of Reznor and Nine Inch Nails. Green Day compiled a concept CD not long ago, "American Idiot", and that is far superior to "Year Zero" for the simple fact that it's their best musical effort thus far in their careers. The concept is there and the music compliments the concept all the way through track 13 on "Whatsername". There is diversity in the tracks, emotion, and catchiness. The concept will therefore likely be replayed time and time again. Two listens through on "Year Zero" and there are only 3-5 songs out of the 16 on the album that I care to hear again.

Many might claim that one must look at the album as a whole to see it for the masterpiece it is, as opposed to each track individually. That may be true from the concept standpoint and perhaps the story is genius in how it's told. But from a musical standpoint, I just can't fathom that. There may be a lot of noise on the record and it may sound more industrial than "With Teeth", but that does not mean it is at all similar to "Pretty Hate Machine" or "The Downward Spiral" or that it's any good. In fact, there's too much noise, without any rhythm. Some songs just sound like a DJ doing his thing, Reznor having a field day on the computer, and a few kindergarten children banging pots and pans against the cement. One of the "hardest" tracks on the album, "My Violent Heart", has noise coming from every different direction, which leaves one's head throbbing from pain. It sounds like "Mr. Self-Destruct" done by a middle school band. There may have been plenty of noise in previous albums, but the noise was catchy, melodic (at times), with a rhythm to it. It was easy to bang one's head to "Mr. Self-Destuct", "March of the Pigs", "Head Like a Whole", "Starf***ers, Inc.", amongst many other songs. In a song such as "My Violent Heart", the head doesn't know what to do, so mine stood still.

There is way too much monotony on the album. Some might say that it's how a concept album should be constructed, since a story is being told. I disagree. As with every story, there is an intoduction and conclusion, there's dialogue, drama, happiness, laughs, emotion, and a climax. The introduction to this album/story is weak, the conclusion is fairly weak, there's hardly any emotion, and where's the climax? I couldn't find one. Wait, maybe I did, of the few songs I liked.

Some may even say, "Well, you just don't get it, do you?" I haven't looked at the lyrics yet. What is there to interpret or understand? This isn't a film I'm listening to, with a complex series of events and a mystery unsolved. I'm solely judging this album from a musical standpoint. If I were to write a review that I was confused by the story, then go ahead and state that I don't understand it, but based on the music alone? I'm not going to buy that argument, even if it's on half off.

There's so much monotony, it's difficult for me to describe each song individually, but I have graded them all from 1 to 5 (or 10) with a final score for the album at the bottom. Here they are:

1. Hyperpower! - 2.5/5 (5/10)
2. The Beginning of the End - 3/5 (6/10)
3. Survivalism - 2/5 (4/10)
4. The Good Soldier - 1.5/5 (3/10)
5. Vessel - 2/5 (4/10)
6. Me I'm Not - 2.5/5 (5/10)
7. Capital G - 4/5 (8/10)
8. My Violent Heart - 2/5 (4/10)
9. The Warning - 3/5 (6/10)
10. God Given - 1.5/5 (3/10)
11. Meet Your Master - 3.5/5 (7/10)
12. The Greater Good - 1/5 (2/10)
13. The Great Destroyer - 4.5/5 (9/10)
14. Another Version of the Truth - 2.5/5 (5/10)
15. In This Twilight - 4/5 (8/10)
16. Zero Sum - 2.5/5 (5/10)

41.5/80 (83/160) : 51.9%

There you have it. While 10 out of 16 songs score out at an average 5 of 10 or better, only 6 out of 16 scored at an above average 6 of 10 or better. To match that 6 out of 16 were scored at a below average 4 of 10 or lower.

I hope to Buddha, Zeus, and Planet Xenu that I can get more into this album, but from what I've heard, I can't see myself giving this many more listens.

I don't understand when...

An outspoken feminist shows more cleavage with what they're wearing (or aren't) than Mark Wahlberg in his Funky Bunch days to the masses and seems unphased by the perverted remarks she receives due to the attire.

I would think that a feminist would want to garner attention and respect through hard work, achievement, and status, as opposed to sex appeal. But, that's just my theory. I've been wrong before. I'll be right back. I'm going to streak out in the street in attempt to win respect for my gender.

Da Braves!

The Atlanta Braves have just defeated the San Diego Padres this afternoon 5-3 to win three out of four in the series and improve to 21-12 (I think) on the season.

The more I watch the club this year, the more impressed I am, especially with a couple key components the club lacked a year ago. First off, the lead-off man, Kelly Johnson has played brilliantly thus far. The guy is hitting well over .300, doesn't strike out much, isn't bashful about taking a walk, has good speed, and has been a huge upgrade thus far from a year ago. Secondly, the bullpen has been anything but the bullpen of last year. Remember the likes of Dan Kolb and Chris Reitsma, amongst others? Whew. It was tough sitting through the final three innings of games last year. But, now with Bob Wickman, Mike Gonzales, and Rafael Soriano, amongst others, the Atlanta Braves' bullpen has actually outpitched the starters.

The Braves may still rely on the home run ball some, but are much more efficient at manufacturing runs this year. With Johnson, Edgar Renteria, and Chipper Jones at the top of the lineup, along with Brian McCann and Matt Diaz/Willie Harris toward the second half of the lineup, the Bravos have some very solid contact hitters. Clean-up man Andruw Jones, right fielder Jeff Francouer, and first baseman Scott Thorman/Craig Wilson strike out some, but compared to previous clubs, that isn't too shabby.

The defense has been solid (for the most part). The biggest worry I have is in the starting pitching. While Tim Hudson and John Smoltz have been superb, the rest of the staff has been iffy. Chris James has felt like a hybrid of Tom Glavine and Russ Ortiz. The guy is stubborn with painting the corners, much like Glavine, but can be a little too stubborn and wild sometimes, like Ortiz. Kyle Davies has not fully rebounded from his devastating injury a year ago. Mark Redman has been dreadful in all but one start thus far. Lance Cormier is getting some work in the minors and hopefully will be ready to go in the near future, because I can't stand to see Redman pitch anymore. But, for a team that has been solid in so many areas, it's difficult for me to complain much about their 3-5 starters.

There's a long ways to go, but the Braves are off to a much better start this year and have the make-up of a team that can contend for a division crown. The Mets, with their loaded lineup, will be difficult to dethrone, but it is indeed possible.

Treasury Department Goes After Michael Moore

The U.S. National Treasury Department is pursuing an investigation on filmmaker Michael Moore and certain events that took place during his producing the upcoming film "Sicko", which deals with the health care industry.

If they (Treasury Dept) truly has a case against Moore, then fine, go for it. But, if they don't and they're just attempting to prevent the public from seeing the film, they really should've learned from their last attempt at doing such a thing. Publicity like this will only aid Moore's film. Remember all the talk that surrounded "Fahrenheit 9/11" before it was released? "F 9/11" went on to become the highest grossing documentary of all time. Remember all the talk that surrounded "The Da Vinci Code" before its release? Yeah, last I checked, that did very well at the box office. When civilians are told to stay away from a certain film, cd, work of art, in general, more are going to be check it out, even if just out of curiosity.

I'll never forget when I saw a Marilyn Manson concert on February 8th, 1997. The mayor of Omaha at the time, Hal Daub, spoke out on the news two days before the show to tell parents that they should not allow their children to see the show and ensued with what he felt Manson represented and did during their concerts. The concert was sold out the next day.

So, if the Treasury Department truly has a case, then hey, they have every right to pursue it, but if not, they may want to back away or else, who knows, "Sicko" could outdo its predecessor, "F 9/11" at the box office.

Another example...

I wrote yesterday regarding many's reversal of "Innocent until proven guilty". Even though the criminal court ruled in favor of O.J. Simpson being "not guilty", many in this country perceive and treat him as if he had been ruled guilty in the criminal court. The situation is even more peculiar with Michael Vick. I read an article yesterday regarding new Atlanta Falcons' head coach Bobby Petrino and his loyalty to Vick during these difficult times. I then read readers' comments on the article. Most of them have already ruled Vick as guilty, suspended by the commissioner, and locked in jail. No charges have even been brought forth unto Vick yet. If the guy is charged and convicted, he should be punished, without a doubt. But, until that/those charge/(s) are brought forth and until he's convicted of anything, why should he be treated like a felon?

Perhaps the "guilty until proven innocent" line is commonplace amongst celebrities. The common people may be jealous of the wealth, fame, and spotlight these individuals possess and if/when one of their names comes up in relation to a crime, we almost habitually, out of envy, believe (want to) they're guilty. The media can't be helping matters either. With the obsession over 24-hour "news" being what it is, the repetition of such negativity revolving around celebrities and their ordeals likely won't give the general public a "fair and balanced" assessment of what may have occurred and all possible outcomes for the future. After the media harped on the drunken Mel Gibson incident so much, it would've been difficult for the ordinary mainstream "news" watcher to have walked away from the television believing Gibson was pro-Judaism and a loving, caring, and decent man. For how much the media has obsessed over Michael Vick recently, it'd be difficult, even for some Falcons' fans, to walk away believing that Vick is anything but a troubled individual who will be in prison before too long. I don't like what Gibson said, but don't believe him to be an awful human being for saying something stupid while intoxicated. He had been driving drunk and therefore, should have been punished and was. Vick, meanwhile, has not been charged with a crime yet, so why is he already guilty in many's eyes? With the new "reality" television craze and the 24-hour "news" cycle, I can't understand how anyone would want to be famous. It's hard to feel sorry for people making so much money, but I do, in a sense. I would NEVER want to live their life. For every word or action of mine to be watched and any mistake I make, to be recorded and printed, and for most of the world to know and judge me based on what they know little to nothing about, would drive me crazy.

Let's look at another example. The Duke Lacrosse team. Remember that situation? These guys would lambasted and treated like felonous rapists for how long before it was concluded they were innocent? Just imagine what they had to go through. These kids will never be the same again and why? In many's minds, they were guilty until proven innocent.

Sources don't even matter anymore. So long as a person has a story, something that will catch the viewer's/reader's eye, that's all that really matters. I read an article today that two anonymous "friends" of the before-mentioned Vick stated that they were rather certain that Vick knew of the dog situation. Who are these people? Am I supposed to believe that two "friends" would come out with such information? I highly doubt it. An article was posted last week about a website of Vick's which dealt with his dog breeding. The website appeared to be constructed by a 5th grader just learning how to create a free webpage on yahoo. There was hardly any usable information on the entire site. It looked like a sick April Fool's joke (only in May).

Should we just assume all to be innocent of crime? No, of course not, but we should not assume their guilt either. Regardless of our prejudices or theories, one is supposedly innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. If they are not convicted of any crimes, no, that doesn't necessarily mean they're "innocent", but that does mean they were found "not guilty" in a court of law. I seriously wish the obsessive media would take a more "fair and balanced" approach to such cases, because the negative consequences to these individuals can be quite detrimental.

Why, Oh Why?

Just curious. Why is it that the name "O.J. Simpson" sparks so much divide amongst people? I checked the poll results again of the article mentioned in a previous blog. The race has tightened some, as only 83% of people agree with the owner, 12% don't, and 5% are undecided. I read a few of the posts though, in response to the article, and many were vicious.

So, just a question, why does the topic of O.J. Simpson create such a divide in this country? There are the topics of: abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and O.J. Simpson. Whenever any of these subjects are brought up, expect anger, yelling, and perhaps a few fists flying around.

For Argument's Sake...

Ever know a person who seems intent on arguing every chance they get and whenever involved in a "discussion", they make a point to get the last word?

It reminds me of a silly skit they did on SNL not too long ago (one of the few times I've seen that show in the past couple years). This gal at a party made sure she got in the last word whenever she heard another person say anything. If a guy claimed that he knew the woman host of the party, this gal would up him one by saying, "Yeah, well, I've known her for 32 years. And I take care of her dog and yeah." If the man responded and said, "Well, I've known her a long time too. We used to go boating together", the gal would rebut with, "Yeah, well, she and I go boating every week, go sledding, kayaking, cruising, rock climbing. We climbed Mt. Everest together, yeah." At that point, I'd hope the man realizes he can't win with this one and it's best to just walk away.

It may make for a funny skit if someone was actually video taping and the parties didn't know about it. But, since that isn't the case and I actually have to witness and "partake" in these little "discussions", they can get to be quite old. It wouldn't matter what I said, if I stated that the capital city of Washington is Olympia or that Hank Aaron currently holds the record for home runs, this person would have to shoot back with, "Well, I've been to Washington" or "I hit a home run once". A game of brag-and-tell usually doesn't make for fun and healthy discussions. Hopefully, this person will learn that in time, but that last word is probably the teller- time. It will indeed take some time.

Doctor's Aids

I just received a call back from my doctor's assistant. I had a catscan done yesterday and this assistant just read from her cue card. When I asked two questions, I received the same answer both times, "I don't really know. I'll ask about that and get back to you." Gee, thanks. She even asked me if I felt any pain. The reason I was there in the first place and got a catscan is because I was in pain. It's not like it's a monthly fetish I have to get needles placed in my veins, have attractively bruised arms as a result, a lovely bill to pay, etc. I guess that's why they're the "assistants" as opposed to the actual doctors, but it's not like most assistants only read cue cards. Or do they? Hmm... What's the pay like? Maybe I should be a cue card reader, I mean, an assistant.

Dangerous Combination: Curt Schilling and a Blog

Outspoken Republican right-handed Boston Red Sox pitcher, Curt Schilling, is now officially a blogger. This is great news for the media and his fans, but perhaps not so wonderful news for everyone else.

As with most outspoken individuals, this trait appears to be Curt Schilling's quality most admired and most scrutinized. Just as some find it refreshing to hear/read what a star player is truly thinking at that point in time, speaking/writing before thinking can lead to some problems.

Just this week, Schilling has made the news twice through comments he's made on his blog and on a radio program, regarding Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. I admit, I'm kind of curious who he bashes next, but being that I blog, as well, I certainly hope he doesn't find this one the web, because he'd most certainly bash this with some of the topics I've written about.

Curt, you have a right to your own viewpoint, just as anyone else, but you may want to concentrate a bit more on pitching and winning this year than on bashing fellow ball players to the world.

Too Scientifically Serious

As I've come to learn recently, just as there are some who are devout in their religious faith to the point of delusions and obsession, the same can hold true for those as devout to their scientific faith.

I know a person who's so serious about their science, they get inflamed with anger with a fictional film that does not present certain science in an accurate manner. How fictional? Take "A Night at the Museum" as a prime example. The skeletal T-Rex drinking water from the fountain or running around even, not scientifically accurate or even possible. The lab scenes in "Spiderman 3"? Again, scientifically inaccurate.

My only question is, who cares? These are not allegedly true stories, I'm sorry to say. While I wish there were a Spiderman roaming the world at night, saving innocents, and bringing guilty parties to light, there is no actual Peter Parker with a red and blue Spiderman outfit, with web sprouting from the wrist in the suit. I'm also sorry to say that there are no dinosaurs walking around with just their skeletal make-out holding them upright.

These movies are not made for scientific accuracy. They're not made for any kind of real world accuracy. They're made for entertainment value. I don't know too many scientists that go see "A Night at the Museum," muttering to each other, "You know, through watching this film tonight, it could lead to a breakthrough in modern medicine." No! Most likely, they're taking their family, their kids, munching on some popcorn, and putting their scientific mind on hold for those couple hours.

If one wants to find these scientific accuracies, read a scientific/psychological journal, watch a documentary dealing with the sciences, etc., but don't go to a fictional film expecting to be satisfied through its immense scientific database and through its numerous accurate findings.

Science Vs. Religion

I'm a bit sick and tired of hearing people cling so closely to either science or religion. I mean, religion, what is there to lean on? Faith. The unseen. The unheard. The unknowable. I kept my faith in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Bugs Bunny until I was 6 or 7.

I can understand some clinging to their scientific findings more than the before-mentioned religious, because, studies are actually conducted with visual evidence of their findings. Students aren't typically given science books in an empty laboratory, read to from the book, told to believe in all that it says, and then do some chants to prove they believe it. But, neither science nor religion can prove everything. There's a reason why so few studies and experiments live very long in the scientific world and why there are so few significant findings in one study, let alone a consistent finding in several.

I trust science more than religion. It's been responsible for some very key findings, but those key findings go along with some very absurd, common sense ones. A scientific study reported there being a link between sex and pregnancy. Do we really need that? Do some people actually need scientific evidence to support the belief that pregnancy develops through sexual intercourse? Do we need a study that lifting weights develops muscles, eating produces shizen at the other end, drinking produces urine, the Chicago Cubs produces losing baseball teams? No, I don't think so.

Let's not kid ourselves either. While many like to cling to the "fact" that "numbers can't lie," numbers are used by many to manipulate and deceive, so while the numbers themselves may not lie, in the end, they may be used to deceive a person(s) or the public.

Science is great, but just like with religion, it can't prove everything. ...and sometimes, logic and common sense are all a person needs.

O.J. Kicked Out of Restaurant

I just read an article regarding this event. Former NFL star O.J. Simpson was kicked out of a steakhouse in Louisville, Kentucky over the weekend by owner Mr. Ruby, because Ruby is disgusted with Simpson's past and is sick of all the attention he attracts.

There was a one question poll that coincided with the article on if the reader agreed, disagreed, or was uncertain about Ruby's decision to kick Simpson out of the restaurant. At the time of filling out the poll for myself, 84% of the people gave Ruby a thumbs up on his decision, while only 10% gave him a thumbs down.

Some who gave the thumbs down played the race card and others claimed that O.J. had a right to be there. Of those who gave the thumbs up to Ruby, many didn't buy into the race card nor did they buy into the civil rights' aspect of it.

If O.J. Simpson had created a scene by punching someone in the face while at the restaurant or if he had gotten drunk and started screaming at the top of his lungs, then I could completely understand his being kicked out. But, this wasn't the case. He was there to eat, plain and simple. A person, who is not being sought by the police at the time and is behaving appropriately, should be allowed the right to sit down, chat amongst friends and family, and enjoy a meal. I don't care if the person is O.J. Simpson, a janitor, a professor at Yale, or a garbageman.

It befuddles me how O.J. Simpson can walk around after being ruled innocent by the court of his alledged killings, and get treated as if he was convicted on all counts. I know the LAPD slipped some in their investigations and I know there have been guilty parties let go by the courts, but I also know that one is supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. I guess, in O.J.'s case, he was guilty regardless of what the jury decided.

O.J. was dismissed of all charges, is not being sought by the police, was trying to enjoy a quiet meal at a restaurant, and yet the owner kicked him out, because he's disgusted with the former football star's past. Can restaurant owners just not allow people in they don't like on a personal level? If I owned a restaurant, could I just prohibit the Bush Administration and Bush supporters from entering just because I disagreed with their past decisions? Would that be ethical of me to do such a thing?

A situation like this calls for the informal fallacy known as the slippery slope. If an owner can kick an unwanted and allegedly innocent man out of a restaurant due to his dismissed charges of a murder crime, what else can/will owners do? O.J. and his attorney are thinking about filing charges against the restaurant. I can't say that I blame them. I can only wonder about the 84% of people who gave Ruby the thumbs up.

Vick Kennel Site is a Hoax

I love the Internet. There is a lot of accurate information and credible sources which one can find on it. Going on the other end of the spectrum, however, there is a great deal of false information one can read on this medium.

With the 24 hour news cycle being spread on MSNBC, Faux News, CNN, and other channels, some "journalists" may have to dip themselves into the risky world of the not-so-credible material on the Internet.

That brings me to something I read last night on ESPN.com. The headline regarded Michael Vick being linked to a dog breeding site. First off, Vick stated a while back that he was involved in a dog breeding business. This is not illegal and as his career won't last forever, he's attempting to play around with potential future jobs. I looked at this site and recommend everyone else with any interest in the story to do so as well. The URL is: VicksK9Kennels.com

This is a very fake looking website, very elementary in its appearance and make-up, and I can't for the life of me believe that a dog-breeding organization owned by one of the richest players in football, could have such a site representing their company. At first glance, it looked like one of those free homepages you can make when a member of yahoo.com. The title at the top left was "untitled". Yeah, very professional indeed. When I clicked on the "About us" option on the site, it only talked about cookies, in the computer sense. It didn't have anything to say about the actual company. It looked to me like it was a 5th grader's project in a computer course. Well, this 5th grader earns an "A" for fooling the gullible and ignorant media. Geez. It's too bad it wasn't posted on April 1st, because that would've just been icing on the cake for me to laugh whole-heartedly at the media's ignorance and gullibility.