Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Well, as I wrote a very average review of the first POTC flick in the trilogy a week ago, it took me a full week to find the motivation of watching the second.

First off, after watching the first two films of this trilogy, it really makes me wonder why in the world they felt the need to make three. Oh, wait, yeah, money, that's right. The Godfather is a classic series, as is Star Wars. The Matrix trilogy told a story and needed the three films in order to tell that story. There was really no NEED for three films in the Shrek series, but each is different in their own way, with added characters, and unique storylines of their own. About five hours into the POTC trilogy, we're right back to where we started just about. Wouldn't that be a rip-off? If, through the third installment of the trilogy, 7 1/2 hours in and how ever many dollars it cost to view the three films, we're about right back to where we started with the first of the three?

But, enough of that. On with the review. As usual, Johnny Depp was his masterful self. He alone makes this (and just about any other film he's in) watchable. But, unlike the first film, there was slightly more to keep the viewer in tune than Depp's performance as Keith Richards, I mean, Jack Sparrow.

For some reason (don't ask me why), I enjoyed the variety of fight scenes and special effects in this installment more so than the first. There were plenty of sword fights in the first film, but not much in terms of variety. If you saw one sword fight, you about saw them all. That wasn't the case in Dead Man's Chest, where ocean creatures, such as one Davey Jones, made their presence known. With that came some rather impressive special effects sequences. So, as far as pace and action is concerned, it was similar to the first, but with more variety, which kept me more interested throughout.

As far as acting goes, more was asked of Keira Knightley in Dead Man's Chest than in Curse of the Black Pearl. While she's a pleasure to look at, her performance was not so admirable. There were times when it appeared as if she was the host of Saturday Night Live or a guest on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. She didn't appear to be comfortable in her role at all, except for a few moments. There were times I had to just look away, shake me head, and give a goofy look (probably reminiscent of her's in the film), like, "What the heck was that all about?" Orlando Bloom was a little better in this film than in the first, I thought, acting wise. He was fine in the fighting scenes in Curse of the Black Pearl, but could have improved on the acting bit and he did somewhat in Dead Man's Chest. There were a couple parts where I wasn't so impressed, but I won't complain too much. He improved. I'm just thankful for that. Overall, though, I thought the acting was a step down from the first film. This is mainly due to Knightley and her father drives me nuts too. I don't even know his name as an actor, but I'm not sure that I even want to know. The Commodore was rather irritating, as well.

As far as storyline, there really isn't much depth in this series, so I don't think there was much to build on from the first film. The plot was much less monotonous, though. There was some monotony here and there, but compared to the first, which was a Ben Stein impersonator, the second was a Ben Stein impersonator on speed and jolt cola.

Overall, I don't think it's a great film or series, for that matter. I have a feeling I'll be waiting until the third (and hopefully last) film in the series comes out on video. But, do to what happened toward the end of Dead Man's Chest, I am more curious to see the third than I was to see the second. However, if Depp's role is limited in the third film due to what happened at the tail-end of the first, then I may change my mind on wanting to see it at all. I don't understand why critics gave the first film such superior reviews to the second, but I'm going to disagree with them, if only ever so slightly.

Grade: 5.5/10 - With below average acting, especially from Keira Knightley, I had to dock the film some. While I felt it's superior to the first in its musical score, special effects, and plot, I feel that overall, it's just a slightly above average film in what has been an average series thus far. But, it did make me more curious to see the third and final installment than the first made me curious to see the second.

Bottled Water

Once in a great while, if at an outdoor concert during the hot and muggy summer or at a ballgame, I may buy bottled water, but outside of that, I tend to stick with tap. My folks cringe when I do so, but based on an interesting discussion I had with my mother the other day and on the San Francisco Mayor banning water bottles, because he feels it harms the environment and screws taxpayers, I did a little (lot of) bit of research.

For anyone interested, just type something along the lines of "bottled vs. tap water" at dogpile.com and you can then feast your eyes on several different study results.

Why do people drink so much bottled water anymore? Some say that it's safer and others claim to prefer the taste. However, of all the studies I read, NONE concluded that bottled water is safer than tap water. They were nearly identical in their safety. In fact, many claimed that tap water is better for you than bottled, as it has a more consistent fluoride. A blind test was also given on 20/20 to see if people ACTUALLY believe bottled water to taste better than tap. What water scored the worst? A bottled water, Evian. Out of five bottled waters and the tap water, the tap scored right in the middle, tying for 3rd out of six. Only two bottled waters scored better and three scored worse than the tap. However, the disinfectant used are different for both the bottled and the tap water. While tap uses chlorine (which is more consistently effective, but can leave a stronger aftertaste), bottled uses what is referred to as ozone. Ozone does not leave the same aftertaste as chlorine, but it's also not as effective a disinfectant.

I'll have to do some more research on the matter, but it seems to me that the bottled water industry has quite the little scam going on. For how much more it costs people to pay for a bottle of water than to drink some on tap (the bottled water industry made $5 billion last year), I can't understand for the life of me why people seem so insistent on drinking bottled water over tap. From what I've seen, it's less healthy, doesn't taste much better nor worse, and is a great deal more expensive. Do the research yourself, but from this point forward, I'm going to be even less tempted to ever buy bottled water.

PS: I don't think a complete ban is the answer, though. As always, I feel some competition is good to hopefully motivate and get the best out of all competition involved.

Fahrenheit 451

I finally got around to reading (and completing) Ray Bradbury's novel, Fahrenheit 451.

Just like I've stated about The Beatles, I believe this novel is much more important in terms of its message and influence than it is quality writing.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. It's a classic and a very important read. I'd recommend everyone to give it a gander. But, I've read many other books that flowed more smoothly than this one, without the poetic feel that F-451 brings to the table.

I thank Ray Bradbury for his courage in writing this book, hope that he and others continue to fight the battle against censorship, and hope that artistry, in any and all mediums, are tampered with at the very minimum (if at all) by censorship. Art has no limits or boundaries, as far as I'm concerned and to limit one book, one painting, one pure form of art, is to limit expression in its entirety.

The little church in the middle of nowhere strikes again!

I stopped going to this church a while back. The new pastor and his family seemed a bit too..."Jesus Camp" for me. For anyone who's seen the movie, I'm sure you catch my drift. For those who don't, I recommend you seeing the film.

While I didn't overhear/see any tongue-talking while there, I still received quite a cult-like vibe whenever I attended. The pastor and his family believed only in custom-made clothing, only in home-schooling, and spent half the time at service singing us songs (just their family) as we watched. There seemed to be a political agenda on his/their minds as well. When I attended regularly, I was yet very concerned about any political issues, so I just sat about sermon, dozed off, and didn't notice these political banterings much. But, ever since I stopped attending, my mother has mentioned a few of these political statements (and false ones at that).

On one occasion, the pastor read an e-mail a friend of his had sent. This e-mail was a forward, reporting results from the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. In the end, the message basically was that Republicans are God's soldiers and Democrats are the Devil's advocates. Of course, the majority of the stats provided in the e-mail were false and regardless of that fact, I don't see any reason to spread a forward e-mail (many of which are false) during a church service. So, upon hearing of this, I found proof signifying the inaccurate statistics and followed it up with a letter stating my own comments and mailed it to the pastor and his family. He kindly called me back and said he didn't realize that it had a political agenda. Uh-huh. But, I just informed him that if an e-mail ends with the following, "Pass this on...", there's a 90% chance that the story shared within it is either partially false or everything presented in the e-mail is inaccurate.

So, I guess just recently, this same pastor shared with his audience what was sent to him via another forward e-mail. What did it express? That Illinois Democratic presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, is a radical Muslim. Again, this is false. I then provided my mother with the proper source material to share with him following a sermon to prove that the information he shared that Sunday was incorrect. She was unable to provide this information last Sunday, but hopes to this upcoming week. I'm curious to hear of his reaction.

Whatever that reaction is, why does he feel it necessary to spread this false information as part of a political agenda? Every week, I hear something regarding the service that makes me even more grateful I left when I did, because it's amazing the brainwashing capability it has on some people. Just last week, she commented on how she believes that we (America) are losing God's blessing, because we've slowly pushed him out of our lives as a nation. Through that, we will slowly lose our superpower status. I then attempted to reverse that logic on her, by stating, "Well, experts claim that if any nation is to be the next superpower, that it will be China. Does that mean they are slowly earning God's blessing?" She didn't understand where I was coming from with that, so I was unable to get through to her on how illogical her statement was to begin with.

This just astounds me. It's amazing how much false information gets spread via e-mails and sermons. There are hundreds of hoax forwards circulating the web and if the reader agrees with what was written, he/she will be likely to spread it around to others, many of which may have similar political/religious beliefs as they and will continue to spread the lies via the Net. This then gets spread at churches and spread elsewhere. Yet, popularity never equals the truth. Notoriety doesn't equal the truth. Regardless of how many forwards and how many spreaders claim that 2 + 2 = 5, the fact remains that 2 + 2 = 4. Regardless of how many people spread the lies in the forwards I just mentioned, doesn't shake the facts that the statistics presented in the first e-mail were inaccurate and that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, let alone a radical one. For how much time people spend reading these lies and spreading them, I only wish they were able to spend a little time checking on the sources to make sure that what they read and may spread are factual.

Are Americans really that stupid? 41% claim to be.

Please say no... In a recent Newsweek poll that was released, 41% believe Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to be directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. That's a 5% increase since September of 2004.

What? Why? How? I need to collect myself here. How in the world could over 2 in 5 Americans believe that to be true? Why do they believe it so? What pushed them to buy that story? Time and time again, the "links" between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 (or even bin Laden) have been shown to be false. Faux News may not state this. Neither will President Bush or Vice President Cheney, but any neutral, independent study will report that there was no link between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Was Hussein the next Gandhi? Was he respected and admired all over the world? Was he the kind of guy that 92% of fathers worldwide wanted their daughters to end up with? No. But, that doesn't make him guilty of the attacks on 9/11. I can't stand Adolf Hitler, but should I make up a link between he and the 9/11 attacks? For a fictional story, sure, but as part of a report that is supposed to be accountable on all fronts? No, of course not. Almost all of the men on the planes that morning were from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't get reported much either. Sadly enough, I'd be surprised if 50% of Americans knew that.

What, since we haven't heard from the now extinct Osama bin Laden for who knows how long now, have some replaced him with Hussein, since Saddam was actually found and killed? Would that give 41% of people in this country a false sense of relief? Unbefrickinlievable!

Why does the month of June have to exist in the Braves' season?

The Atlanta Braves won six games last June to plummet them well below .500, a point they couldn't rebound from for the rest of the season, en route to a 79-83 record.

The Braves have won just eight games this June thus far and have been shut-out in four of their last five games. Since their 27-14 start, they've gone 11-24 for a combined 38-38 record.

Catcher Brian McCann is down to .250, as he's been playing hurt all season it seems. First baseman Scott Thorman has struggled the first half of the season with a .232 batting average. Slugging center fielder Andruw Jones is right around the Mendoza line of .200. Second baseman Kelly Johnson is back down to .274 following a great start to the season. Right fielder Jeff Francouer is down to .276 after a solid start. Chipper Jones has hit well when healthy, but health has been an off and on issue all year for the star third baseman. The only truly consistent position player offensively has been shortstop Edgar Renteria, who has been healthy and hitting throughout the first half of the regular season. Left fielders Matt Diaz and Willie Harris have picked up the slack since the Braves traded Ryan Langerhans.

The Braves have been fairly solid defensively, but Brian McCann has been error prone thus far, perhaps due to his injuries and Scott Thorman is not the best of first baseman. Matt Diaz isn't the best of left fielders, but typically gets the job done. Andruw has been his brilliant self in center and the only reason the guy is still in the lineup is for his defense. Francouer continues to improve in right. Kelly Johnson has adapted very well to his role at second. Edgar has been superb at short and Chipper has been very solid at third when healthy.

Pitching, John Smoltz and Tim Hudson have been great as the 1 and 2 starters in the rotation, but after that is where the Braves have run into trouble. Chuck James and Kyle Davies have been anything but consistent at the 3 and 4. Mark Redman was a disaster early in the season as the 5. Mike Hampton got hurt for the 32nd time in the past five years. Lance Cormier started one game after coming back from the disabled list and got put back on the DL following that start. The bullpen has been better than last year (although, that's not saying a whole lot). Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzales both got off to slow starts in the pen for the Bravos, but came on strong following the early bumps. Gonzales has been out with an injury, though. Closer Bob Wickman was his typical great saving self early in the year, but of all things, he ran into control problems (injury-related) and has struggled to regain form after coming back from the DL.

As the Braves have scored all but 1 run in the past 5 games, they need to focus on improving offensively, because they're not going to win many more games at this pace.

So, here we go, I've got the answer(s). Maybe. Probably not. Who knows? Here's what I feel the Braves lineup should look like:

Vs. Lefties

1. Edgar Renteria (SS) - has been the most consistent hitter on the club. The Braves need to get on the board early to take some pressure off their starters, especially their 3 through 5's.

2. Matt Diaz (LF) - He may not be the most graceful of fielders, but the guy can flat-out hit. He's been hitting well over .300 all year when facing off against lefties. It'd give the Bravos a great 1-2 punch in terms of contact hitting.

3. Chipper Jones (3B) - This is Chipper's natural hitting position. With Edgar and Matthew hitting in front of him, it'd give Larry plenty of RBI opportunities and would give him more hitting opportunities period, more so than the clean-up man.

4. Andruw Jones (CF) - Andruw's fine physically. His swing is there. He's just not confident right now. Moving him around in the order isn't going to help matters any. It may be tough, but Bobby needs to show faith in Andruw and put him at clean-up. He'll break out of this slump sooner or later and when he does, the opposition will be paying.

5. Jeff Francouer (RF) - Francy hasn't produced in the home run department in the manner he should, but he's been more steady hitting the baseball and producing runs, especially with two out. If and when Andruw steps it up, Frenchie should follow suit.

6. Brian McCann (C) - McCann is a great contact hitter. Once he regains his health, he should be back to where he was a year ago.

7. Jarod Saltalamacchia (1B) - It's a shame he has to watch from the bench so much. If McCann continues to play hurt and not produce, I'd understand Bobby going with Salty at catcher, especially against lefties.

8. Yunell Escobar (2B) - The guy can no doubt hit, but he has struggled a bit since being placed at the top of the order. Perhaps hitting him 8th will prevent the rookie from feeling too much pressure

9. Pitcher's spot


Vs. Righties

1. Willie Harris (LF) - Harris is arguably the fastest guy on the roster and with the guy hitting in the .380s, makes for an excellent lead-off man.

2. Edgar Renteria (SS) - With his knack for contact and knack for making that contact count for his club, the 2 hole is Edgar's natural spot in the order.

3. Chipper Jones (3B) - Whether behind Edgar and Diaz or Willie and Edgar, Chip makes for the perfect three man in the order.

4. Andruw Jones (CF) - Confidence needs to be shown in the star center fielder. Andruw's been successful for too long for the faith from the coaches, players, or fans to dwindle.

5. Brian McCann (C) - As a lefty, McCann is a great contact man and run producer, especially when healthy. That's the most important component. If not, then I'd move Francouer up a spot and insert Saltalamacchia at catcher.

6. Jeff Francouer (RF) - Would ease some of the pressure off Jeff at the six spot against righties.

7. Kelly Johnson (2B) - Johnson has been solid in his first year at second for the Braves, but has struggled as of late. Perhaps platooning with Escobar could help the young infielder.

8. Scott Thorman (1B) - Scott has been much more successful when platooning at first this year. That along with not feeling the pressure at the #8 spot in the order could relax Thorman some and get his bat rolling (hitting, whatever).

9. Pitcher's spot


Well, there we have it. I'd also think about switching Soriano and Wickman if Bob continues to struggle as closer. Gonzales could also be utilized in the 9th once he returns from injury. Hopefully the Braves can solidify the rotation, especially at the 5 spot in the rotation. The 5 spot has been a mess all year. Chicago White Sox starter Mark Buerhle is said to be on the trading block. That'd be a great move for Atlanta to get him and solidify the rotation with three potential aces and two solid 3-5 starters to round out the 4th and 5th spots in the rotation.

Random Sports Notes

- So, Atlanta Braves 3rd baseman misinterpreted what starter John Smoltz said, retaliated via the media and the media is making a far bigger deal about it than it is. Go figure, right? Smoltz basically said in answer to a question that the team can't be looking over their shoulder, seeing who's playing and who isn't on a given day. Regardless, they have to all go out there, as a team, and try to win the ball game. This was said after Friday night's embarrassing 11-0 loss to the Detroit Tigers. Chipper was out of the lineup on Friday and took Smoltz's comments personally, as if John was singling out the star 3rd baseman. While I felt it was immature for Chipper to retaliate in the manner he did, the media shouldn't have blown things out of proportion as they so often do. Word has it that John and Chipper met up with manager Bobby Cox and hitting coach Terry Pendleton earlier in the day to "make up." As if there was anything to really "make up" about in the first place. Things get said all the time, especially during struggles, such as that the Braves are experiencing at this juncture. Larry, please don't get so Chippy. Play as much as you possibly can and help the team as much as possible, whether on the field or on the bench.

- Detroit Lions starting quarterback Jon Kitna just stated today that the Lions will win 10 games this upcoming season. For the record, the Lions finished last year 3-13, earning the second pick in the draft. While they got themselves a dandy ballplayer in Georgia Tech wideout Calvin Johnson, I can't for the life of me see a Lions club improving seven games in a single season and in the division they're in. The NFC defending champion Chicago Bears reside in the NFC North as well, Brett Favre's Green Bay Packers, and the stingy Minnesota Vikings. As much as I'd love to see the Lions win for a change, I can't see them going 10-6 and into the playoffs. As long as Millen is around, the Lions will enjoy the early 1st round picks.

- Nike has refused to part ways with Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick as the Humane Society asked. Nike basically said that Vick is innocent until proven guilty and until his guilt is proven in a court of law, they will uphold their contract with him. Good. It's about time someone of notoriety has stood up and recited a portion of the Constitution back to the public. As opposed to the majority of the media and much of the public, which seems to believe one (especially of Vick's stature) is guilty until proven innocent, Nike believes otherwise.

AFI's New Top 100 of All-Time

The AFI seems to update their top 100 movies of all-time list every week or so, but here is that latest update, with my commentary following.

1. "Citizen Kane," 1941. (saw, 1)
2. "The Godfather," 1972.
3. "Casablanca," 1942. (saw, 2)
4. "Raging Bull," 1980.
5. "Singin' in the Rain," 1952. (saw, 3)
6. "Gone With the Wind," 1939. (saw, 4)
7. "Lawrence of Arabia," 1962.
8. "Schindler's List," 1993. (saw, 5)
9. "Vertigo," 1958. (saw, 6)
10. "The Wizard of Oz," 1939. (saw, 7)
11. "City Lights," 1931.
12. "The Searchers," 1956.
13. "Star Wars," 1977. (saw, 8)
14. "Psycho," 1960. (saw, 9)
15. "2001: A Space Odyssey," 1968. (saw, 10)
16. "Sunset Blvd.", 1950.
17. "The Graduate," 1967. (saw, 11)
18. "The General," 1927.
19. "On the Waterfront," 1954.
20. "It's a Wonderful Life," 1946. (saw, 12)
21. "Chinatown," 1974. (saw, 13)
22. "Some Like It Hot," 1959.
23. "The Grapes of Wrath," 1940. (saw, 14)
24. "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," 1982. (saw, 15)
25. "To Kill a Mockingbird," 1962. (saw, 16)
26. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," 1939. (saw, 17)
27. "High Noon," 1952.
28. "All About Eve," 1950.
29. "Double Indemnity," 1944.
30. "Apocalypse Now," 1979.
31. "The Maltese Falcon," 1941.
32. "The Godfather Part II," 1974.
33. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," 1975. (saw, 18)
34. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," 1937. (saw, 19)
35. "Annie Hall," 1977.
36. "The Bridge on the River Kwai," 1957.
37. "The Best Years of Our Lives," 1946.
38. "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," 1948.
39. "Dr. Strangelove," 1964. (saw, 20)
40. "The Sound of Music," 1965. (saw, 21)
41. "King Kong," 1933. (saw, 22)
42. "Bonnie and Clyde," 1967.
43. "Midnight Cowboy," 1969.
44. "The Philadelphia Story," 1940.
45. "Shane," 1953.
46. "It Happened One Night," 1934.
47. "A Streetcar Named Desire," 1951.
48. "Rear Window," 1954. (saw, 23)
49. "Intolerance," 1916.
50. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," 2001. (saw, 24)
51. "West Side Story," 1961. (saw, 25)
52. "Taxi Driver," 1976. (saw, 26)
53. "The Deer Hunter," 1978.
54. "M*A*S*H," 1970. (saw, 27)
55. "North by Northwest," 1959. (saw, 28)
56. "Jaws," 1975. (saw, 29)
57. "Rocky," 1976. (saw, 30)
58. "The Gold Rush," 1925.
59. "Nashville," 1975.
60. "Duck Soup," 1933. (saw, 31)
61. "Sullivan's Travels," 1941.
62. "American Graffiti," 1973.
63. "Cabaret," 1972.
64. "Network," 1976.
65. "The African Queen," 1951.
66. "Raiders of the Lost Ark," 1981. (saw, 32)
67. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", 1966.
68. "Unforgiven," 1992.
69. "Tootsie," 1982.
70. "A Clockwork Orange," 1971. (saw, 33)
71. "Saving Private Ryan," 1998. (saw, 34)
72. "The Shawshank Redemption," 1994. (saw, 35)
73. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," 1969.
74. "The Silence of the Lambs," 1991. (saw, 36)
75. "In the Heat of the Night," 1967.
76. "Forrest Gump," 1994. (saw, 37)
77. "All the President's Men," 1976.
78. "Modern Times," 1936.
79. "The Wild Bunch," 1969.
80. "The Apartment, 1960.
81. "Spartacus," 1960.
82. "Sunrise," 1927.
83. "Titanic," 1997.
84. "Easy Rider," 1969.
85. "A Night at the Opera," 1935. (saw, 38)
86. "Platoon," 1986. (saw, 39)
87. "12 Angry Men," 1957. (saw, 40)
88. "Bringing Up Baby," 1938.
89. "The Sixth Sense," 1999. (saw, 41)
90. "Swing Time," 1936.
91. "Sophie's Choice," 1982. (saw, 42)
92. "Goodfellas," 1990.
93. "The French Connection," 1971. (saw, 43)
94. "Pulp Fiction," 1994. (saw, 44)
95. "The Last Picture Show," 1971.
96. "Do the Right Thing," 1989.
97. "Blade Runner," 1982. (saw, 45)
98. "Yankee Doodle Dandy," 1942.
99. "Toy Story," 1995. (saw, 46)
100. "Ben-Hur," 1959.

There we have it and as can be seen, I've viewed almost half of the top 100 films of all time (so says AFI) at least once.

Now, how about some commentary? First off, while I have viewed both Citizen Kane and Casablanca and believe they to be two of the best films ever, I personally don't believe them to be the best and third best in American film history. I CAN understand why they'd be placed there, though. So, while I don't completely agree on their ranking, I don't have much problem with them being ranked where they are.

I believe that AFI did an excellent job in ranking 100 of the top films via influence, but not necessarily in quality. While I can't argue that The Beatles are one of the most influential (if not THE most) rock bands in history, I personally don't think they are the very best.

I find it odd that AFI likes to update their list so frequently and they only have four films listed from 1997 to the current year of 2007 (10+ years): Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, and The Sixth Sense. I have never been a huge fan of the LOTR series, but from an originality and execution standpoint, I give the trilogy a great amount of credit, so I can understand it being ranked where it is. But, I cannot understand the other three from the past ten years. I can understand Tom Hanks' other film, Forrest Gump, being ranked in the top 100, but not Saving Private Ryan. The one I understand the least is The Sixth Sense. Yeah, that was a fun little movie the first time through or observing other first-timers as they witnessed the surprise ending. But, another film of Willis', 12 Monkeys, is far superior to The Sixth Sense in terms of quality, music, costuming, acting, direction, and influence. If one likes surprise endings and a more quality film, what about The Usual Suspects? How can a film like Titanic get the nod over American Beauty? Gandhi, Full Metal Jacket, Amadeus, Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, Fargo, where are all they? I loved the original Psycho, but do not believe it to be superior to Hitchcock's other classics: Rear Window, North by Northwest, or The Man Who Knew Too Much. I enjoyed The Graduate, but don't believe that to be one of the top 20 films of all-time. I may have to view To Kill A Mockingbird again, but remember after viewing it the first time, how upset I was at the portions of the book it skipped past. I think that both of Stanley Kubrick's classics, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange should be ranked higher than they are. Taxi Driver was a Martin Scorcese classic and should be ranked higher than No. 52. I thought The Silence of the Lambs was a fun movie, where Anthony Hopkins truly stood out with his timeless performance, but I was slightly disappointed in the overall quality of the film and don't believe it to be one of the top 100 all time (200, maybe). Perhaps Pulp Fiction and Toy Story are on their way out, but why are they in the top 100 in the first place? I'll give Pulp Fiction credit that it has been one of the more influential modern bits of cinema, so for that alone, I'm willing to understand AFI's position. But, I have to believe that there are better, more quality animated/family films than Toy Story. It was a cute and solid piece of filmmaking, no doubt, but I wouldn't rank it in my top 100 films ever.

One thing this list will give me and hopefully others, is a list of 54 films of which I've yet to see. Hopefully, I'll get on the ball (car, in this case) and view a few of these "classics" I've yet to see and judge for myself if they can be justifiably classified as one of the top films of all-time.

A 4th Governmental Branch

We already know about the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. But, as the president and vice have stated this week, the rules layed out in the executive branch don't apply directly to them.

There are rules that apply to everyone and then there are rules that apply only to Bush and Dick. The two are above the law. That makes me feel all fuzzy inside. Why there aren't more investigations transpiring regarding these two clowns is beyond me. There is fear that if Bush is impeached, Cheney would be the new president. But, what if they both get tossed? As Bush's new approval rating is at a paltry 26% (lowest since Nixon at 23%), I can't imagine TOO many people would have a problem with that and last I saw, Cheney's approval rating was half that of Bush.

The Four Governmental Branches:

1) Executive
2) Legislative
3) Judicial
4) Dush (Dick/Bush)

Judge Scalia and Jack Bauer are now officially an item...

Yeah, so I might be slightly exaggerating, but when a Canadian judge made the following remark at a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, Scalia became inflamed: "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' "

Scalia then stood up for the star fictional character on the fox show "24", saying, "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," followed by, "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

No, I think the question is, Mr. Scalia, do we believe a fictional character from a fictional television program can/should dictate to us what is moral and what is not in terms of torture and terror law?

Oh wait, this just in. Due to the HBO show, "Big Love," Judge Scalia is now arguing in favor of polygamy.

Scalia and others like him will probably do away with the WWJD bracelets for WWJBD? I'll tell you what he'll do...ACT! It's a tough concept for some to grasp, I know, but geesh...

I finally saw Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl last night...

It took me four years to finally get around to seeing it, but I finally sat down last night and watched Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, the first of the trilogy.

People kept telling me, "You have to see it!" Yet, my conscience kept telling me otherwise, and as usual, I should've listened to my gut.

At this point, the hype from the first movie (and best reviewed of the three, scarily enough) had subsided. I haven't heard much talk from outsiders insisting that I see the first one, as the third is out and about in theaters. Due to all this, my expectations were fairly level. I was not caught up in the hype after it was first released and unless there's something I don't know, I was not involved in an anti-POTC coalition that has just hit the streets.

What did I expect? For the film to be fast-paced (a hour and a half to two hours in length), for Johnny Depp to shine in his role (as he usually does), for there to be some tension and build-up, for there to be a few chuckles here and there, and for me to want more POTC following this film. I rented both the first and the second of the trilogy, so for that reason alone, I REALLY wanted that to be true.

What did I get? The only reason I found POTC: The Curse of the Black Pearl to be any bit entertaining was for Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow, of which the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards was Depp's inspiration. Depp's performance alone made the film watchable. The costuming and music were solid, as well. But, when it comes to the plot, the storyline, the jokes, the dialogue, and the acting around Depp? It was mediocre, at best.

The plot was so simple, that George W. Bush could follow along. Okay, let's see here. Let's have some pirates and commodores hop from one ship to the next, sail away, hop back over to the other ship when it's caught back up, and continue to do this until either everyone is dead or the curse has been lifted. Let's do this for almost 2 1/2 hours. If I wanted to watch some people chase each other back and forth across some playing field for 2 1/2 hours, I'd watch a football or a basketball game, not a movie. The film is more monotonous than the new Nine Inch Nails album and for any non-biased listener out there will know, that's saying something!

Not much was expected in terms of acting for Keira Knightley. Her job was to look beautiful for the camera, and she did a very good job of that. Orlando Bloom was convincing in some parts and unconvincing in others. There were times when I forgot that this was Orlando Bloom playing the character and at others, I had to roll my eyes and say, "Oh, Orlando..." He was pretty solid in the fighting scenes, I thought, but all changed when he had to open his mouth, and say something stupid ("do" as Depp would say in the film).

I'm not an avid Pirate-film watcher, but two films that feature pirates that I'll always love are, "The Princess Bride" and "The Goonies". Neither of these films featured the talent that is Johnny Depp, but had much more depth to their storylines, plots, and actually made me care for the characters and what could/would happen to them. The music and costumes were solid in both those films, as well. The special effects was far superior in POTC, but special effects aren't going to arouse me much if there isn't any substance behind it.

The creators of POTC should be thanking their lucky stars that they were able to nab Johnny Depp, because without him, this film would not have made nearly the kind of money it did and may have only been worthy for a single picture. In either case, I sure hope that Depp is as good in the second picture as he is in the first, because I'm going to be viewing that tonight (and it's even longer than the first!).

Grade: 5/10 - An average film, saved by the acting of one Johnny Depp from being dreadful. Even with his superb acting, the film's monotony lasts far too long at almost 2 1/2 hours. Great special effects, lots of fight scenes, solid sound and costumes also factor into me not scoring the film any lower. While it's not awful, I don't understand the hype, and can't see myself viewing it a second time unless I receive a grand reward for my doing so.

Toby Keith Uncomfortable on The Colbert Report

When watching The Colbert Report last night when host Stephen Colbert interviewed country music star Toby Keith, a part of me felt bad for both parties involved. I felt bad for Stephen because of Keith's ignunce (yes, I meant to spell it as such) and I felt bad for Keith, well, for the same thing.

At the start of the interview, Colbert offered Keith a water bottle as a gift and Keith threw it. I don't know if it was a sad attempt at humor, he was just in the mood to throw something, or if he was, for lack of a better word, being a... jerk. But, that wasn't even close to being the worst part of the interview. At one point, Keith even gave a nervous chuckle and said, "I don't know if I can take anything you say seriously." Throughout the interview, Keith seemed utterly confused on whether Colbert was being frank or facetious. It was quite troubling to watch. Colbert probably felt like he was speaking to a brick wall. Keith probably didn't know what in the heck he was speaking to. The writers had to of been laughing every second of the way, having fooled a guest in such a manner.

Keith spoke about how he had recently gone to Afghanistan and things are going well there. This is reminiscent of Senator John McCain's recent remarks about how well Iraq is going following his trip there. He later refuted his own remarks. What, Toby, do you think they were going to place you at the center of a combat zone? No, I don't think so. You were taken to the neverneverland of Afghanistan (if there ever was such a thing). That'd be like me being taken to Louisiana following the Katrina disaster, but taken to a spot that wasn't hit very hard (ala not New Orleans) and then coming back and saying, "Well, I just went to Louisiana and things are tip-top shape."

Colbert asked Keith about the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines and if he wished to issue an apology toward her. He responded with a nervous, "Who?" followed by, "I won't apologize for being patriotic. Now, can we get back to the CD?" Yeah, that's how most of the interview ensued. Colbert was as quick as a cheetah (as usual). Keith was slower than a sloth (as usual). The combination of the two made for a unique and awkward juxtaposition, even more so than the Letterman/Oprah-Uma bit at the Oscar's.

Saggy Pants = $500 fine

Gas price to retail outlet - $5.00

Jeans - $20.00

Saggy jeans exposed to the public in Delcambre, Louisiana - $500.00

That's right. The maximum penalty for wearing saggy jeans in public now in that town is a $500 fine and 6 months in jail. Oddly enough, the last time I saw the poll question dealing with this new ordinance, about 70% of people agreed with it, while 25-30% of people didn't.

I'm not one to wear sagging pants. I don't see how one would find it comfortable. But, I also don't see the point in high-heeled shoes and have no idea how anyone could find those of any comfort. To each their own. So long as someone isn't exposing themselves in public, why should there be a prohibition against one's clothing preference in what they wear and how they wear it? I don't see the point in turning my hat around sideways, but do I think there should be a fine for people who do so? No, of course not. Heck, I think it's even a little silly to wear it backwards, but again, that's just me. It'd be ridiculous to fine a person for wearing their hat in such a manner.

If a boss or principal want to set rules at work or school that sagging pants are prohibited, since it may show off one's boxers, then fine. But, when one is outside of work and the school, why in the world shouldn't they be allowed to dress in what they're comfortable in, so long as it doesn't result in certain private parts popping out and about?

The sagging pants fashion style is most commonly associated with "hip hop," and what ethnicity makes up the majority of "hip hop"? African-Americans. No, there are no rules and regulations over high-heeled shoes, even though when walking in them, one is more apt to slipping, tripping, falling, and spraining/twisting/breaking something than when they're not. No rules and regulations over belly shirts, which show more cleavage with one person than cleavage that is shown with 10 people in sagging pants (even that's an understatement). No restrictions on women with the bug-eyed, alien-esque sunglasses that may traumatize little children, in fear that they may have been taken to Mars. But, sagging pants? No, we can't have those. They show off one's boxers! Even if that's the case, who doesn't have a shirt(s) which might be a tad on the tight side, or even pants that are a bit tight? When one bends over, the boxers or whatever one is/isn't wearing downstairs will likely be seen by passersby. Wait! That's it! We should ban bending over! It makes perfect sense now! If ones bends over to pick up something they dropped, to pick up something that another dropped, or whatever, they can be fined up to $500 and put into jail for half a year. I may just have to write the mayor and councilman of Delcambre and fill them in on the idea.

O'Reilly's Eloquent Words

Faux News' cheerleader, Bill O'Reilly, recently said this in regard to a question about Faux News' lack of Iraq War coverage.

"We don't highlight every terrorist attack, because we learn nothing from that, and that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do."

He also said, "...We (Faux) bring you stuff that is new, that is relevant to your life, and I'm not gonna cover every bomb that goes off in Tikrit, because it's meaningless."

Alrighty, so with O'Reilly's logic, why did the media (including Faux) spend so much time covering the 9/11 terrorist attacks, if that's what the terrorists wanted us to do? Since that was on our soil, that's different? The exception to the rule? Even though our soldiers are over in Iraq right now, fighting a war based on false pretenses, where over 3,500 have died, that still makes the bombings meaningless? Maybe we should ask the families of U.S. soliders if the bombings are indeed meaningless. I have a feeling they may have a differing viewpoint.

"Lil' Bush" Lil' Disappointing

When I first saw a preview to the new Comedy Central show "Lil' Bush," I have to say, I was a lil' on the excited side. Finally, an animated satirical series based on the president. A Comedy Central show making fun of the president, how could it go wrong? After the premiere ended last Wednesday evening however, I had other thoughts.

There were a couple chuckles here and there, but no belly laughs, that's for certain. Lil' Dick's (Cheney) grumblings were slightly humorous at first, but got old pretty fast. Some parts could be classified as almost cute and I have to wonder what the true intent is for this show, in terms of its message and what type of audience it wants to appeal. The funniest portions of the premiere (in my opinion) were the few parts where Lil' Bill (Clinton) made an appearance.

I may have to check it out again this Wednesday, in hope that it meets my lofty expectations of an animated satire about Bush, but have a feeling that it won't do that. I have a feeling that this is a show spread with almost childish humor that falls drastically short of humor as in the two following programs, "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report". Want some good political humor? I recommend those two programs way ahead of "Lil' Bush".

Cleveland vs. San Antonio

The Spurs have played remarkably in the first two games of the NBA Finals, leading the Cavaliers 2-0 going back to Cleveland for Game 3 of the series tomorrow night.

I find the press to be so funny in regard to their "analysis" and predictions. Just as it was in the series with Detroit, Cleveland is down 2-0 going back home for a pair of games. Just like in that series, "analysts" are claiming that the Cavs have no chance to win a game, let alone the series. Knowing the Cavs are in the finals has to say one thing, they overcame the 2-0 deficit en route to sweeping the Pistons in the final four games. Will the same thing happen this time around? I highly doubt it, but let's not count the team out just yet. While San Antonio has played fantastic at both ends of the court, especially on defense, Cleveland has shown life in the fourth quarter in both games.

What I think coach Mike Brown needs to do is switch things up a little bit. How much is debatable, but I think one thing is for certain, start rookie guard Gibson. He's been one of the lone bright spots in the finals thus far for the Cavaliers, averaging nearly 16 points a game as a bench player and shooting well above 50% from the floor. Zydrunas Ilgauskas has been dreadful. Here's how I'd start the Cavs' lineup:

C - Drew Gooden
PF- Anderson Varejao
SF- Donyell Marshall
SG- Gibson
PG- LeBron James

Gooden has been much more consistent at both ends of the floor than Ilgauskas and would continue to give the Cavs a good low presence. Varejao isn't a great offensive player, but makes up for it with his defense, energy, and hustle. Marshall isn't known for his defense, but can block a shot or make a steal here or there with his long arms and is lethal from deep. Speaking of lethal from deep, Gibson has been nearly unstoppable once the ball leaves his hands, especially in the past two series. James may not be a natural point guard, but good things happen when the ball is in his hands and even when he plays at the 2 or the 3, he typically finishes with 5+ assists in every game. This would be a fairly good balance between Brown's typical defensive and offensive units. Ilgauskas, Larry Hughes, Eric Snow, and Damon Jones could all be explosive in coming off the bench. In games 1 and 2, the Cavs were much more explosive with Gibson and Marshall on the court. If I was Brown, I'd refuse to get down early like in the first two games and would start those two along with switching some other things up for the rest of the series. If he stays conservative as he's done, then the "analysts" may be right for a change and the Spurs could sweep the Cavs.

New Death Penalty Studies Reveal...what exactly?

I just read an article in the AP that studies have now proven that the death penalty deters crime. This cracks me up, because how many studies have gone the other way and shown that it doesn't deter crime? There have been numerous studies conducted that have gone both ways, some claiming that capital punishment does indeed deter crime and others stating the direct opposite. Some studies have even depicted that the death penalty increases crime, in what has been termed the "brutalization effect". So, what gives?

The methodology in this recent study does seem to be a bit questionable, in my opinion. It seems that they (the "researchers") took the number of violent deaths in a given year and divided that by the number of executions carried out and based on that data, it showed that with decreasing executions came increasing violent crimes and homicides. But, is the death penalty a red herring of sorts in the study? Can it really be said that all violent crime and homicides can be traced back to the use and prevalence of the death penalty? I'm honestly not thinking that to be the case.

If an execution was enforced more quickly, then there is a chance that it could deter crime, but that's not going to happen. With the documented cases of innocents being slaughter via the death penalty and the recent problems in Illinois, I can't see there being any way that executions will get carried out more quickly. Even if they would get carried out in a quicker manner, while it may deter some from murder, it may carry with it a bigger burden in terms of the before-mentioned brutalization effect.

It's also difficult to come to a precise conclusion on this matter, given the fact that so many countries have done away with the practice and crime has decreased in several of those countries since the abolition. So, again, can we say that the death penalty is a deterrent for crime in the U.S., but not in several other countries, including our neighbors to the north, Canada? Is the deterrence or level of it truly dependent upon such factors as location, weather patterns, economic status, etc.?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but don't believe we can conclude a practice such as the death penalty is a deterrent to crime based on a potential informal fallacy, in which all violent crime and homicides are related to the prevalence of executions in a given year and while there are so many studies and reports with conflicting results.

Yeah, that's a no go...

I'm a writer and a liberal one at that. A gal was attempting to get to know me recently and she has never heard of the following: Kurt Vonnegut, George Carlin, Al Franken, David Sedaris, George Orwell, or Ray Bradbury, amongst others. The only "author" she heard of amongst many I mentioned was Michael Moore and she "can't stand him," even though she never gave a reason why. I'm tempted to write/call back, inquisition her on a few topics, and attempt to engage in intelligent conversation, but based on what I know about her, I have a gut feeling that it'd be near impossible to do so. She's only into country music. Strike one. She's only into romantic comedies. Strike two. She's never heard of: Vonnegut, Carlin, Franken, Sedaris, Orwell, and Bradbury. Strikes three through eight. She can't stand Moore, but gives no explanation as to why. Strike nine. That's all I need to know. In just knowing the person for a little over a week, she already has the quantity of strikes to complete the first three innings of the ball game. That's quite enough, I think.

What is it with the new trend in sunglasses?

Seriously, what is it with the new trend in sunglasses- The Paris Hilton trend, as I call it? I went to a downtown festivity yesterday on a bright and sunny afternoon and these shades could be seen at every which angle, on women from the age of 6 to the age of 56. What type of sunglasses am I referring to? Not the kind that gives enough shade to both the right and left eye, no. The kind that gives enough shade to both eyes, plus another four eyes. If it wasn't for a person's hair and perhaps some other features, I'd think that I was on a planet infested by aliens, that or a series of Jeff Goldblum clones from "The Fly".

I've never been much of a fashion buff, because I typically don't care. To each their own. Trends always change, so what's the point of altering one's style with the times, knowing that in two years, their current style will be in accord to the nationwide trend? But, I don't understand how anyone could find these sunglasses cool or attractive? I don't understand how women can wear high-heels. Some give the reason that it shows more of their legs or "completes" the outfit. Alright, I can see that reasoning and logic...somewhat. But, what's the reasoning for the extra large sunglasses? It's not like I see too many people with hats that could fit two heads in it, as the hat would cover the entire face (although, that may be a blessing in disguise for some people). It's not like I see NFL quarterbacks wear a glove on their throwing hand that could fit both hands in for a fashion statement. Good luck throwing the football, buddy! What, does it draw attention to one's forehead (the sexiest part of the human body)? The nose? The ears? The green antennaes that are obviously sticking out from one's scalp? I'll admit, one gal I saw yesterday looked pretty good, until I saw those massive sunglasses on her face. At that, I cringed and looked elsewhere at human life-forms.

Vick's Virginia Home Burglarized

Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick's Virginia home is in the news again, as prosecutor Poindexter remarked that the home was burglarized somewhere in early to mid-May and a couch and some plasma televisions were taken. But, he commented, nothing pertinent to the case was stolen.

After reading this article on ESPN.com, I foolishly browsed users' comments and at a ratio of approximately 3:1, they were Vick-basher commentary, about how he (Vick) must've gotten some of his "people" to go and steal some accessories that may have proved troubling to him in court had they been found by those affiliated with the prosecution. Others exlaimed that Vick should serve a life-sentence in jail. Some said he should be kicked out of the league permanently. Yet, others decided to go on tangents not relevant to the case at all, giving their opinions that Vick is a worthless quarterback and that Joey Harrington is the best in existence.

I get a little tired of the ignorant making such remarks to prove their lack of intelligence and credibility. What do we know about the case? Biases aside, what do we truly know about the case? Not much of anything. According to these same people, Kobe Bryant was guilty of rape, O.J. was guilty of murder, even though one case was dropped and the other resulted in a not guilty verdict in a criminal court of law. Mike Tyson was convicted. There was hard enough evidence against him and he served time in prison. Michael Vick has yet to be indicted or even to have been interviewed by the proper authorities regarding the case. How can those not involved with the case exclaim with the utmost confidence about what we know nothing about?

As we saw with the Duke Lacrosse ordeal, the media loves to latch onto these kind of stories and sadly, based on what the media tells us (one-sided or not), the majority of people base their opinions on this infotainment, the biases they project often times, and pure speculation. As it was discovered, the Duke Lacrosse players did not rape the women who pressed charges, but what did the majority of the country think and believe regarding the case? How did the media project it? What was the final outcome? How affected will those young men be for the rest of their lives because of the case and all the hoopla that surrounded it?

Could Vick be guilty? Yes, of course. But, I firmly believe in the court's motto, which is, "One is innocent until proven guilty" and that there must be "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" to refute that. Where is the hard evidence that has been found thus far to prove Vick's guilt? There is none. No video tapes have been found, audio tapes, or anything of the sort. There have been no signed papers by Vick himself to associate him with the dog fighting. The only "evidence" that the prosecution currently holds over the quarterback is a guy who claims that Vick bet $10-$40,000 on a dog fight back in 2000, when he was still a college student-athlete at Virginia Tech. Is this possible? Again, sure, it's possible. But, I have a question. Unless Vick received improper benefits from Virginia Tech, how in the world could he have $10-$40,000 to bet in the first place? If this is found to be accurate information, the University is going to be under investigation.

All the talk regarding this case reminds me of high school, when many rumors started swirling about the rock band Marilyn Manson. He killed animals on stage. He had his ribs removed so he could perform fellatio on himself. He performed Satanic rituals at concerts. It was like a silly old game of telephone and someone down the line decided to alter what was originally said to an extreme level and others fed off this until something ridiculous was muttered at the end by the final person in the circle. A radio talk show host in Tampa Bay stated on the air that ex-Falcon cornerback Ray Buchanan told him Vick was heavily involved in dogfighting. The day after, Buchanan angrily snarled back that he never said that and actually stated that Vick loves dogs. The talk show host then admitted he never heard Buchanan say that. Colin Cowherd, talk show host of The Herd, has stated that he knows Vick did it, even though he knows nothing of the sort. Dallas sportswriter Tim Cowlishaw has written a speculatory column about if Vick is guilty.

What's the point of any of this? Cowherd doesn't know (even though he believes to know everything). Cowlishaw doesn't know. The user commentators at ESPN.com don't know. I don't know. All we know is what we don't know. If we were involved with the case, this wouldn't be (maybe), but that's not the scenario. I'm rather tired of people laying down their biases based on what they don't know. If they truly want to know before the others, then they should attend law school or get involved with ACTUAL journalism.

Dennis Milligan may have just said the stupidest thing ever recorded...

I had to read this quote two or three times through, because I couldn't believe what this guy said. Dennis Milligan is the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party. The guy just gave his acceptance speech on May 19th. In his first interview, with one Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Milligan said the following (and no, this isn't a typo):

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001), and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

That makes one go speechless, doesn't it? ...and not in a good sense either. I've heard both parties say in almost a cliched rhythm, "We will try to protect our country to prevent another 9/11 from occurring." Milligan travels a different route, doesn't he? "...I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]..."

The worst part about it is that it makes no sense. So, let's think about this. Milligan is stating he wishes another terrorist attack occurred on American soil, so that it helped the naysayers see Bush's commitment and soldiers' sacrifice with a clearer eye. But, wait a second. If there was another 9/11-type terrorist attack on American soil, wouldn't that disprove Bush and his administration's plan and partial reasoning for the war? Bush has said numerous times, "We're going to attack them over there first so they can't attack us over here." So, if they did attack us over here, how would that prove anything but that the plan and war were failures? How would being attacked here solidify Bush and his followers' argument that the war in Iraq and the War on Terror were the correct decisions? Most importantly, why would anyone selfishly and ignorantly wish a terrorist attack to occur anywhere for a political agenda, as civilians would lay victim? Milligan may want to think (if he can do that) just a bit more next time he opens his mouth on such matters.

Todd Jones...Ouch!

I was watching the end to the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians game on Friday night, I believe. Detroit led 9-5 going to the 8th and then led 11-7 heading to the bottom of the 9th. Closer Todd Jones had been brought in to record the final out of the 8th, but didn't do so until Cleveland has scored twice more to close the gap. Neither of these runs were credited to Jones, as one was unearned and the other was credited to Ledezma. So, the erratic Jones, as wild as he is, could record three outs (four total) before Cleveland scored four runs, right? No, not exactly.

As the Indians came back and scored five runs in the 9th to beat Jones and the Tigers 12-11, the closer finished with one full inning of work, seven hits, two walks, and five earned runs. Out of twelve batters he faced, nine reached base! The guy threw 46 pitches in one full inning of work, 26 of which were strikes. I've seen some awful 9th innings for closers, but I don't know that I've ever seen one that pathetic. How this guy still has a job is beyond me. This wasn't a one time fluke. The guy now has four blown saves and an ERA over 6.00! Ouch! It's so bad, I heard that Tigers' management is thinking about signing John Rocker! With Gary Sheffield around, that could make for a very interesting (soap opera-like) dugout! ...and Cubs' fans thought the Zambrano-Barrett duel was bad. They haven't seen anything yet!

Unbelievable (LeBron)

While I haven't been overly critical of LeBron James, I haven't been a constant praiser either. While I've seen and admitted that he has tremendous talent and potential, I had not seen that leadership and clutch killer instinct that made Michael Jordan and Larry Bird so dangerous and Dwayne Wade so valuable a year ago in the finals.

I'm not going to give a hyperbolic speech of how James is the greatest player to have ever lived, that he is now truly the King of basketball, and no one will be able to dethrone him for as long as he's playing and healthy. But, I will say that the man has shown a great deal of improvement in the area of leadership and clutch shooting and if he continues to do so, he will be very difficult to stop this year and in the years to follow.

While I believe that the players surrounding James on the Cavaliers are a bit under-appreciated by the majority of sportswriters and "analysts," I do think that James carries a bit more of the burden on his shoulders than most other players in the league. He demonstrated this to the extreme in game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons. James made 11 of his final 14 shots, en route to scoring Cleveland's final 25 points (29 of their last 30), lifting them to a double overtime victory. James finished with 48 points in 50 minutes of playing time, along with 8 rebounds and 7 assists. The performance was breath-taking. My dad, a native of Detroit and a long-time fan of the Pistons, and I sat in pure amazement at James. Following the game, my dad and I were in complete agreement, while he and other Pistons' fans may be upset they lost, it was just a game where the losing team has to tip their cap to the opponent, because there was just no way James was going to let his team fall down three games to two that night. He was like a man possessed. Everyone on the court appeared to be at least a half step slower than LeBron (that's being nice). When Detroit hit a trifecta to go up by three, James would answer four seconds later with a three of his own to tie the game. I'm just grateful that I could witness that game and performance, because it won't ever be forgotten.

I had contemplated blogging about it directly following Game 5, but I felt it'd be best to wait until the series ended. Let's not forget, just a year ago, Cleveland led Detroit three games to two, but the Pistons came back to win the series. That wasn't to happen this time around, though, as the only game that was decided by more than six points was in the clincher for Cleveland.

I don't believe that the players outside of LeBron receive has much credit as they deserve. Larry Hughes has never been a consistent shooter and can be a bit careless with the ball at times, but is quick, explosive, can hit the trifecta, and reeks havoc on defense with his ability to steal. Drew Gooden isn't the most consistent of players and can find himself in foul trouble at times, but is a solid body on the inside, with good rebounding skills, and has an ability to hit the mid-range jump shot better than most 4's in the league. Sasha Pavlovic is inexperienced and with that, inconsistent. He lacks a bit on the defensive side of the ball, but can make up for it offensively. Zydrunas Ilgauskas is seven foot three inches tall. With that size comes an ability to rebound, block shots, and make the easy buckets inside. He's also a great free throw shooter. On the bench, Daniel Gibson, as we saw in game 7, is an emerging player in the league. The guy is quick, solid defensively, a great foul shooter, and when he gets hot from deep, look out! Anderson Varejao has a lot to learn on the offensive side of the ball, but is a pesky defender, is a hustler, and isn't afraid to take the charge in the lane. Donyell Marshall isn't as quick as he once was, so he can get taken advantage of at times on the defensive side of the ball, but he's always been a good rebounder, solid shot blocker, and has a unique ability for a 3-4 man to shoot the trifecta, along with playing in the post area. Eric Snow may not be the player he once was, but he's a terrific ball handler, defender, and leader. Even LeBron goes to him at times for leadership. While this may not be the best group of guys to surround LeBron with, they're a lot better than credited. From a starter's standpoint, the one thing that Cleveland truly lacks is a true point guard. Hughes is more of a 2, as is Pavlovic. Eric Snow is probably the most pure point guard on the team, but he's not the starter he once was.

One thing that LeBron still has to work on some is his decision-making. While that performance in Game 5 was simply incredible, there are times when James seems unfocused and unconfident. In games 1 and 2, James lacked that confidence to take charge and control of the game. He lacked that aggressiveness, which he displayed in games 3, 4, and 5. Especially in crunch and playoff time, James has to be a bit more consistent in his aggressiveness and decision-making. At points this season, this may have been due to his poor free throw shooting, so that's something else he must improve upon. If and when James improves from the foul line, I have a feeling that we'll see a much more consistently aggressive LeBron James, which means trouble for the rest of the league. I'm not ready to crown the guy yet, unlike many commentators, but I definitely see improvement in his game and look forward to watching him progress in the future.

Foreign Films Have Subtitles?

A friend of mine and I went to see the new Dutch film, "Black Book", last week. Following the film, we went to Barnes and Noble, where my friend works. When mentioning the film to a couple co-workers/friends, they both asked, "Was it subtitled?" When I mentioned the movie to my mother the day after, she too responded with, "Were there subtitles?" Finally, today, I brought the flick up to another and he replied with, "Was it subtitled?" What, do these people all believe my friend and I speak fluent Dutch? I've seen films in: Spanish, French, Arabic, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Turkish, Parisian, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Danish, Czech, Hebrew, Russian, Icelandic, and Dutch, amongst other languages. I wish it was true, but do these people truly believe that I can speak 18+ languages (including English) fluently? Why would the non-fluent speakers of the film's native tongue bother to see such films if they couldn't understand but a word that was being spoken? Unless it's truly a "visual" film, I don't know why anyone would bother.

Well, I guess this goes to show me how few actually watch Foreign Films. As an ex of my friend put it, "If I wanted to read, I'd buy a book." Ah, yes. ...and if I wanted to engage in a healthy, diverse, open, and in-depth conversation, I'd probably look elsewhere than his direction, I'm guessing.