What's with all the hype surrounding Superbad?

Approximately 87% of the critics agree, as do over 90% of movie-goers, Superbad is a super great comedy. But, why? I guess I could see why some people may like it, but Superbad is ranked at #91 on IMDb.com's top 250 of all-time. It's ranked as the #9 comedy of all-time, with an average grade of 8.6 out of 10. One film-goer stated that Superbad is the first truly funny film in the history of cinema. Some are claiming it to be THE film of the new generation. But, why?

I'll admit that there were some funny lines and scenes in the film, but as anyone who read my review will know, I gave Superbad 6 out of 10 possible points when it came to the film's comedic value and 5.5 out of 10 points when it came to the film's overall quality value.

The storyline is nothing new. Three guys are bound and determined to end their virginal status at their final big party before college, when they part ways. As can be expected with such a storyline, the plot consists of many obstacles and odd scenarios that make the young men's endeavor more difficult than they suspected. American Pie, anyone? Was the storyline not basically the same thing? The plot details may have differed here and there, but the guys' goal in American Pie was to end their virginity on senior prom night, their last big-time opportunity to "get laid" before they graduate and head off to their respective colleges. Different obstacles, but obstacles nonetheless, get in the way and makes it a rather difficult process, especially for some.

Good acting isn't to be expected in films such as these, so I'm not going to claim that I believed Jonah Hill and company were going to one-up Jack Nicholson, Greg Kinnear, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Helen Hunt from As Good As It Gets. But, character development is important, even in comedies. If the viewers can't sympathize with or root for a character, it'll be more difficult for them to enjoy the portions of the film that the character makes his/her presence. Without the quality acting skills of the before-mentioned Nicholson, Kinnear, Gooding, or Hunt, actors in films such as Superbad need to appease their audience through attitude and humor. While not all the characters in the American Pie series were humorous or even likable, I found that there were many more personable characters in that series than in Superbad, which made the films more enjoyable for me. Eugene Levy, Jason Biggs, Nadia, Stiffler, Finch, and Alyson Hannigan were all fairly likable in the series. Levy played the fun and hip father, who attempted to be understanding of his son. Biggs played Jim, the dork at heart whose heart was set one place and his rod was set somewhere else and I have no idea where his mind was set, but it made for a rather humorous confliction of thought and feeling. Finch was the whitest guy south of Casper, had a geeky aura about him, and had a thing for older ladies. Hannigan played a "band geek," but with a wild side to her. Stiffler was the class jerk that had a certain arrogance about him, which made you not want to like him, but still laugh at his words and actions. Nadia was a gorgeous woman, only looked at for that, but had a deeper, more intelligent side to her as well. All of these characters, except for maybe Stiffler at times, were extremely likable and made for an enjoyable film. I rooted for Finch, for Biggs, for Hannigan and Nadia. While the young men's intentions were the same as the two leads in Superbad, they had a different attitude about it. They didn't act angry at every woman in existence. In the end, they were seeking love. The night became about more than some young men trying to have sex. It became about young adults growing up, about friends bonding, about making the big transition from young adulthood to adulthood. Superbad attempted to illustrate similar points, but I was able to empathize more with the characters from the Pie series.

I hope the hype subsides sometime in the near future, because I just can't fathom why the hype is there to begin with. There are some funny lines, but with an unoriginal concept and unlikable characters, I don't think this film compares even to the Pie series, let alone with Judd Apatow's previous two pictures, The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up.

The Rise and Fall of Michael Vick

It was just 7-8 years ago that Michael Vick broke onto the football scene with Virginia Tech. As a redshirt freshman, Vick led the Hokies to their first undefeated regular season and first national championship game. Head Coach Frank Beamer had improved his program significantly since he took over, but something was different about the Vick-led Hokies that year. Without him, they would've been just another 8 or 9 win team, but Vick raised the Hokies level of play that year and the year following, before he was told that he'd be the #1 pick in the NFL draft. Even in the Hokies' loss to Florida State in the national title game, the player that was most talked about following the contest was Vick. He threw for over 200 yards and ran for another 100, some of those runs coming in Houdini-like fashion against one of the quickest, if not the quickest defense in the country.

Even when he began his college career in Blacksburg, it seemed that there were doubters. Regardless of the fact that Tech finished the regular season unbeaten in one of the six major conferences in college football, The Big East, some people still claimed that the Hokies didn't deserve a shot at the national title. Before the Florida State game, some were already calling Vick overrated and overhyped, because they believed he played against a lack of quality competition. But, even in that loss, that was THE game that made Michael Vick a national name. He received some Heisman votes that year, as a redshirt freshman and led the entire NCAA in pass efficiency. He was nagged by an upper ankle sprain in his sophomore year, which kept him out of Tech's one and only loss to Miami, but outside of that lapse, the Hokies went 11-0, including a dominant Gator Bowl win over Clemson.

Not many people had ever seen an athlete quite like Michael Vick at the college level. It was extraordinary to see an NCAA quarterback possess such a cannon for an arm and with that arm, it appeared as if he ran at a completely different speed than everyone else around him. It was like watching an NFL quarterback playing in college. Everything appeared to be too easy for the Hokies' gunslinger. Perhaps partially due to this, wanting a new challenge, and also the fact he'd most likely be selected #1 in the draft, Vick opted to dart out of college and into the NFL after just two seasons of playing college football.

The Atlanta Falcons traded up to nab Vick, making him the first African-American quarterback to be the top pick in the draft. The Falcons' head coach at the time, Dan Reeves, had to be ecstatic in acquiring such a talent at quarterback. Vick was reminiscent to John Elway, another quarterback Reeves' coached during his career. Elway had a solid throwing arm and good legs for a quarterback, but Vick had him beat in arm strength, speed, and elusiveness.

Vick mainly used his first year in the NFL as a redshirt season in college, learning the system, and preparing himself for the year following. He did get a couple opportunities to play here and there and showed sparks of excitement, which made some Atlanta fans want him to start right then and there in front of veteran Chris Chandler.

But, the wait was worth it. As in his second year and first starting, Vick led the Falcons to a 9-6-1 record and a Wild Card berth in the playoffs. Vick threw for almost 3,000 yards, 16 touchdowns with 8 interceptions, and ran for 777 yards. With numbers like that and a Wild Card berth to back it up, plenty of Atlanta fans and even sports' fans in general, had plenty to be excited about when it came to the prospect of Michael Vick. In the Wild Card game, Atlanta faced off against Green Bay at Lambeau Field. It was frigid at gametime with snow likely on the horizon. At that point in history, the Packers had never lost a playoff game at home. But, Vick and the Falcons were there to alter history. The defense, the offense, the special teams all played like they wanted the game more than the Packers, as the Falcons went on to win 27-7. Vick and the Falcons lost the following week to Philadelphia 20-6, but put up a solid fight for three quarters. When the score was 13-6 in the third, Vick ran 20 yards for what would have been the tying touchdown, but a holding call negated the score and any momentum the Falcons garnered on that play. It was never redeemed. But, even with the loss, Falcons fans had a lot to look forward to.

But, the Falcons' team and their fans' optimism came crashing down in the following pre-season, when Vick went down with a pre-season injury against Baltimore. Scans showed that it was a clean break and Vick would be out for several weeks. Doug Johnson took over at quarterback and led the Falcons to an opening day win against Dallas, but that was one of the few highlights for the club until Vick returned late in the season. Atlanta went 2-10 without Vick that year. When he returned against the Carolina Panthers, he worked magic with his legs, rushing for well over 100 yards, and leading the Falcons to a win over their inner-division rivals. With wins over Tampa Bay and Jacksonville in the final weeks of the season, the Falcons finished the year 5-11, 2-10 without Vick and 3-1 with him. Their only loss with him came at the hands of Indianapolis and that was the week following Dan Reeves' firing. Some blamed Vick for the firing, stating that he could've returned earlier than he did and potentially saved Reeves' job, but that Vick didn't want that to occur.

Former San Francisco 49ers' defensive coordinator, Jim Mora, Jr. then took over the coaching duties for the Falcons. His debut season with the club couldn't have gone much better. Atlanta started the year at 11-3, before resting their starters for the final two games, both of those being losses. At 11-5, Atlanta received a first-round bye, before dominating the St. Louis Rams and then again, falling to the Philadelphia Eagles, but this time in the NFC Championship Game. Vick's passing numbers on the year weren't fantastic, but he ran for over 900 yards to compliment his 2,000+ yards through the air. Vick's gameplay was heavily criticized at the start of the year, due to his injury the year prior, but as the season progressed, less sports' writers and analysts openly criticized the Falcons' star quarterback. For the second time in two full years of starting, Vick was selected to the Pro Bowl and received the only MVP vote outside of Peyton Manning. The voter stated that it was obvious the Falcons couldn't win without him, as the previous year had indicated and that because of how important he was to the team's success, he was the true MVP of the league that season.

Some news' reports and rumors started swirling in the off-season about Vick. On one occasion, a relative of his reportedly stole a vehicle full of drugs. This story didn't receive much attention, but when looking back on everything, one has to wonder what the actual truth of the matter was. In another story that didn't receive much press, it was reported that a woman alleged Michael Vick had knowingly given her an STD. She claimed that Vick's alias was Ron Mexico. The suit was quietly taken care of in court and what the exact details were in the case, perhaps I'll never know, but regardless of whether the allegation was true or not, this off-season slowly became the beginning of the end of Michael Vick.

With the NFC Championship Game just a year behind them, high expectations followed the Falcons' football team around and for good reason. As expected, the Dirty Birds started the season off strong, at 6-2 and looking to again receive a first round by in the playoffs. But, due to multiple injuries on defense and Vick's hamstring nagging him off and on throughout the season, the Falcons had problems stopping the opposition and also had their share of issues on the offensive end. Critics were quiet for the first half of the season, but let out their rants the second half, as if they had been bottling these words for a couple years. Oddly enough, the same analysts who claimed Vick ran too much just after his injury stated that he should run more this season. His accuracy was still in question and some began to question his leadership, as well. Vick went down with nagging hamstring injuries on a couple occasions during the season and back-up quarterback Matt Schaub had to take over. Vick even went off on reporters following a win against the Miami Dolphins, in which he was extremely accurate throwing the football. He said that he never wanted to hear them say he couldn't throw the ball again and to ask him about his accuracy. He proved he could throw the football, so no more questions needed to be asked regarding it. The second half of the season was a flip-flop of the first, as the Falcons went 2-6, en route to an 8-8 campaign. For the first time as a full-time starter, Michael Vick didn't lead his club to a playoff bid. He finished with 2,000+ passing yards, 600+ rushing yards, with slightly above a 1:1 ratio in touchdowns to interceptions. For the third time in three full years of starting, Vick was selected to play in the Pro Bowl.

Not much negative news swirled around Vick this off-season, but he was found on a friend's MySpace page holding what appeared to be a cigarette or joint of some kind. Many on the page commented that it was indeed not a marijuana joint, but a pretty potent cigar, which Vick later admitted to smoking every now and again. That didn't receive much press either and it probably shouldn't have, but with these three close calls for Vick early in his career, it'd all catch up to him the following season.

As had been typical in his previous years of starting for the Falcons, Vick and his team started strong, at 5-2, but again, with injuries on defense, indecision on offense, and more me mentality's than we's, the Falcons finished the season 7-9 and for the second consecutive year, Vick's team would be sitting at home come time for the playoffs. Statistically speaking, the Falcons' quarterback had his all-around best season yet. He threw for around 2,500 yards, 20 touchdowns, 12 interceptions, and became the first quarterback in NFL history to run for 1,000 yards in a season.

It was nothing but bad news for Vick this past off-season and it started early. It was reported in the late spring/early summer that Vick was reluctant on handing over a water bottle at the airport and when checked, there was a hidden compartment which smelled similar to marijuana. The media was no longer quiet about Vick's close run-ins with the law and overblew the story. It was later discovered following testing, that there were no illegal substances in Vick's water bottle compartment. Even then, there are still some doubters, which believe Vick got away with yet another potential wrong. From a legal perspective, all the close run-ins for Vick finally caught up to him, when it was reported that authorities raided a home owned by Vick in search for drugs. While no drugs were mentioned, from inspecting the home, federal authorities had good reason to believe that there was some kind of dogfighting operation at the residence. Vick remained very hush-hush following the initial reports. But, whether he was innocent or guilty, Vick's name being associated with dogfighting in any sense of the word, had the public in an uproar. The uproar became louder and more vigorous as time lapsed and more evidence got reported on the activities which ensued at the household. It was reported that Vick would most likely not be indicted, but a couple weeks later, Vick along with three others were indicted and with that indictment, the talk of a suspension loomed.

Meanwhile, sponsors, such as Nike, Reebok, and others that had been affiliated with Vick, either completely dropped or suspended their ties with him. Vick built a himself a strong defense team and stated he'd do whatever he could to clean his good name. After the other three defendents decided to plead guilty and with that plea, testify against Vick, the star quarterback was trapped in a corner, which not even he could scramble from. After reaching an agreement on a plea bargain, Michael Vick pled guilty yesterday. The chances are that he will spend between 12-18 months in prison, but that the federal government will recommend the low end of that range (12 months). Vick has agreed to cooperate in full with all authorities, in attempt to lessen his sentence/punishment and there's even word that if he snitches on enough people with enough important information, Vick could get off with a probation and fine. That is not likely, but is still a possibility. Vick's sentencing hearing is scheduled to be on December 10th, so there's plenty of time for he and authorities to meet and discuss what Vick does and does not know. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has suspended the quarterback indefinitely. If/when Vick completes his sentence, that will be the time when Goodell will review the case, review Vick's behavior since the plea, and decide if the quarterback should be given another chance.

Football is just a distant backdrop anymore to Vick's life. Chances are that he will one day play again, whether that be in the CFL, Arena League, or the NFL, but right now, Michael Vick is facing the toughest defense of all, the federal government, prosecution, judicial system, and potentially a federal penitentiary. No matter how quick and elusive he is, Vick will not be able to get away from the pass rush in this situation. He will not be able to make fans go silent, with their mouths agape at the extraordinary athletic ability of this guy.

It's sad to see what seems to be such a sudden and drastic fall for a person. But, the fact of the matter is that this fall has been much more gradual than people may think. Growing up where he did and without a father to love and protect he and his siblings, the Vick's (Michael and Marcus) faced an uphill battle throughout their lives, maybe not on the football field, but away from it.

Vick admitted to his wrongs yesterday, apologized to the world, and asked for forgiveness. In the grand scheme of things, the public's view of Vick doesn't matter. Based on his off-the-field decisions over the past few years, Vick will need to make some very difficult, but essential decisions after he is released from prison. One may not want to bet on a person like this, growing up in a bad area without a father to support them, but hopefully, the severe punishment Vick will receive from this crime will be enough to help him turn the corner, not as a football player, but as a human being. If he doesn't, the next predicament he runs into could be his last.

Owen Wilson Hospitalized

Actor and star of such films as Starsky & Hutch, Wedding Crashers, and Royal Tenenbaums, Owen Wilson was reported hospitalized after attempting to commit suicide this past Sunday. It was reported that he slit his wrist and some pills were found near him when a family member discovered him.

I heard some commentary last night and read some more today about how Owen Wilson should be the happiest guy in the world. He's rich, famous, women adore him, etc. They would then sarcastically state, "Gosh, Owen's just had it so tough."

When we're young, it's easy to claim that we want to be celebrities - rich, famous, and seemingly always in the spotlight. But, as we grow older, as I have, my feelings on the matter have altered drastically. While all the money can buy one an envied wardrobe, a powerful and popular automobile, and a large home, it can't prevent one from self-destructing, from becoming depressed, from having suicidal thoughts. While it can buy objects that many people may envy and crave and can buy plenty more opportunities than the average person, it can't buy one happiness.

The people I talked to last night seem to think that money is the key ingredient to a good life, to being happy. But what about everything that comes with being rich and famous? The scrutiny, the Paparazzi's, the people and media always in your face, not being able to travel anywhere without being noticed. Some people may say, "But, I like being noticed..." and yadda yadda yadda. Yeah, it may be nice once in a while, but to basically never have any time where one can just go out, relax, and not have to worry about getting hounded? Those are ingredients for making one go a little crazy. I know it'd drive me up a wall and I'm very thankful not to be a celebrity because of it.

Hillary's Terror Comments

In the past week, Democratic favorite in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, had a few interesting words.

She said, "It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

She also said in regard to the prospect of terrorism, "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that."

The Republican Party has lived and died in the 2004 and last November's elections when playing the terrorism card. They reiterated time and time again that the Republican Party was more equipped to dealing with the prospect of terrorism and would be more apt than the Democratic Party to prevent such acts from occurring on our soil again. This won Bush the 2004 election against John Kerry and lost Republicans the majority in Congress last November.

So, why is Hillary Clinton subtlely and suddenly playing that same card? She criticizes the prospect of asking the "What ifs" in regard to terrorism or anything else and then comes back with asking the "What if", herself and attempting to play that to her advantage. Republicans attempted to frighten Americans into voting for them in the 2004 presidential election and again last November. Are the Democrats going to join the fear game or will it just be Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans? I hope that neither party plays that card when election time draws near, but that would be very naive of me to believe that it would actually occur. Hopefully Hillary elaborates and clarifies on the statements she made earlier in the week, because she ticked off many of her fellow Democrats with them.

Vick to Potentially Serve No Jail Time?

Just recently, it was made known that Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick will fully cooperate with all authorities in regard to dogfighting. What does that translate to? Snitching and lots of it. I read a column today stating that if Vick can give enough reliable information, he may not have to serve any jail time.

I have very mixed feelings on this. I've been a long-time critic of the drug war, for multiple reasons. One is the fact that many times, a person will be arrested on a drug offense and through a chain reaction of snitching, the information that started with he will lead to the drug king the authorities sought and he will wind up serving more time than a person arrested on a murder charge.

I guess the true question that should be asked is, what's more beneficial to the government and society as a whole? Ten people imprisoned for a year or two not well-known in the drug world or one drug king imprisoned for several years? This is where I think we run around in circles in the drug war. While it may appear to be more beneficial with the latter as opposed to the former option, dealing drugs isn't rocket science. If one major drug dealer gets sent to prison, someone will replace him. Where there is money that can be made, sheep will follow and no matter how illegal the operation may be, money can be made with illegal drugs. So, regardless of how many big-time drug dealers are sent away to prison, there will be others to step foot where they once were when they are punished.

Can the underground dogfighting ring be seen as different than the drug war? Possibly. From what I know (which isn't much), dogfighting is not as prevalent across the country as drug dealing, so perhaps Vick outing one dogfighting ringleader would be more beneficial than the outing of one major drug dealer. But, the fact remains that Vick violated the law, pleaded guilty, and should be punished. If he provides a tremendous amount of helpful information to the government, should he have his sentence reduced or even expunged altogether? That is where I run into problems. While Vick's information may be very beneficial to the authorities and society as a whole, will he truly have learned his lesson with just getting off on probation and a fine after committing an illegal act? That's the question I'd have if he were to have his sentenced reduced to a great extent.

What a jerk...

It's amazing the people you'll bump into on a given day. My folks have lived in West Omaha for approximately 24 years now. We have two Siberian Huskies, who are both 6 years old. Before today, I have had only one odd/bad encounter when walking my dogs, who are extremely active and need 2-4 walks per day. There's a very large horsetrail behind the house, so my mother, father, and/or I have utilized it for 6 years to walk the dogs. I've begun to utilize it for jogging purposes in recent weeks. The only bad encounter I had while on the horsetrail was last summer, when a crabby old man yelled at my mother and I, because he thought we were teasing the dog next door to him with our dogs. He said he'd been watching me for the previous six months (scary, I know) and knew what I was trying to do, tease the dog next door. He was obviously on his period and later apologized...to my mother, never to me.

That brings me to today (yesterday, I guess). Right as my mother and I were walking the dogs back home, we bumped into a guy, whom I don't believe I've ever met before. He said in a high-pitched, almost friendly tone of voice, "You're from ......, right?" My mother, thinking that perhaps he had just moved here and was being friendly/neighborly, said, "Yes, we are." He then went into his schpiel, "This trail is for .... residents only. We pay a lot of money for the up-keep." My mom and I kind of laughed and walked back to our house. He then shouted, "This isn't funny. We don't walk in your backyard. You don't walk in ours. I'll call the police next time I see you back here."

I love people with giant logs stuck in their bottom. While the old man last year was not pleasant in any sense of the word, he didn't make the claim that we couldn't walk our dogs there. This guy had a very deceiving voice. It was reminiscent of that of Justin Timberlake getting kicked in the crotch. But, once his initial question was answered, he was off and rolling. It's amazing how a trail can separate two neighborhoods, be closer to one of those neighborhoods and yet be a crime for those citizens to utilize it in any manner. The only sign I see on the entire trail is that unauthorized vehicles may not be used. I don't consider my dogs to be vehicles, so I have no idea what this guy was yabbering about. Oddly enough, there are some people on the OTHER side of the trail who drive their unauthorized vehicles through the trail, but it's evidently THEIR trail, so that's permitted.

We told my father when we walked back in and he had a laugh also. Why, after 6+ years of walking the dogs back there, does this guy find the nerve to say something when he bumps into us? If it TRULY bothered him, why did he not contact us in the 2,190 days before this? It's not like we're the only ones in the neighbordhood utilizing THEIR trail. I know (counts...this could take a while) at least six other families that either walk, jog, or walk their dogs on the trail every now and again. My father responded by saying, "Keep on using it. Let him call the police. I'm sure they'd love that."

Yes, I'm sure they would. Robberies, rapes, murders, theft, amongst other crimes being committed and let's go after this person walking his dogs in a horsetrail. What would the charge be? Trespassing? Nowhere do I see it say private property and no sign reads anything but no unauthorized vehicles. My family and I will inquire further about this, but until the guy shows me documented evidence of what he claims to be the legal truth, I'm not going to stop walking my dogs. There were a few things I wanted to say to him, but I'm glad that I kept my mouth shut and just laughed. What a jerk... He obviously never watched Mr. Rogers. Heck, if Mr. Rogers were still alive, after he finished his song (Won't you please be my neighbor?), he may point to this guy and say, "except for you."

A Night Full of Quotes

Ever just spend an evening out with friends and/or family and simply listen and observe? You just don't feel too chatty that evening and are just tuned in to what everyone is saying, part of you fascinated by their words and gestures and another part of you baffled at how a person (or persons) could say/do such things? This is why I like to stay sober some evenings when my friends and I go out to the bars. I enjoy drinking, but some evenings, like this past one, I'm just not quite in the mood. Whenever this occurs, I'm consistently amazed at what people will say and/or do.

This evening was no different. Let me roll some quotes by everyone.

When the subject of a hip-hop club got brought up, I heard another in the group say something along the lines of, "Yeah, well, a lot of people were scared to let that transpire, because there always seems to be a big black guy throwing something through the window to ruin the evening. When's the last time you heard of someone doing anything like that at a rock concert?" For the record, this man is the lead singer of a local rock band.

A bit later, another individual said, "In sales, the manager is almost always stupider than the people under him. He's just there because he's been working there for 15-20 years. He probably didn't even go to college. It's the only job where you don't need education or to really do anything to move up the ladder."

Later in the evening, another said, "I'm a fag hater." Yup, those were his exact words. He then said, "She's crazy. She saw a counselor, so she's nuts."

In regard to the first quote, are you kidding me? Nothing ever happen at a rock concert? It's very sad that he's in a rock band. I mean, if he was a sheltered lad that had never gone to a show period, then perhaps I could understand his prejudice beliefs, but to actually be a member or a local rock band and still mutter such an idiotic statement? I've been to several rock concerts and have witnessed my share of fights with people getting thrown out and people getting arrested after shows. Deaths have even occurred during and after shows in the past. So, please, let's not say that we should all fear the hip-hop club because of "the big black guy", when I and others have witnessed plenty of "big white guys" getting into brawls and getting themselves arrested at rock concerts.

The second quote makes me laugh. Some people just believe they're smarter than anyone, don't they? If they ever have a boss, regardless of how intelligent he or she is, how long they've worked there, etc., this boss will always be inferior to them. Is it true that SOME sales managers may be in that position mainly due to the fact of their longevity with the company? Sure, but the same can hold true for many other jobs. On occasion, one's time spent does pay off, in the end. In either scenario, we shouldn't assume that these managers are uneducated. In my opinion, that is a rather uneducated statement.

The third quote speaks volumes all by its lonesome. To make a hateful statement toward any one group of people like that is stupefying. Whether those comments be directed toward men, women, homosexuals, heterosexuals, actors/actresses, archeologists, or spelling bee champions, how in the world can one lay a claim that they hate every single person in a group based on minimal knowledge of the people in that group?

I'm still trying to come to grips with the final quote. So any and every person who has seen a counselor, even if it was just for a single appointment, that person is crazy? Some shrinks have sought therapy of their own. Does that make them nuts? This is another ignorant statement. This is by no means "factual" information here, but from what I've read and heard, approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all appointments deal with break-ups/divorces or a couple attempting to work things out with one another. How does that make them nuts? It's not like these people are schizophrenic, bi-polar, suffer from multiple personality disorder. They're going through a rough time, need someone to listen and talk to, or in the final scenario I mentioned, to hear a professional's guiding words in regard to their relationship. SOME people who seek counseling can be construed as being crazy, but that could be true of any profession. Some teachers have been and/or gone crazy. Some who scheduled regular doctor's appointments are crazy, or chiropractic appointments. It's highly ignorant to suggest that EVERY single person who's ever sought counseling is "nuts," plain and simple.

There you have it, an evening full of quotes that I'll never forget, yet wish I could. Evenings such as this one both fascinate and depress me. They make me more curious to stay sober on bar nights, yet perhaps less willing to stay sober.

Bravos in Trouble

It seems like just yesterday, the baseball world had tabbed the Atlanta Braves the National League East champions after acquiring first base stud, Mark Teixeira from the Texas Rangers. While I was in no means certain of that result, I was rather optimistic of the Braves at least garnering the Wild Card spot in the National League.

But, it's amazing how things change in any arena, and that includes the world of baseball. Just as I've been saying all year in regard to the Detroit Tigers and their struggles in the bullpen, I'm now saying in regard to the Atlanta Braves and their (gulp) starting pitching. For most of the season, the Tigers have put up staggering offensive numbers, especially when slugger Gary Sheffield has been in the line-up and healthy. But, I kept commenting that unless their bullpen improves some down the stretch, it'll be very difficult for them to win consistently come playoff time without a reliable pen. Rarely do I see the World Series Champ consistently win 10-7 games in the playoffs. They're typically lower scoring, because usually, the teams who do make the playoffs were exceptional in their pitching and on defense. Now, unfortunately, I have to make the same remark with the Atlanta Braves and their starting rotation. Their top two guys are outstanding, in John Smoltz and Tim Hudson. Hudson is a Cy Young Award contender and Smoltz isn't too far back. But, they're 3-5 guys have been struggling as of late and to make matters worse, their #3, Chuck James, was just placed on the disabled list earlier in the week. So, Buddy Carlyle, Lance Cormier and JoJo Reyes are their 3-5 starters. Quite a drastic change in experience and quality from Smoltz and Hudson, their 1 and 2 starters.

If the Braves want to even have a chance at making the playoffs, let alone the World Series, they need their 3-5's to step up down the stretch. Hudson and Smoltz have been lights out this season, but even they will have a start where their stuff just isn't there. They may only pitch 5-6 innings and force the pen to come in for 3-4. This is what has hurt the Braves a great deal, is the fact their 3-5's typically only go 5-6 innings, so their relief pitchers are consistently giving 3-4 innings of work three out of five days. They're going to be worn out before long (some may already be at that point). The Braves' bats are doing fine. The left field platoon of Willie Harris and Matt Diaz has worked splendidly this year. Harris is hitting around .310 and Diaz is up around .340. Jeff Francouer in right field is hitting above .300. Chipper Jones over at third is hitting around .340. Edgar Renteria at short was hitting near .330 before he went down to an injury and youngster Yunel Escobar hasn't slowed down much since taking over, hitting close to .320. Kelly Johnson is hitting above .290 at second. Mark Teixeira is hitting above .290 at first. Brian McCann is climbing his way back to the .280 mark at catcher. The only down spot in the order, average wise, has been Andruw Jones in centerfield, where he's currently hitting around .220, yet leads the team in home runs with 24 and RBI's with 82 and is well on his way to another 30 home run and 100 RBI season, even despite his horrendous average. Up and down the line-up, the Braves have decent speed, especially with Willie Harris in left. They're very solid defensively. Francouer has arguably the best arm of any outfielder. Willie Harris can cover a lot of ground in left. Andruw Jones is arguably the best outfielder in the history of the game. Chipper, Edgar/Yunell, Teixeira, and McCann make for a very solid infield. But, like I mentioned with the Tigers, the Braves can't expect to make the playoffs, let alone win in the playoffs based on scoring a lot of runs. They lost last night 9-7 against the Reds. This has happened a few times in the past month. If a team scores a touchdown and an extra point...in baseball...they should be pretty certain of a victory. But, the Braves 3-5 men will have to step up down the stretch for that to happen and for their dream of another playoff run to have any chance whatsoever. After the Teixeira acquisition, I was fairly confident of at least a Wild Card berth for the Bravos, but as of right now, with Renteria going back on the DL, along with Chuck James, my optimism has decreased tremendously. Carlyle, Cormier, and Reyes will really have to step up for me to think otherwise.

Vick's father makes headlines

For those that don't know, Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick took his mother's last name due to his biological father estranging he and his siblings. As I just read in an article, Vick's father is in the news, claiming that he told his son to cut it out with the dogfighting.

It was also made known in the article that Michael pays his father's rent and not long ago, his father asked Michael for $1,000,000 to hold him over for a while. Vick declined, so his father asked for $700,000, which was declined also.

I then read some comments claiming that what the father said must be true, since Vick plead guilty on a charge of conspiracy. But, it was also made known this past evening that Vick will not admit to actually killing the dogs or gambling on them. To what is he pleading guilty? Perhaps providing money for the operation and spectating some of the fights. We won't fully know until Monday, but that's my guess.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, unfortunately, with this plea agreement, we may never know the whole truth surrounding this case, but with Vick's biological father popping out of the clouds to make some headlines, I and perhaps some others can begin to see what Vick and others in similar shoes as he have to deal with. Make millions of dollars? Expect friends, family, acquaintences, and even those you thought were on non-speaking terms with you to suddenly make their presence known again in attempt to sway you to give them some money. What will they do with that money? Who's to say? They could state one thing and do another. It may be ignorant to just give people money, as Vick seemingly has done, but I'm hard-pressed to know what I'd do if I were in the same situation. If I and those I loved grew up poor and I suddenly struck gold in becoming a multi-million dollar celebrity, would I tell those that were/are close to me "no" if they asked, especially in knowing how rough and difficult their childhood and upbringing were? It's impossible for me to say. I'd like to say that I'd know better and that I'd be strong enough to tell them all know, but these are people that influenced me throughout my life and helped me become who I am today, so it'd be difficult at the same time, to refuse any of my earnings unto them.

Are we to believe Vick's father? I haven't the slightest idea. He doesn't seem to be the most credible of sources, but then again, neither do the already-convicted criminals who pled guilty before Vick in this case. They all have something to gain. The other three who pled guilty could lessen their punishment by "outing" Vick and his father has an opportunity to get back at his son for refusing to give him $700,000-$1,000,000. When it comes to such cases, everyone has something to gain and/or lose. The prosecution gained a guilty verdict with Vick's upcoming plea, but lose the opportunity to maximize the punishment. Vick and his defense team lessen the potential punishment (and time/money spent), but have to enter a guilty plea. In cases such as these, it's the public's guess, because all we truly have at our perusal are people's words. Those words can be true, fictional, or a combination of the two and through our judgment, we have to decide what to believe. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done and our biases and the media's portrayal of the case may weigh heavier into our conclusions that we initially may have liked.

Absurd Commentary Regarding Andruw Jones' Defense

Not often am I bothered by sports' commentary, because in the grand scheme of thing, what does it really matter? An opinion I disagree with on a sports-related subject is about as important to the world's functioning as the flavor of Gatorade I'm currently drinking. But, a comment I overheard tonight by my brother's friend made me shake my head a time or two in utter amazement at the absurdity of that statement.

The Top Ten catches of the evening were being shown on Baseball Tonight. Atlanta Braves' centerfielder Andruw Jones made a terrific catch at #8, when this young man said, "The only reason Andruw Jones makes all those catches is because he's the laziest outfielder in the game. He doesn't get a jump on the ball at all. He's probably the worst in all of baseball at that, doesn't run hard, so he has to dive for the ball on a consistent basis. He's the biggest waste of talent in the game."

Let it be known for the record that I am an Atlanta Braves' fan and have been for quite some time and let it be known for the record that this other fellow doesn't follow professional baseball very closely. But, I try to be as unbiased as I can be when it comes to any topic of discussion.

Could he have said that Andruw Jones has underachieved somewhat on the offensive end during his career? Yes, he could have and I would have been able to see his point. Andruw's power numbers have always been solid, but he has lacked a stout batting average throughout the majority of his career. In this being his 11th season (10th full), Jones has a career .263 batting average, with 1,655 hits, 325 doubles, 34 triples, 366 home runs, 1,105 RBI's, 138 stolen bases, and 1,031 runs scored, with an OBP of .342 and a slugging percentage of .500. His power numbers are splendid, but that .263 batting average is very mediocre and this year, that average has plummeted to .219. While overall, one can't gripe much about Andruw's career offensive output, one could honestly say that Jones hasn't consistently lived up to his potential on the offensive end. So, if this young lad wanted to make that statement, then I could completely understand. But still, if Andruw plays another few years, which he should, the guy will ecclipse the 500 and perhaps the 600 home run mark, end with 2,000+ RBI's, 150-200 SB's, 1,750 runs scored, a chance at 3,000 hits, 500+ doubles, 50-75 triples, all while batting in the .260-.270 range. Those numbers alone would probably place Andruw on the border when it comes to he being Hall-of-Fame bound.

But, one area that I can't understand this argument is when it comes to Andruw's defense in centerfield. The guy has been a full-time centerfielder for nine seasons ('98-'06), this being his tenth, and how many Gold Gloves does he have to show for it? Nine, with #10 likely on the horizon after this season comes to a close. Former Giants' centerfielder, Willie Mays, regarded by many to be the greatest centerfielder of all-time, leads outfielders with 13 Gold Gloves throughout his career. If Andruw obtains his 10th straight after this season, he could legitimately tie and even become the all-time leader in Gold Gloves obtained by an outfielder, even ecclipsing the mark set by Mr. Mays. There was one time, during Andruw's first full season as a centerfielder, when he was extremely lazy. Guess what Manager Bobby Cox decided to do after Jones' lackadasical play? He pulled him, right in the middle of the game! Quite the embarrassment for Jones and I haven't seen the guy by lazy in the outfield ever since that one play.

The funny thing is that I don't see Andruw make quite as many diving catches as some other centerfielders. Why is that? Andruw plays more shallow than any centerfielder in the game (he has the most range) and he gets the greatest jump on the ball of any centerfielder in the game. While the camera may only focus on Jones at the tail-end of the play when he's in cruise mode and almost appearing to be lazy, viewers miss the great jump he gets and miss why Andruw can set himself in cruise control so frequently. Without those great jumps on the ball, he'd have to dive with more regularity such as the likes of Jim Edmonds and Ken Griffey Jr. (before he moved to right field). Two of the greatest outfielders in the modern era, centerfielder Ken Griffey Jr. and left fielder Barry Bonds have been asked time and time again who the greatest outfielder is in baseball? They both said, without hesitation, Andruw Jones. While I can understand this guy's argument with Mr. Jones' and his inconsistencies at the plate, I can't understand him making such remarks about his spectacular defense. If only he had the opportunity to actually watch Jones play centerfield on a consistent basis, his attitude and viewpoint would change drastically. Bobby Cox has said time and time again that Andruw Jones is the best outfielder he's ever seen and yes, that includes Willie Mays. It's very difficult for me to believe that a guy who's obtained 9 Gold Gloves in his 9 seasons of playing a position and a guy who has received such high praise from the likes of Ken Griffey Jr., Barry Bonds, Bobby Cox and numerous others, is the "laziest" outfielder in baseball and I'll take the words of Griffey, Bonds, and Cox over this guy's any day.

Congress Approval Reaches Historic Low

It's only taken the Democratic majority in Congress eight months, but their approval rating is now at a dreadful 18%, tied for the lowest rating in history. Congratulations! Hold on one second while I give the Dems a standing ovation. They deserve it.

(still clapping)

(still applauding)

Okay, that's enough. Why some Republicans were angered when the Democrats won majority of both the House and the Senate last November is beyond me. They should've known that the flippy-floppity Dems would find a way not to make any decisions of their own and eventually give in to the president's (Republicans') wishes, which would then tick off 74% of the nation (not approving of the president's job at this current juncture). That doesn't include the 26% who do approve and many of them wouldn't support the Democratic agenda.

While the Democrats have attempted to speed up the troop withdrawal process, they were met with denials from the president and have since basically given up with that endeavor. Some now even claim to have changed their mind on how to go about such a measure.

Their softness and indecisiveness was at its peak just this past week, when they basically allowed President Bush to be a temporary dictator. Way to go, guys! I just read an article today that many Democrats are now having second thoughts on allowing the bill to pass. Go figure!

I'm now seeing more clearly the joke (truth) that comedian Lewis Black has paralyed unto his audiences, in that Republicans make all the bad decisions and Democrats don't make any decisions. So, what, we the people have to vote for Bad Decision or No Decision? Eh, how about a third or fourth option, so that we can make a decent decision? Is that too much to ask? Wait, don't answer that. I, unfortunately, already know the answer. (sighs)

"Superbad" Review

Well, as I suspected, I went and saw the new film, Superbad, this past evening. Before I begin the review, let me first say that I have enjoyed Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen's two previous films, in The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Let me also say that at first glance of the previews, I wasn't too optimistic about this film, but after hearing such glowing reviews, that level of optimism grew.

As usual, I should've listened to my initial instinct. While I don't feel that this was a bad film in any manner, I definitely feel that it's been overhyped by critics.

Seth (Jonah Hill - Accepted), Evan (Michael Cera), and Fogell are three high school seniors who desperately want to get laid before they reach college. Sound familiar? American Pie, anyone? Let it be known that the script was written by Seth Rogan and his buddy, Evan Goldberg when they were 13-years old (glance at the first names of the two writers and then the names of the two lead characters). Oddly enough, the film comes across as one written by two teenagers.

Judd Apatow has had a way of balancing adult humor with a big-hearted message in his previous two films (40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up), but that balance is not present in Superbad. While The 40-Year Old Virgin, starring Steve Carrell as the lead character, included some perverted, yet adult humor, it also told the story of a man in search of love, a man who had actually waited 40 years to express that very love and in Knocked Up, starring Seth Rogan as the lead, there again was some perverted adult humor, but the story revolved around two people making a relationship work out and becoming the responsible adults they needed to be in order to make both that and parenthood work, Superbad may indeed have many perverted lines present, but the big-hearted message isn't there to balance the scale any. Some may claim that it is indeed there and that the writers are trying to illustrate how difficult these teenage years are and how much we need to grow, whether in a close proximity to or hundreds of miles away from those that have been closest to you since grade school. The writers may have attempted to do such a thing, but with the number of gross-out lines and actions throughout the two hours of film time, the overall scale was drastically tilted in favor of the perversions, as opposed to the "mature" script-writing.

Like I said from the outset, I didn't hate this movie. There were some parts that made me laugh. Some of the dialogue (not much) brought back memories of some friends of mine and what they'd say in regard to a party or a member of the opposite sex. But, I can't for the life of me recall any of them being THAT perverted on such a regular basis. One downfall to this movie was the actors involved. I wasn't drawn to the lead actors as I was in the other two Apatow films. I didn't root for them as I did for Carrell in The 40-Year Old Virgin or Rogen in Knocked Up. Michael Cera's character, Evan, I rooted for a little bit, but I wasn't drawn toward Jonah Hill's character at all, Seth. He was typically angry, had only one thing on his mind, only cared about himself, didn't respect women in the least bit, just not a very likable character. Even Cera's character didn't draw me in that much more. He is an extremely shy and intelligent guy in the film, but for lack of a better word, is rather dull. Fogell is probably the most consistently entertaining of the three leads, but he received the least screen-time.

Even when comparing this film to American Pie, I have to give the edge to the Pie series, because of the characters. The plot and storyline were nothing special and neither was the script, but the characters were more likable. With Finch, Jason Biggs, Eugene Levy, Stiffler (to an extent), amongst others, there were some fun, likable characters in the films. When it comes to these types of comedies, to me, that's the most important ingredient. Without a character to root for, it becomes more difficult to go along for the ride and laugh right along with that character for the duration of the film and that winning character was not present in Superbad, unfortunately.

Comedic Grade: 6/10 - There were two times when I laughed out loud, several small chuckles, but much more waiting time (as laughs go) than I would have liked.

Overall Grade: 5.5/10 - The dialogue was decent at times. There were some funny moments, but overall, I just saw this as a slightly above average comedy that I really don't care to see again. As opposed to Apatow and Rogen's previous two films together, The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, I could never truly get into this film, largely due to the fact that I was never drawn in by any of the lead characters.

Vick Enters Guilty Plea

It was made official yesterday. Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick said he would enter a guilty plea on a federal conspiracy charge.

Again, as is the case with most things, there are many ways one can look at this. I have an uncle and a friend whom are both lawyers, so I've heard many stories in my day. A guilty plea does not always mean what it may suggest. It means the party is probably guilty of something, but plea bargains can be tricky scenarios.

Take this case, for instance. If Michael Vick is even innocent of the charges, he was backed into a corner by some already convicted criminals who said they'd testify against him to lessen their sentence and if Vick didn't accept the deal, chances are he'd receive more charges today. So, with this plea bargain, it's a win-win or a win-lose or even a lose-lose, depending on how you look at it. The prosecution gets their guilty plea and the defense limits the potential damage. Based on inside reports, it sounds as if the prosecution will ask for a 12-18 month prison sentence, which is a lot for a first time offender, but based on the emotional turmoil surrounding the case, it wouldn't surprise me to see Vick receive that kind of sentence.

Another problem with the plea bargain is the fact we'll never know the truth. Only Vick and a few others know exactly what happened and we'll never have a trial and a jury prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Vick or the others were guilty on all charges, guilty on some charges, or not guilty at all.

No matter how one wants to slice it, Vick has chosen to plead guilty and accept responsibility for the mistakes he's made, as he put it. If he wants to restore any of his former image, that's a good start, but he has a long way to go. Football shouldn't be on his mind right now. All that should be on his mind is bettering himself as a person, improving his lifestyle, making better decisions, especially when it comes to those he associates himself with, and restoring his image. Hopefully his jail sentence and overall punishment will help he and the others improve their lives and themselves.

Death at a Funeral Review

I just went and saw the new British comedy, Death at a Funeral, yesterday and must say, I was quite impressed. To my surprise, the place was packed. It was only airing in one theatre, but still. I figured my mom and I would be able to get solid seats with no problem. We had to sit in the second row.



Some people I know (one in particular) have this ignorant stereotype that all British comedy is silly, slapstick, and overly predictable. This person has seen Borat and still believes that to be the case, although I doubt he sees Borat as British humor. Death at a funeral is contemporary in its style of British humor. It's not afraid to be controversial at times, offend, and is most certainly not predictable. From start to finish, my mom, I, and many others in the theatre laughed at a fairly regular pace with some of the laughs being in the out loud fashion.



There's something in this film for everyone, from a nervous man mistakingly taking a pill of acid thinking it was valium to odd occurrences with the coffin to a man walking on the roof naked in broad daylight to little people attempting to make their presence known in large ways to an old (very old) grandparent with a dirty mouth to an overworrisome man that can't seem to stop talking to a bitter old mother and so much more! I may be jumping the gun just a smidge when saying this (probably not), but Death at at Funeral has to be the funniest film I've seen since I viewed another British comedy, Hot Fuzz.



Comedic Grade: 8/10 - There's humor for everyone: sarcastic and dry, silly, perverted, slapstick, offensive, etc.



Overall Grade: 7/10 - The film was so funny, that I didn't much care about plot or storyline depth or even quality acting. There were some touching moments here and there, though, in the few seconds during the course of the film where I wasn't laughing. Much can be learned from the film, like don't do any hits of acid before going to a wedding, funeral, or job interview and if you're going to have an affair with someone, make sure you don't pass away before they do!

The Purpose of Film

I read some argumentative comments the other day on what the point of film is. Most everyone claimed something along these lines, "The whole point (of movies) is to entertain, right?" While most people I know would agree with that, I'm not entirely sold on that argument.

The point of eating is to nourish and fill oneself. The point of sports is to root for a particular team and play the role of their cheerleader. The point of traveling is to hit all the big spots which have been talked about for decades. The point of movies is to entertain us.

To the average Joe (or Bob, whatever), this may very well be the case. Most people go to the movie theater for entertainment. They may buy some popcorn or candy, some soda, and waltz into the theatre with the big screen and hope that the next couple hours are well spent (in more ways than one) and enjoyable. But, not everyone thinks this way.

There are times when I'm so hungry, I could about grab anything in the kitchen, place it in my mouth, and chew, just so I fill myself to prevent my stomach's constant grumblings. But, on many occasions, there's more to it than that. I don't just eat the food to fill myself. I eat it because I enjoy it. I want to take in every flavor I possibly can and make like the star in the film Ratatoville. There are many times when I just want to see a sporting event well played, evenly officiated, with building suspense and a climactic ending which gives those in the sports' world something to chatter about for weeks, months, even years. When I'm traveling, I want to experience the culture of a certain area more so than certain landmarks that are well known. I want to meet the people, experience the food, the music, art, entertainment, language, etc. to garner the best feel for that particular area.

While filling oneself is certainly a satisfying feeling (so long as it's not overdone), one's favorite team being victorious on any given day is likewise satisfying, or even knowing that you saw one of the most talked about landmarks in the world may be an accomplishing feeling it's own right, sitting down in a theatre and being entertained is a definite bonus to the experience, but not the whole experience.

This is where critics and average people differ. I was scolded not long ago about how film critics are stupid, are too picky, and should never be listened to, because they don't know what they're talking (writing) about. Where lies the difference is that people, more times than not, grade movies based on their entertainment value and critics grade films based on their overall quality. It may be similar to a live musical act or a restaurant. The people may find the overall dining experience to be fun, but food critics may be disappointed by the quality of food served. The people may be in love with a certain musician, based on the energy they exude throughout their performance, but music critics may feel that this individual's voice was off-key throughout the evening's show. While people go to films for a good laugh, a good scare, or some happy tears, critics want to see something mind-blowing, a film with originality, with revolutionary direction, clever editing, ground-breaking cinematography, Oscar-worthy acting, etc.

While I will agree with my brother's comments when it comes to critics' reviews from an entertainment standpoint, I don't agree with him when it comes to a quality one. When it comes to the overall quality of films, I typically agree with the majority of critics. There are a few disagreements, sure, but I'd say 75-80% of the time, I agree with them.

Perhaps if we (the people and the critics) had a better understanding of one another, we'd be less inclined to bash the other when they seemingly believe the polar opposite of us when it comes to a film. Critics want to be entertained as well. They are typically entertained in a different manner than average people, though. While repetitious fart jokes may make certain people laugh, chances are the majority of critics won't be very impressed. They'll be more apt to being entertained by quality performances, such as Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or more recently, As Good As It Gets. They'll be more entertained by the adult dark humor parlayed in Little Miss Sunshine. They'll be more entertained by clever editing, such as in Hot Fuzz. They'll be more entertained by an original screenplay, such as Gosford Park. While I agree that critics can be a little too hard on some films, on comedies in particular, we have to remember that they're not grading based on entertainment value, but on the quality of the picture. There are some '80s films I've always enjoyed, such as Twins and Uncle Buck. I find them to be fun films to view and would grade them rather high when it came to entertainment, but they're not earth-shattering pictures. The acting is less than stellar, the storylines and plots are nothing to write home about, etc., so when it comes to a quality film grade, they wouldn't receive very high scores from me. Perhaps that's what critics should now do. They could give two scores for every film they see, one for entertainment value, which the majority of people could relate to more and the other for quality value. Just as there are different loves and tastes when it comes to anything, the same is true of film. I'm a hybrid of the critic and the average Joe. While I love dumb '80s comedies, such as the before-mentioned Twins and Uncle Buck, there's nothing quite like experiencing a film that affects you in such a manner that it makes a permanent indentation in one's mind that will never dissipate.

Vick's Punishment

I just read a op-ed piece at ESPN.com by one Wochjiehowski (I know I spelled that wrong and I apologize to Wojo, I'll call him).

Wojo wrote an op-ed regarding what Vick's punishment should be if he's found guilty of being involved in the dogfighting operation (plea bargains are included). Make the guy (and the others purportedly involved) work at an Animal Humane Society, clean, clean after, feed the dogs, attend classes with people who have lost their pets, and especially in Vick's case, donate a large sum of money to the Humane Society. Wojo wrote that if he donated $5 million (not much for him), the Humane Society would be good to go for another 20 years or so.

I think this is a good idea. If the allegations are true, then it's obvious these men haven't the slightest idea what dogs mean to many Americans. It's not a given, of course, but hopefully by working with all of these fun-loving animals, seeing others' hardships based on losing their loved pets, etc., that these men would come to a better understanding of what dogs mean to many American families. That wouldn't be punishment enough, but they could work at the Humane Society until close and then spend their evenings in prison.

For anyone interested in reading the entire piece, just go to ESPN.com and check under that lengthy last name that begins with W and ends in an I. While I doubt this will be part of the punishment, if it should come to that, I think it'd potentially be much more beneficial to these men and thus to society in general than for them to spend their entire days and nights in a penitentiary.

Movie Notes

Fracture - This psychological thriller starring Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling may be a bit predictable, but the performances (especially by Hopkins) are so brilliant, the predictability doesn't take away much from the overall picture. The film was well produced from start to finish.
Overall Grade: 7/10

Vacancy - I typically don't enjoy horror films, but do typically enjoy psychological thrillers. Vacancy couldn't make up its mind on what it wanted to be. It had the initial make-up of a solid psychological thriller, but in the end, thought it was just a slasher film. It's difficult to have it both ways. There was no character development. At no time was it known why the head of the evil operation was provoked to do such dastardly deeds. The two leads, Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsdale, did a fairly decent job in their roles, but weren't given much to work with. The film had a lot of potential, but wasn't good for many scares or for much background information on why we should care. The ending was rather ridiculous as well, almost comical.
Overall Grade: 4/10

Zodiac - The film, based on the novel written about the San Francisco serial killer, seemed overly-long to my brother, but any film lasting more than five minutes without the music, gore, sex, and action sequences of The Transporter, would have him bored. I, on the other hand, thought the film did a great job drawing in the viewer. Especially with those unfamilar with the events at that time in San Francisco, the film became half horror and half mystery, because after the first couple (few) murders, there are many sequences where a single person is left by themselves in the dark and we begin to wonder if they're next. The acting was fairly solid all around, but after seeing Fracture with Hopkins and Gosling, I must say the acting could've been slightly better. Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr. all star. I felt that Gyllenhaal was solid in his lead role as the San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist turned Zodiac-researching obsessor and Downey did a good job in his limited San Francisco Chronicle editorialist role. I'm not sure Ruffalo was the best man for his role, but did adequately. Some may find the ending to be a disappointment, but in this film, that makes complete sense, as the police, the feds, the whole country was disappointed with the end result. What, should the movie producers have over-Hollywoodized it and pretended that the killer was caught? I don't think so. If nothing else, this film was very intriguing and was able to hold an eery feel throughout. While I think it could have been improved upon some, I still think it's worth watching at least once.

Overall Grade: 7.5/10

Family Security Matters Organization is one scary group...

Just recently, columnist Stu Bykofsky wrote that he believed another 9/11-style attack on our soil would help us. That was one mind-blowing statement made this week by someone on the far right. Here are some more...

The think tank, Family Security Matters Organization, with ties to Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, the Anti-Defamation League, the International Women's Forum, James Woolsey, radio host Laura Ingraham, amongst others, has made some very frightening and eye-opening (not in a good way) statements of late.

This was made known in an August 3rd article by Philip Adkinson. Here are some of the disturbing statements made by Atkinson in the article:

"The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead."

"When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies."

"He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler fo the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."

Wowsers... If Bush becomes a permanent president, I'm moving elsewhere. He's done enough damage in 6 1/2 years. One can only imagine (although, I really don't want to) how much damage he'd do in the next couple decades if he had the opportunity. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe this will happen, but the fact that some want it to occur and these thoughts are being streamlined all across the country via the "internets" is scary in and of itself. If one ties the before-mentioned comment made by Bykofsky along with the several by Atkinson, one can only imagine the potential chaos that could ensue if another 9/11-style attack did occur on our soil. Too much power was garnered by the president and his administration following the first attack. While the people did come together in a time of tragedy, much more was lost than the lives of nearly 3,000 people that day. The government used our vulnerabilities against us to strip our freedoms, which in turn provided them with more power. That would again occur if another attack took place on our soil. I don't want to even think about how much power the Bush and his administration would have if another terrorist attack occurred in the U.S. While I can't fathom, for the life of me, a permanent president, I can fathom a near police state, where the U.S. citizens civil liberties, what they once took for granted, are all but vanished from their lives. This makes Bykofsky's claim even more frightening and ludicrous. Nearly 3,000 people died on 9/11 and with that, thousands of immediate friends and family members of the deceased, traumatized and scarred for life. Over 3,700 U.S. soldiers have died overseas, and with that, all their family and loved ones feeling pain they never thought possible. If this "helpful" hypothetical future attack occurred, thousands more families would be dealt pain and sorrow they felt wasn't possible and with that, more than likely, what once symbolized the United States of America, our freedom, would unfortunately perish alongside the victims of this "helpful" terrorist act.

Cheney Then and Cheney Now

It was made known not long ago that Vice President Dick Cheney hasn't always had such a staunch view when it comes to Iraq wars.

On April 15th of 1994, the conservative American Enterprise Institute conducted an interview with Cheney in regard to the first Gulf War. Here's how it read:

AEI: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

DC: No.

AEI: Why not?

DC: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualites as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

My my, how things change in 13 years and one Gulf War later.

The Bourne Ultimatum Review

I just saw this film on Friday. I haven't seen the first two Bourne films for some time, so it's difficult for me to compare this to them, but from what I remember, this was just as good, if not better than either of those.

In the third (and final?) installment, Jason Bourne finally, through flashbacks, research, and testimony, puts the pieces of the puzzle, known as his life, together. As always, he makes this quite a spectacular journey. This may have been the Speed of spy/action films. I don't recall a slow spot in it. Because of that, it's a definite popcorn movie, but one with some brains (such as the first two).

Matt Damn, as is typical, does a fantastic job of portraying Jason Bourne. The work around him isn't superb, but does suffice for an action film, and with Damon being the man front and center, that works just fine.

There were a couple spots where the film may move too quickly for some and the camera goes Blair Witch on the viewers. Some don't like that, because the viewers can't see the target(s) very clearly, but others feel that it puts the audience smack dab in the middle of the picture and makes them feel as a part of it. So, to each their own, I guess. I don't like this style to be used very much, but do feel it's more appropriate in some pictures and circumstances than the classical style.

I have mixed feelings on this potentially being the final installment in the Bourne series. Unlike with The Matrix trilogy, where each succeeding film got increasingly worse than the previous, the Bourne trilogy (to this point) has stayed strong and the third picture may be the best yet. With that, I think now may be a perfect time to stop, before the potential of a Matrix Revolutions comes about.

Overall grade: 7.5/10 - A contemporarily rare action flick, which provides popcorn entertainment and a witty plot and storyline. Some uses of the camera may annoy some and the acting around Damon is average, but for an action film, The Bourne Ultimatum shines.

Winkie Review

I just read a political satire, Winkie, by Clifford Chase. I had never heard of it before I waltzed into Barnes and Noble a couple weeks ago. I looked at the cover, read the positive reviews, and thought that it sounded so unique and bizarre, that I had to give it a read.

The star of this book is Winkie, a stuffed bear (stay with me here), falsely accused of over 900 heinous crimes. The authorities lay claim that the bear is affiliated with terrorism. That's right, it's a satire about the war on terror, using a stuffed bear to illustrate the administration's dangerous power crave and the wrongs committed in their pursuit of this war and those within it.

As expected, the book made for a very unique reading experience. There were a few chuckles here and there, but Winkie had far fewer laughs than I was expecting. However, it was a much more emotionally-charged book than I was expecting, as well. Believe it or not, but it's difficult not to care about this stuffed bear and treat it like a human when reading this prose novel. Overall, I'd say that I'd recommend this for reading. I don't know that I'll ever read it again, but I can say I'm glad I read it once.

Sin City Review

I finally got around to seeing the highly acclaimed picture, Sin City, the other day. I was always somewhat curious, due to the great cast, but there was always something holding me back, perhaps because it was based on a comic book and I didn't know what I'd be getting myself into.

For starters, there was terrific casting in the film. Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Benecio Del Toro, Clive Owen, amongst others made the characters somewhat interesting. Much of the dialogue was very cheesy, but that was to be expected, with it being based off a comic book.

What made the film any bit enticing were the visuals. They were mesmerizing. The black and white that was used, certain colors that were able to stand out more so than usual, red and blue, in particular, the cinematography in general, was superb.

However, the wondrous display of imagery is about all the kept my interest throughout the course of the film. The actors did all they could to make their characters somewhat interesting, but the content beneath the beautiful surface was lacking some.

Overall Grade: 6/10 - I recommend to see this movie once, solely based on the beauteous cinematography. I think the movie did a fairly solid job of depicting a graphic comic book, but unless one is very much into that genre, the substance beneath the alluring surface may seem a bit thin.

The law is the law, eh? Unbelievable.

I just read a report that last Monday night, a burglar intruded in Patrick Walsh's home, fell 30 feet off the balcony, and Walsh was arrested! The authorities wonder if Walsh pushed the intruder, but while Walsh claims there was an exchange of words while the burglar stood on the balcony, he said that he did not push the 43-year old man.

The burglar does face serious head injuries and it is not known at this time if he is going to make it. Walsh, meanwhile, if convicted, could face a life sentence.

This law always drove me nuts. I first learned about it in a Business Law class and had to drop the course soon thereafter (only class I ever dropped), because these laws ultimately frustrated me to no end. A man was breaking the law by attempting to burglarize a home. How can the homeowner be charged with anything if the intruder falls and hurts himself? What, should I just run up to a large mansion, intentionally fall down on the porch and sue the owners for a large sum of money? This is one time where I will agree with conservatives that the criminal has more rights than the victim. Due to this, why do people even want to own guns for protection? If they're going to be charged for a crime if the intruder injures themselves on their property, they may want to treat the burglar with some milk and cookies, make sure they enjoyed their visit, and make sure they stole all they had intended, just so they don't themselves face charges!

Some Strong Arguments

Throughout the past couple months or so, I've attempted to take the centrist position in the Michael Vick case when it came to how bias played in both the people's and the media's reactions. I've contended that the amount of fame a celebrity contains will equate to the amount of airplay the story receives via the media, but without conviction, the public's reactions would weigh more heavily in the name of bias.

I read a column the other day in the USA Today by a man who stated how befuddled he was that Vick's sponsors have cut ties with him, because they're (the sponsors) involved in 10 times worse actions throughout the course of the year than Vick was and it's not like they're trying to truly save their image or reputation, because what is that to begin with? The columnist then spoke at length about a bias many people hold against black athletes (celebrities). If the athlete is white, he/she is innocent until proven guilty, but if the athlete is black, he/she is guilty until proven innocent. He brought up an example by comparing cyclist Lance Armstrong to major league slugger Barry Bonds. The media and population in general, have indeed taken Armstrong's side when there were reports he may have taken illegal substances. The media's reports on the matter were scarce and when they did make the air, the reports were brief and largely in Armstrong's favor. It's a completely different scenario for Bonds. He is now the all-time home run king. Over the past couple years, there has been talk about how he took illegal muscle-enhancing drugs in the latter stages of his career. The media reports have been a fairly regular occurrence and much more negative than that of Armstrong's. The public opinion largely reflects that. Many see Armstrong as innocent and many have already concluded that Bonds is guilty and that there should be an astrict next to his name on the home run list.

One complaint I do have with comparing the two is the fact that Armstrong overcame so much to become the Tour de France champion. If he didn't battle brain, lung, and testicular cancer, I doubt the public and/or media would feel such a strong attachment to him and his "innocence." But, why is it that we seem to have these great stories about white athletes and not so much about black ones?

John Daly, a golfer that can't be missed, as he has the physique for a couch potato, has battled alcohol problems off and on throughout his career. What's the public reaction? Many root for the guy. Whenever he is in contention for a weekend, the media will always give him notice.

Quarterback Jeff Garcia, took over the reigns as quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles last year, after starter Donovan McNabb was sidelined with an injury. Garcia played well enough to keep the Eagles in ball games and they won the majority of the games he started. At the end of the year, McNabb was hounded by the press, many claiming that the Eagles should make the 38-year old Garcia their full-time starter over the 30-year old, Pro, and Super Bowl quarterback Donovan McNabb.

Before this circus of an off-season for Michael Vick, there were some Atlanta fans wanting then back-up Matt Schaub to start over Vick. Schaub, who has never won an NFL start in his career, has only impressed during the pre-season, when he faced opponents' back-ups and rookies.

Many still claim O.J. Simpson is guilty of murder even though the federal court (not civil one) found him not guilty. Some still believe Kobe Bryant to be guilty of rape even though those charges were dropped. Some will go on to believe Bonds cheated, even if he is never found to be guilty. Some will undoubtedly believe Michael Vick to be guilty in the dogfighting arena even if he's found to be not guilty. But, that's not going to be the case for others. If Armstrong is never found guilty, there will be fewer doubters and skeptics on the legitimacy of his titles.

There was even more positive press in regard to the professional wrestler who killed both his wife and his son than some of these other cases. Bill O'Reilly even went as far to blame the wrestler's wife. Even after guilt is certain, there are doubters and there are people scapegoating the wife. But, in the cases of O.J. Simpson, Ray Lewis, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick, and other African-American athletes, it seems that the media and public seem certain of their guilt before trial even begins.

Unusual Night...

When a friend called me last night and asked if I wanted to meet him up at a lounge, for some reason, my gut told me no. I figured, by now, I'd learn to listen to my gut more regularly, but for some reason, I decided to ignore it last night.

My friend was already hosed by the time I got to the lounge and we headed to another bar not long after. When my brother arrived, my friend put his arm around my brother, looked at me, and said something along the lines of, "We're both pretty cool guys, right? You're a cool guy. I'm a cool guy. Right?" My brother laughed and nodded. My friend then said, "Let's give your brother (me) a makeover." I tried to be a good sport and laughed, just hoping it was a one-joke affair and we could begin talking about something else. But, no, that wasn't the case. My friend continued... "You've got one of the best personalities of anyone I know and not just comedic, just all-around. You're one of the best looking guys I know. You have one of the best smiles I know (Two nights earlier, he stated that I was the smartest guy he knew)." He then pointed to himself and said, "Look at me. I don't like this hair. This shirt isn't comfortable. But, you know what? I get some tail. If I had your looks, your smile, your personality, I could get ten times what I'm getting now. So, what do you say? With all that you have to offer, you should be able to go anywhere and pick up any girl you want. Come on. It'll be fun for everybody. Come on. We'll get you into some nice collared shirts. We can go to the gym and work-out. It'll be fun." I'm just paraphrasing. He spoke at much greater length than I wrote.

He was pretty hammered. If he remembers or claims not to remember what he said is beyond me at this juncture. But, what am I to take from all that? Seriously? With how he started his schpiel, contending that he and my brother were both cool guys and that they should give me a make-over, doesn't that sound as if he's making the claim that I'm not a cool guy or in any case, not nearly as cool as them? But if the former were the case, that would contradict his later statement about me having one of the best personalities he's come across. So, perhaps his intent was to say, "You're cool, but could be a lot cooler and we could be two guys to show you a new side to coolness." He kept pointing to different girls and saying, "You could have that." I responded with, "I could have that now, but I don't want that now." He shook his head and said, "No, you couldn't." and "Don't lie to yourself. You could get some serious tail." I responded, "Why not? Why not now? What's so wrong with this (points to self) right now?" Perhaps he was avoiding the question, because he never answered and continued to preach the word of who I could be.

For how hammered he was, I don't know how seriously I should take his words. Was he more honest because of this or was he just spouting things off that he probably won't remember come today?

According to my friend, it's all about the shirt and the muscles. I wear my hair naturally. I don't do anything fancy with it. It is what it is, I guess. I usually wear khakis or jeans. In the hot summer, I tend to go the t-shirt route and in the winter, I usually go with either sweaters or sweatshirts. We had a heat index at one point yesterday of 105 degrees. I'm not going to dress fancy on such a day. I'm going in shorts and a t-shirt. Physically, I'd say I'm fairly athletic, but as with just about anybody, I could use some improvement. But, unlike my friend, who does nothing, as far as I know, in terms of working out, I just started jogging, along with taking 3-4 walks per day and hundreds of push-ups and sit-ups daily. I could hit the weights some, but I feel that the sit-ups and push-ups suffice.

Toward the end, my friend commented, "We need to make an already hot guy even hotter."

There are many different interpretations I could have regarding all his talk last night. If he truly wants to go and work out more, I'd be okay with that, because that's something I already do and it's something I want. I don't want it to attract the opposite sex. I simply want it for me, to have more endurance while playing sports or being active in any realm, and with that, to feel better about myself. But, if he wants me to completely alter my wardrobe, that's not going to happen. I feel good and comfortable in what I wear. I don't feel the need to impress people by wearing an expensive outfit every day. If they immediately pass negative judgment because I'm wearing a t-shirt on a 98 degree day, then they're not the kind of person I want to be with anyway. My friend seems to think it's all about "game" and "getting tail," but I'm not like that. It seems like I'm his experiment or blue-chip recruit. He recruited me to "nab some tail," so he wants me to fulfill my potential to see just how much "tail" I can get. I hope he was joking about that portion of the sermon, because while I'd love to fulfill my "attraction" potential, I wouldn't want to do that to simply lure the opposite sex in for sexual pleasure. If he truly believes that I'd ever be like that, then he doesn't know me very well. I know he hasn't seemed to of cared in his past (or his present) when it comes to cheating or heartbreaking others, but again, I'm not like him. I'm flattered that he thinks so highly of me and my "potential." If he sees that as an opportunity to get me back out on the market, start dating again, and hopefully meet a special someone, then that's great. But, if he just sees it as an opportunity to basically be my pimp, then he can forget it. I've known this guy for probably close to 20 years. There are times when I feel he knows me better than I may credit him for, yet there are others when I wonder if he really knows me much at all. Hopefully, he recalls what all he said last night and either apologizes or elaborates on what he was attempting to express.

Media Blows Chipper's Words Out of Proportion

As the media so often does, they took Atlanta Braves' third baseman, Chipper Jones' words out of context in attempt to attract readers.

Earlier this week, with New York Yankees' third base slugger Alex Rodriguez becoming the youngest player in history to hit 500 home runs and Barry Bonds breaking the all-time home run record, Chipper Jones simply stated that with this being the steroid era and with how much scrutiny Bonds has faced in his chase for Aaron's record number, Rodriguez will likely face those same questions if and when he hits 700 home runs and beyond. Jones stated that he doesn't believe A-Rod has cheated in any manner, but that the questions, scrutiny, and doubters will face A-Rod square on, much in the manner they did with Bonds if and when he approaches Bonds' new home run record.

The media made it seem that Chipper was taking a shot at A-Rod and was making the claim that he believed A-Rod was on steroids.

In response, Rodriguez had this to say, "I'm friends with Chipper. I go back to high school days with him. He didn't say anything out of order. I don't have any issues with him or what he said. He included himself in the conversation."

Yankees' manager, Joe Torre, had this to say in regard to Jones' comments, "I read it and it was nothing like the headline. He said that anybody is going to come under scrutiny, get asked questions. And that is true."

First off, kudos to Rodriguez and Torre for not biting the bait the media fed them. They could've used the misleading headline to get involved in what the media wanted to become a feud or circus, but they didn't give in. They admitted the headline was misleading, what Jones said was honest and truthful, and that the media took it out of context.

Come on media. Don't you have anything better to do? It's not like the Yankees and Braves are rivals. They play in different leagues, for crying out loud! If the story revolved around A-Rod and a player from the Boston Red Sox, Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz perhaps, then there may have been a bit more fire in the response, whether the headline was misleading or not. But, Chipper Jones of the Atlanta Braves? A team that the Yanks may see for three games in a season? What, will A-Rod and the Yanks use the false headline to get their adrenaline flowing for a future series with the Braves next year? The media may harp all day long about how players in the future (including A-Rod) will face intense scrutiny and questioning if and when they approach Bonds' new record, but when a player comes forward and basically repeats what has been said by journalists all across the country? Let's use that in attempt to start a verbal war! But, kudos again to the Yankee third baseman and his (their) manager for acting in a more mature fashion than the media.

How in the world can this guy write for a living?

I'm referring to one Stu Bykofsky, a columnist of the Philadelphia Daily News.

Just recently in his column, Bykofsky stated, "ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America."

He continued, "Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."

It cracks me up (not literally) that many extreme right-wingers will attack lefties as being soft on terror and because of this, almost supporting/aiding the terrorists. Then a righty comes out with a column such as this one, basically stating that we NEED another 9/11 attack on our soil and in essence, supporting terrorists.

To his credit (not really), Bykofsky, just like Bush and the rest of his administration would prefer that a mass bombing occur on our soil without any fatalities. That would be the perfect scenario, because all Bykofsky is really craving is American fear. With fear comes unity and a blind following to the leader (Bush). It seems as if Bykofsky's blind following is there regardless of the circumstances. I'm sorry to disappoint you...sir...but the American level of fear has slowly dissipated since the horrific events on 9/11 and what was once a blind 90% approval rating for the president has dipped to near record lows anywhere between 26% and 32%. One can say what they want about dissent. Dissent prevents us from losing what our soldiers provided for us. But, to wish a terrorist attack upon our soil for a political agenda? That's not dissent. That's treason and stupidity right there. I hope this "man" and the Philadelphia Daily News receive many letters surrounding this article and at the very least, he's forced to issue an apology in his next column. That's the very least he can do.

Wouldn't it be a tad awkward if...?

One were to attend a family reunion and that's where he/she meets their future spouse? Or if one could count on seeing another at a family reunion one of two ways? Through relation or through RELATION?

I only bring this up because I was witness to someone close to me flirting with a cousin-in-law for about 5 hours or so and I guess they've been in pretty constant touch ever since then. Word has it that she may come and visit him in the near future.

They aren't blood-relatives, so I'm not going to say it's morally wrong for them to date one another, but I don't know, if I was in his shoes, I know I couldn't go through with it. They have common family members. I'd feel very odd going out with a gal, picking her up somewhere and knowing that in some way, shape, or form, I was related to both she and the others there with her. If she and I were ever to get physical, I don't think I'd be able to go through with it. For one reason or another, I'd feel wrong about being passionate with her.

One major reason why I'd never get involved with a non-blood relative is the fact it could disrupt the relations between family members. When a regular couple breaks up, mutual friends typically pick a side and through that, communicate with only one of the two parties. For those that truly were mutual friends to both parties, it can create a very awkward environment and make for a very trying decision on their part. This could be even more trying and difficult when the relationships have already been set inside the family. At least with the first scenario, one typically doesn't have to worry about hearing from their brother (a mutual friend) on the matter or during holidays or family updates. Clean breaks, while difficult, are more easily accomplished. With family, though, clean breaks are more difficult and can sometimes be rather impossible. In the end, I'd just feel as if the potential hindrances would outweigh the potential rewards. Worse yet, both these individuals are a month removed from rather lengthy relationships and they're primed for rebounds at this current juncture. Two people rebounding off non-blood related cousins...sounds like the start of a joke, that or the start to an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

The Book Bomber

So, my father and I were flying back from Michigan on Tuesday afternoon. All I had with me was: my wallet, some kleenex, some meds (pills), my cell phone, and a book. I took my shoes off and put those along with my cell phone through the screener. So, all I had in my hand was a book, a rather small one, not even 6 x 9. I walked through the metal detector, no sounds were made, but the lady directly in front of the detector asked me to step back and put my book through the screener. I paused and asked, "My book?"

Was there a book bomber that I don't know about? I know about the shoe bomber, which didn't result in much, but has forced every American to take their shoes off at the airport. My dad jokingly commented, "There will probably be a guy with a bomb up his butt someday, and from there on out, we'll need to bend over." Unopened bottles of water or cans of pop? Can't take them past the detector. A book? We'll need to screen that. Shoes? Take those off and put them through the screener. What's next? Do I even want to know? Probably not...