Truth, Fiction, Debate, and Sarcasm

Moving My Blog

2011-05-20T14:57:00.003-05:00

I just thought I'd let readers know that I am changing my blog address. I'll copy and paste the blogs from here onto the new one, the ones that are still of any relevance anyway. I'll try to polish those up some and have already added a new one, with many other newbies in mind that I hope to write in the coming week or two, as I will be heading out of town over Memorial Day weekend.

Anyway, here is the URL to my new blog:

http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/

Fantasy Baseball...Drama?

2011-04-28T01:28:00.004-05:00

It's not every day I wake up and think there will be a lot of bickering in a fantasy baseball league, where insults will be thrown at others' expense, vulgarity is utilized more times than not when attempting to make a point and the complaints are anything but few and far between. But, this is what I awoke to a few days ago.

In most fantasy baseball leagues I've participated, the winner of each game every week was determined by winning a majority of categories. These categories could include: At bats, hits, singles, doubles, triples, home runs, walks, strikeouts, runs batted in, stolen bases, innings pitched, wins, losses, saves, holds, earned run average, WHIP, etc. In one league I'm currently participating, there are 20 such categories. In Week 1, I won 14-6-0 (0 standing for ties). In week 2, I won 12-7-1 and in week 3, I won 10-4-6 for a combined record of 36-17-7. In the other league, a team wins a week based on points, which are tallied by a formula that either adds or subtracts points based on the stat(s). For example, when one of your pitchers strikes out a batter, that counts as 5 points. If one of your position players strikes out, that will lose you points. Due to the formula, pitchers dominate the league. In a single game for me this year, Philadelphia Phillies' pitcher, Cliff Lee, earned 141.00 pts. by himself. Adrian Gonzalez, the slugging 1st baseman for the Boston Red Sox, has a total of 160.00 pts. to this point of the season. Position players aren't of much value in the league. They may only be useful when working as a tie-breaker in a tightly contested match. Before going into the drama that unfolded, let me make note that there were no restrictions. An infinite number of moves could be made and there was no maximum or minimum of innings pitched.

One player in the league made 41 moves in the first 3+ weeks, for an average of about 13 moves per week. What did she do? Directly after a pitcher of her's threw, she'd drop him and pick up one whom was slated to throw the next day. She continually did this to gain an advantage in the league by using and abusing the system. I thought this was quite cheap and made mention of it. What point would there be in holding a draft if everyone based their score on quantity of starts as opposed to the quality of pitchers. This is how ridiculous it got. After St. Louis pitcher, Kyle Lohse, threw a complete game shut-out last week, compiling 114.00 pts., this lady dropped him. She did this on several occasions. So, to prove a point on how cheap and ridiculous this was, a buddy of mine and I dropped all of our position players and just picked up pitchers.

The drama started in the first reply to my complaint about how cheap this person was being with her 41 moves in a short duration. Someone quickly responded (not her) by saying the point was to score more points than the opponent and that there are many ways to go about it. He said that this person was strategizing to do just that and that this very method had been used in leagues prior. He closed by saying to do whatever it takes to win. The woman in charge of this team I complained about chimed in by saying something along the lines of, "Why would I play with the same team every day? Why would I play a player who is on the DL (Disabled List) when he's not going to play? Same with these pitchers. Why do I have one on my team if he's not going to play that day?" Lovely logic, isn't it? Things were relatively calm at this point, until my buddy and I made our moves and that's when the insults and profanity came a-flying.

I can tell these two individuals were never involved with a debate club in school and never majored in critical thinking and/or philosophy. Their inconsistencies, double standards and logic (lack there of) are ubiquitous. The argument that to waive pitchers the day after they throw and to then sign a pitcher whom is scheduled to throw that following day is equivalent to starting a position player, whom is on the DL, is ridiculous. A position player on the Disabled List could miss anywhere from 15 days to an entire season. They're on the DL for a reason; they aren't healthy enough to play baseball. No, it wouldn't make much sense to start a player that can't play. A team would be down to 7 position players to fill 8 positions. Good luck with that set-up! Starting pitchers throw every 4-5 games. There's a stark difference between the two situations. In reality, you'll never see the Philadelphia Phillies waive starting pitcher, Cliff Lee, the day after the throws and to then sign someone, whom hasn't thrown for 3-4 games, and can start the following day for them. That's preposterous and is what my friend and I attempted to illustrate by going over the top with our strategy. The two complainers of our strategy laid claim that we were being cheap, that it wasn't realistic to only possess pitchers on a team and that we should start a new sport, which only included pitching, and see how high ratings would be for it. Like I said just a bit ago, that's inconsistent. One unrealistic strategy is okay and another is not? Like the one guy said at the outset, the point of fantasy baseball is to score more points than your opponent. My buddy and I just used his words against him and how did he respond? He basically admitting to losing the argument by sarcastically stating he wishes he was as intelligent as my friend and I, that he wishes he could be just like us and asked where he could go to accomplish this. As I've learned through the years, when a person resorts to name-calling and useless banter such as this by sarcastically claiming the other to be superior to themselves, they're waiving the white flag.

Since then, the owner of the league has changed the settings, so that there may only be 6 moves made per week. That was the initial intention of my friend and my's over-the-top strategy. We just wanted to illustrate how asinine it was to make 41 moves in 3 weeks time, waiving and signing pitchers at a quicker clip than George W. Bush mispronounces words. Mission accomplished! The two of us have since let go of some pitchers and picked up enough position players to field a whole team, so the only complainer will likely be the woman whom made 41 moves in 3 weeks. Under the new guidelines, she will only be able to make 18 moves in three weeks time. It's such a pity when one attempts to take advantage of a system and it backfires on him/her.

Taking on the Jon Kyl Philosophy - Speaking adamantly while making a declaration with no intent of it being factual

2011-04-21T12:59:00.004-05:00

Senator Jon Kyl (R - AZ) made a remark recently which has won over many late night talk show hosts, with Kyl being the victim of the jokes.

In a floor speech on April 8th, Kyl stated the following, "Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."

Survey says? Not even close. The actual number? 3%. That's right, Kyl was off by just 87%. That's more "off" than Charlie Sheen with prostitutes in a hotel room doing coke.

Kyl then got himself into further trouble when CNN's Don Lemon read a statement from Kyl's office, which read, "His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen! Jon Kyl has given every single one of us a loophole for lying! That's it. That's the end game right there. We can now get away with just about anything. How many mulligans does a person need? Doesn't matter. There is no limit. All one has to do is, when they're caught lying, state, "My remark was not intended to be a factual statement." Let's see how this plays out in other hypothetical scenarios, shall we?

Bruno: "Honey, I've never seen that woman before in my life!"

Theresa: "I caught you in bed with her!"

Bruno: "Sweetie, that was not intended to be a factual statement. I just wanted you to know that of the billions of women in this world, I've never seen most of them. I've seen this one, but those I haven't seen far outweigh those I have seen, fully clothed or naked."

Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Wolf Blitzer: "Now that it's well know that you did in fact have...relations with Monica Lewinsky, what do you have to say for yourself?"

Clinton: "Wolf, my remarks were not intended to be factual. I was just trying to show that I don't sleep around with every woman out there, just Monica and a few others."

George W. Bush: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. That I can promise you."

Keith Olbermann: "Since no WMDs have been found, sir, what do you have to say for yourself? Do you have the decency, sir, to admit you lied to the American people?"

Bush: "Well, Keith, I didn't lie. What I said wasn't intended to be factual. I just wanted the people to know that under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had the potential to be a threat to us, with or without weapons of mass destruction."

Charlie Sheen: "The rumors are ridiculous. I don't do coke. I don't do hookers. I don't drink alcohol."

Katie Couric: "Since you were caught doing all these things you claimed you didn't partake in and are now facing legal trouble for these very acts, would you care to correct yourself?"

Sheen: "Correct what? What I said wasn't meant to be factual. I was only saying that I don't do coke, hookers or drink all the time. How would I have sex, snort lines or drink while I'm asleep? That's ridiculous!"

Lance: "I am so not gay."

LaTasha: "Since you were caught in bed with Justin, would you care to finally come out to the public?"

Lance: "Oh girl, my statement wasn't meant to be factual. I was just saying that I wasn't chipper that day. You know? Don't you ever have a non-gay day? Every day of mine is gay, well, except for that one."

Bubba: "Baby, they call me footlong for a reason, if you catch my drift."

Chastity: "Well, where is it? What's the deal? Where's this footlong of yours?"

Bubba: "Look, what I said wasn't meant to be a factual statement. Besides, it's cold outside."

Chastity: "We're inside, you idiot!"

Bubba: "Speaking of inside. I'm inside of you now."

Chastity: "I can't feel anything! Jesus! I'm finding me another footlong. Perhaps I should shoot for six feet this time!"

How about Jon Kyl himself? Let's see here...

Jon Kyl had an operation and went from Jill to Jon.

Jon Kyl went to rehab for his addictions to Pepto Bismol, Dimetapp and Teletubbies.

Charlie Sheen said with regard to Kyl, "That dude is nuts! Losing!"

Jon Kyl doesn't believe in making factual statements.

For the record, the before-mentioned declarations about Jon Kyl were not intended to be factual, except for that last one. Thanks again, Jon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/jon-kyl-is-sorry-if-he-ga_n_846941.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

Top Ten List: Top Ten Things You Shouldn't Say on Easter Sunday to a Die-Hard Christian

2011-04-21T12:45:00.005-05:00

Top Ten Things You Shouldn't Say on Easter Sunday to a Die-Hard Christian

10) Sheeeee*t! Muthaf***a!

9) You know, Jesus was a socialist. Just sayin'...

8) Was Jesus gay? I'm just asking.

7) I'll drink to that! Where's the booze and ho's? Cheers!

6) Nobody f***s with the Jesus! (courtesy of John Turturro's character in "The Big Lebowski")

5) I saw Jesus once. I was tripping on acid, listening to Pink Floyd while inside a Planetarium.

4) I wonder what Jesus' take is on the controversial question, "Do handjobs constitute as sex?"

3) I wonder if Jesus and Mary Magdalene will be gettin' jiggy wit it on Sunday. It's something to ponder.

2) I pray for lots of pu**y on Easter Sunday. Amen.

1) (drumroll) Lots of men rise from the dead. It's called Viagra.

...and yes, I know I will be going to hell.

Completely Abstaining From Drama Is To Ask For Drama At The End Of The Day

2011-04-05T16:14:00.002-05:00

I'm finally beginning to turn the corner on things not working out with a woman I'd longed for three years and whom gave me every indicator she felt the same only to feel rejection in the end and having felt led on and used, I cut off communication to give my heart time and space to heal. As I asked, she hasn't contacted me for the past week plus and is making it much easier for me to lift my head up and move forward again.

This past week or so has given me a great amount of time to reflect on things. I probably should have seen this red flag at the start of trying to pursue something with this woman, but thought, naively enough, that she'd alter her tune a bit. When she and I started communicating much more regularly with one another, I had told a funny tale about a conversation a friend of mine and I had, which showcased that he was kind of gullible and a bit more serious than the average person. This love interest of mine responded by asking how I can be around serious people and going on a tangent about how she can't surround herself with serious individuals. I replied with something about how I love to kick back and have a good time just as much as the next person, but I also believe there are times one has to be serious. I think balance is key. If one becomes too serious, they can forget how to have a good time and when one is all about having fun, they can lose track of things in their life they should probably take more seriously. This woman was definitely the latter of the two.

I'll say it right now, I don't like drama. Unless it's a well-put together piece of cinema, I don't care to have much drama in my life. However, I think the thought of one's life being drama-free is pretty naive. That appears to be how this woman wanted it and she was disappointed things couldn't transpire in such a smooth-sailing fashion. I joked around with her quite frequently. We made small talk. When I brought up a serious subject, however, she backed away and seemed to ignore it all together.

Like I said, I don't care for drama, but to completely ignore it from the outset of a relationship is only asking for problems in the end. If problem A is ignored on Day 5 and problem B makes its presence known on day 25 and is too ignored and problem C comes about on day 52 only to be denied by a party, there's going to be an escalation of tension in the relationship and problems A & B, along with C, will not stop circulating the conversations until they're discussed and resolved to an extent. This is what happened between my before-mentioned love interest and myself. I tried to reach out to her, open up and talk about serious matters, so that we could understand one another and resolve the issue at hand and she continually ignored it (them) until it became too late. She wound up sending me a text by saying, "This is entirely too much drama." I wonder why. To completely abstain from drama is to ask for it and that's exactly what she did.

March Madness/Sadness (...and I wasn't too surprised by the final score of the title game...)

2011-04-05T12:19:00.002-05:00

As usual, following the title game in college basketball, a sadness comes over me in knowing the tournament is complete. In my opinion, the NCAA Tournament brings forth the three most exciting weekends in the world of sports, with nothing outside of New Year's Day in college football being able to even compare with the level of excitement generated during those first four days of the tournament. With the upsets, buzzer beaters, Cinderella stories, bracket busters and basketball analysts looking like complete idiots, it's a truly fabulous time of the year in sports, even if it lasts only 10 days (where games are actually played, excluding the play-in games).

This year was particularly crazy. Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) was one of the final four teams selected into the field and along with Alabama-Birmingham (UAB), they were regarded by most analysts as undeserving to have been invited to the Big Dance. UAB may have proven themselves unworthy, as they were crushed in their play-in game by Clemson. Meanwhile, VCU won their play-in game by quite a wide margin against USC of the Pac-10. They didn't stop there. The 11-seeded Rams crushed 6th seeded Georgetown of the Big East, pounded 3rd seeded Purdue of the Big Ten, defeated 10th seeded Florida State of the ACC and beat top seeded Kansas of the Big XII to march onto the Final Four. No, I didn't just make that up while tripping acid. The 11 seeded VCU Rams, whom had to win 5 games to get there, beat 5 teams from 5 different major conferences (SEC being the exception) to wind up playing in the Final Four. My, how those analysts probably feel like idiots now, don't they? What else is new, right?

VCU's march may have been the story of the tournament, but there were plenty of other surprises. Not only did VCU make the Final Four as an 11 seed, but so did 8 seeded Butler, whom matched up with the Rams for the right to play in the national championship game. An 11 vs. an 8 in the Final Four. Who would've thunk it? It's quite rare to have a bracket buster like 11 seeded George Mason a few years ago, but to have two in the same season? Ouch!

Speaking of bracket busters, there were no 1 or 2 seeds in the Final Four. All 1's: Ohio State (to 4th seeded Kentucky), Duke (to 5th seeded Arizona), Kansas (to 11th seeded VCU) and Pittsburgh (to 8th seeded Butler) and all 2's: North Carolina (to 4th seeded Kentucky), San Diego State (to 3rd seeded Connecticut), Notre Dame (to 10th seeded Florida State) and Florida (to 8th seeded Butler) lost before reaching the Final Four. The Final Four included: 4 seed Kentucky vs. 3 seed Connecticut and 11 seed VCU vs. 8 seed Butler for the sum of the four seeds being 26, a record high for a Final Four.

It was a great tournament and I'm sad to see it end, but happy it transpired as it did. As for the National Championship game, I'm having to laugh at all the talk by analysts claiming it was the ugliest title game in college basketball history and making it seem as if they were shocked by the final score. Really, guys? Well, I'm going to play the outsider and say I wasn't all too surprised by the final.

Regardless of the sport or the source of entertainment, we want excitement, a great climax, to be riveted throughout and leave the game or the theater with a smile on our faces, wanting more. Okay, yes, that's very common and understandable. However, let's look at the two teams that were playing last night. We weren't watching North Carolina and Kansas, two high-powered offenses, not known for having the best defenses in the world, which would likely lead to a final score in the 80s for both teams. But, North Carolina and Kansas weren't playing last night. The game featured Connecticut and Butler, teams built around their defenses.

In 38 games this year, Butler held 27 opponents under 70 points (71.1%), 23 under 65 points (60.5%) and 14 under 60 points (36.8%). UConn's numbers were similar, as in 41 games, the Huskies held 27 teams under 70 points (65.9%), 20 under 65 (48.8%) and 13 under 60 (31.7%). So, in roughly 1/3 of both teams' games, they held their opponents to under 60 points.

Offensively, these two teams were not juggernauts. In 38 games, Butler was held under 70 points 14 times (36.8%), under 65 points on 10 occasions (26.3%) and held under 60 points in 4 games (10.5%). In 41 games, UConn was held under 70 points 17 times (41.5%), under 65 on 9 occasions (22.0%) and under 60 points 4 times (9.8%). So, in roughly 1/3 and 2/5 of their games, Butler and UConn were held under 70 points. Butler ranked 71st in points per game (72.8), while UConn ranked 63rd (73.4). Neither team shot the ball too well from the floor, with Butler ranking 122nd in field goal percentage (.446) and Connecticut ranking 187th (.433).

In a few such examples, Butler lost to Xavier on December 9th by the final score of 51-49, lost to Milwaukee-Wisconsin on January 3rd by the score of 76-52, defeated the before-mentioned Milwaukee-Wisconsin and Old Dominion on March 8th and 17th, respectively, by the scores of 59-44 and 60-58. UConn played in similar such games this year as they: Defeated Villanova on January 17th by the final of 61-59, beat Seton Hall on February 5th by the identical score of 61-59, fell short against Louisville on February 18th by the final of 71-58 and lost to West Virginia on March 2nd by the final score of 65-56.

Looking at the two teams' tournament performances, I don't see how we could have expected an exciting, high-flying shootout. In their six games, Butler outscored their opponents 377 - 368 (average of 62.8 - 61.3). Even when excluding their 41-point output against UConn in the title game, Butler outscored their other five tournament opponents 336 - 315 (average of 67.2 - 63.0). Of their 6 games, Butler held 4 (66.7%) under 70 and 65 (66.7%), with the lone exceptions being Pittsburgh, who scored 7o, and Florida, who scored 71, in a game that went to overtime. Butler held 3 of 6 (50.0%) under 60 (VCU scored 62), 2 of 6 under 55 (Old Dominion scored 58) and 0 of 6 under 50 (Wisconsin scored 54 and Connecticut scored 53). Connecticut, meanwhile, outscored their 6 tournament opponents by the score of 398 - 336 (average of 66.3 - 56.0) and even when excluding the final score from the national title game, those sums would read 345 - 295 (average of 69.0 - 59.0). For the tournament, UConn held all 6 opponents under 70 points (100.0%), 5 of 6 under 65 (83.3%), as San Diego State scored a whopping 67. They held 4 of 6 (66.7%) under 60, with Arizona scoring 63. The Huskies held 2 of 6 opponents (33.3%) under 55 points (Kentucky scored 55) and 1 of 6 (16.7%) under 50 (Bucknell scored 52).

One thing I think many analysts are forgetting and I'm not sure why, is the fact that Butler is like an upper echelon Princeton. NBA Analyst, Greg Anthony, even said that Butler is the best team in the country at playing poorly and yet still finding ways to stay in the game and win in the end. Why is this? Butler doesn't make many mental errors. They don't make a lot of mistakes. Even in the title game, they turned the ball over just six times. This prevents teams from having too many fast-break opportunities and with that, easy baskets at the other end. Offensively, UConn thrives in the open court, with transition points. They didn't have many such opportunities last night when their opponent turned the ball over just six times. Butler also typically takes their time on offense in order to find the open man and best percentage shot possible. They're not afraid to take up 25, 30 or all 35 seconds of the shot clock in order to get that open look. This can often times lead to final scores which may not be pretty to look at, but so long as the Bulldogs finish on top, they're not going to care whether they win 102 - 46 or 2 - 1, they'll be content to end the game with the W.

Throughout the course of the season, both Butler and Connecticut relied on their defenses to keep the games close and for their stars, Shelvin Mack and Kemba Walker, to come through for them in the clutch to vault their respective teams to victory. While the shooting last night was anything but admirable, the defenses were intense, contesting shots, being quick on the guard and not allowing many easy-basket opportunities. Even Shelvin Mack's 3-pointer at the end of the first half to vault the Bulldogs to a 22-19 lead was contested. A hand was right in Mack's face when he released the ball, but just made a heck of a shot. The shooting was poor, but let's not forget the fact that these two defenses were the reason for the teams' success both in the regular season and the tournament and this trend continued into the championship game.

For the tournament, UConn gave up an average of 59.0 points per game, while Butler allowed an average of 61.3 points. While the 53-41 final score is a bit on the low side, I would have expected a game in the 50s, maybe 60s. I did not expect a team to reach 70 last night. Anyone whom felt differently was just living in la la land. This wasn't the San Francisco 49ers led by Joe Montana and Jerry Rice against the St. Louis Rams with the likes of Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt. No, this was the Steel Curtain facing the Baltimore Ravens of a few years back. It was a Big East-type brawl. While we, as fans, may want that popcorn movie, it was pretty silly to have expected such a result when these two clubs went head-to-head and like many analysts were being with regard to VCU getting invited to the Big Dance, they're being quite one-sided and silly with their critique of the title game's quality. Perhaps they should watch Arena Football from this point forward as opposed to the NFL.

Letting Go of the Unknown Is a Difficult Task for the Over-Analyzer

2011-04-04T13:30:00.003-05:00

I'll be the first to admit I over-analyze things. It's just my nature. If I go out of town and have a tentative plan set, I like to concoct a second and third general plan just in case numero uno doesn't go as scheduled. If I'm confronted on a serious matter, I like to thoroughly think about what I truly feel on the matter before I make my voice heard. When writing an essay on what seems to be a rather black-and-white issue, I like to thoroughly ponder the grey before coming to a more concise conclusion. While my answers may seem vague to seem, they're typically very well thought out and while a black-and-white mentality may not come to a complete understanding of where I'm exactly positioned on an issue, I'd like to believe that even they would be able to learn a great deal more about me and where I stand on that very issue than from a person whom may give them a four- or five-word response. Also, while I rarely see any answer in a black-or-white lens, what bothers me more than anything is not having any idea of what that answer is. To a person whom over-thinks, does more research and studying than they probably should, whom over-analyzes, not being able to come to a semi-concise conclusion is quite bothersome and leaves us wondering. It may be easy for someone whom doesn't over-analyze to close the unfinished book and move on to another, yet it's quite difficult for someone like myself to ultimately close that book until I know the reason for the ending.

This brings me to a recent development in my life, where a woman I had liked for a little over 3 years and whom I (and several others) was (were) pretty certain felt similarly, basically told me she didn't feel the same and while she loved to hang out with me, would basically cut off communication if I couldn't accept the fact she didn't feel for me as I do for her. I then placed the official stamp on the envelope that was soon to be delivered anyway and cut off communication with her to give my heart time and space to heal. Of course, she never provided me with any reasons. She never answered the "Why's". She just gave me the black-and-white response, the ending, without explaining why or how we reached that conclusion. So, it leaves me to wonder, "Why did she tell friends of mine she felt the same for me?", "Why did she regularly cross that line between flirting and showing genuine interest with me?", "Why did she respond in an almost over-the-top fashion when I bought or constructed gifts for her without ever telling or even signaling to me that they wouldn't change her perception of me or our relationship?", "Why does (or doesn't) she feel anything for me?", "If my friends were telling the truth (I know they were), when did her mind change on matters?", "Is she just scared to become seriously involved right now?," "Why did she claim she wanted to keep her distance from me when I visited, yet called/text me every day saying she wanted to get together and seemed very excited about it, only to bail at the last minute?" I may never know the answers to these questions and I'm very cognizant of that. I know that I'll probably not hear any answers today, tomorrow, next week or even a year from now and in time, I'll let it rest, but that will be difficult for a little while.

I sent her one final e-mail Saturday afternoon, apologized for cutting off communication with her, but gave her a reason why I felt I needed to do so, so my heart could mend and I could move forward. I thanked her for giving me hope that I could feel something for a woman again, as I hadn't felt anything since September 12th of 2003 and most in my family felt I'd never generate feelings for a woman again. With her, that feeling of love, that hope was instilled in me again, so I thanked her for that. I also wished her the best, happiness in all areas of life and that she could find the love she most certainly deserves, but that I ask she leave me be, so I can get over her and move on to the next book. She's yet to get back to me and I don't expect her to do so. I just hope it makes her realize how much she meant (means) to me and in time, with me being absent from her life, she'll start to realize she misses me and wishes she had made a different decision on matters.

Outside of being ignorant on what has been going on in that mind and heart of her's, the most difficult part about all this is that I feel like I was led on, through that used and kicked to the curb when I finally stood my ground and didn't let her take any further advantage of me. It's depressing to work so valiantly to achieve a certain goal, only to fall short. I exhausted myself of so much time, energy and effort in attempting to attain her love, it finally caught up with me and has left me drained for the past week. I'll bounce back. I just wish I'd catch a break at some point. For the first time in my life, I felt like I had made all the right moves, like I hadn't made a mistake and even then, the ball didn't bounce my way. Hopefully it will next time. My friends keep telling me she's undeserving of me, that I deserve so much more, someone whom doesn't take me for granted, use me and someone whom gives as much as receives. I'd like to believe they're right, but it's difficult for me to see the light at the end of the tunnel at this point when I'm still venturing that very tunnel with a flashlight in hope of finding some answers. I'll just have to make sure I venture forward until that very light will inevitably make its presence known and I can finally take one look back, breathe a heavy sigh and then step out of the dark tunnel, closing one chapter and moving onto the next.

I'm Going to Protest "Paul" For Its Anti-Christian Stance! ...after I see it a couple times, of course...

2011-04-03T16:25:00.001-05:00

I saw the new Simon Pegg/Nick Frost film, "Paul," last week and for the hell of it, decided to peruse the IMDb.com site to see what fellow film-goers had to say regarding the film. To my surprise, there were numerous posts about Pegg, Frost and company crossing the line from funny to offensive with how they mocked organized religion in the film, Christianity in particular. These people went on to say there was a liberal, atheistic, Hollywood agenda attached to the film. Some said they'd protest the movie. Others said they'd contact whomever they could to prevent there from being a sequel or for this film to have any success at the box office. Some people complained that "Paul" wasn't fair and balanced in their criticism of organized religion, as they spent most, if not all of their time, attacking Christianity. Some parents declared they wouldn't allow their kids to see such a film and demanded that other parents hold the same stance.

How I love to see religious folk riled. It's a personal fetish of mine to stir the pot just enough (eh, okay, perhaps overly so at times) to get a rise (not that kind of rise, unless we're talking about priests, then that's another matter entirely) out of them and munch on some popcorn as they come forth with drivel. Just thinking about it right now has put a wide grin on my face, which could have only been implanted by Satan himself (or herself or itself, whatever)!

First off, the film is rated R. No child under 17 can see the movie unless they're with an adult. So, for those parents whom said they wouldn't allow their kids to see the film, that's fine. They can't see the film unless a person such as yourself went with them. So, relax.

Secondly, let's remove that giant log that has been inserted in your rear. I have a hunch it will be a difficult operation, but that's why doctors go to school for so long and get paid what they do. How many films, comics, television programs have poked fun at religion? Are these same people going to complain about and protest each and every such program/performance? Best of luck with that.

Also, why do they think Christianity was the focal point of the religious jokes? Could it be because the majority in this county, the U.S. of A., whom practice religion, is Christian? What, am I going to give speeches at youth basketball camps across the country and talk to them about baseball? Of all organized religions, Christianity is the most practiced in this country. A good chunk of people are not well versed in religions other than that which they themselves practice. If Pegg and Frost spent most of their time poking fun at Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, a good chunk of viewers would not understand the references and would therefore not laugh at the jokes. Were the religious jokes necessary? That is more worthy of debate. But since the jokes were included in the film, questioning why Pegg and Frost focused on Christianity more so than any other religion, is a tad... Oh, what's the word? Help me out here... I'll let you fill in the blank.

Do these religious folks truly believe that the intent of this film was to turn people away from organized religion? From Christianity? From Jesus? Really? It's a comedy. The intent is to provoke smiles and laughter, not to "brainwash" young people's minds into believing that science, not religion, is the way to go. Although... Eh, nevermind. Do we have to take things so seriously all the time? Someone even compared this film to "Da Vinci Code," saying that the religious jokes were only included to spark protests and through that, build potential viewers' curiosity enough to draw more people to the theaters. That comparison is laughable. That'd be like me comparing "As Good As It Gets" to "Brokeback Mountain," because Greg Kinnear plays a homosexual man in "As Good As It Gets". A bit of a stretch, isn't it? Even professional gymnasts couldn't accomplish such a feat.

As is always the case, the film is not for everybody. Personally, I found it to be quite funny, as I do Pegg and Frost's other work ("Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz"), but let's not dismiss the film due to some harmless religious jokes. For those that do, ::checks watch::, that's going to be a mighty long operation, isn't it?

It's different this time...

2011-04-02T12:57:00.003-05:00

I've only cut off communication twice in my life and oddly enough, both occurred in the past 6 months or so. On September 18th, 2010, I cut off communication with someone I had built (thought I had) a strong friendship. We talked most nights after she got back from work. When I visited Omaha, she and I hung out roughly half the days I was in town. We did kiss once, but things began to head south after she told me the strong feelings she had for me and I was uncertain about my feelings toward her. After the kiss and her telling me she had condoms in her purse, suggesting we have intercourse to which I declined, I knew how things were going to end - not pretty. We began drifting apart after that incident until she overdramatized things and with all the stress I already had going on with some serious health problems, I decided it was best to let go of the unneeded stress and drama. I later found out that she wasn't coy about sharing secrets I had told her in confidence. She also lied about and to me pretty regularly. She also got around while she was attempting to persuade me to be her boyfriend. We haven't contacted one another since and I don't, for a second, regret my decision. I always knew something was fishy about her, that she was hiding something and I found this to be the case, unfortunately.

Just this past Tuesday, I cut off communication with another woman, one whom I've liked for over 3 years now. I was told that she confessed she felt the same way about me. After I started feeling better in December and I knew I'd be moving back to Omaha, I made it a point to keep in more regular contact with her to hopefully build upon our friendship and be able to transition to something greater when I moved back. She flirted with and complimented me fairly regularly. We had our own inside jokes, which no one else would get. She put forth reactions to gifts I either bought or constructed which I had never before witnessed; they were so joyful, energetic and enthusiastic. I genuinely felt she and I had something special and it would continue to flourish. Just a couple of weeks ago, she seemed to distance herself from me and the only possible explanation I had was because I was heading to Omaha three days from then and she was nervous, as was I. She saw me the first night I was there and while she seemed quiet and nervous at first, after she opened my gift and laughed so hard she banged her head against a railing behind her, she seemed to be much more open, social and comfortable. She didn't hesitate when a friend of mine said to me that he and I should hang out two days from then and she butted in with, "I want to go!" Given the fact she hadn't hung out with this buddy of mine for quite a while, I had assumed she wanted to see me again. She never called that night. When she called back the next day, she said she couldn't hang out that night, but could the following after work. After work, she text me saying she couldn't hang out that night, but after I called, said we still had plenty of time to get together. The following night, after I text her about where I was heading, she text right back saying she couldn't hang out that night, but might be able to the following, which would be my last night in town. She never got back to me that final night. This has been a trend with her, where she'll seem to take a step or two closer to me and then quickly regress a step or two. This happened while I was situated here, in Ohio, and also when I was in Nebraska. So, I finally e-mailed her and told her what I thought about the situation and how I didn't appreciate feeling like I was on the receiving end of 50% of her effort in return for 100% of mine, that I felt used and taken for granted and wondered what was going on in that mind of her's. She wrote back the very next day with a rather harsh e-mail, saying she tried to distance herself from me while I was in town as to not lead me on into thinking she felt more strongly for me than she actually did, that she always loves hanging out with me, but that the only way she and I could hang out in the future would be if I came to a full understanding and acceptance of her feelings or lack there of. Whether all of that is true is beyond me at this point. Unfortunately, I have to now question the validity of anything she's told me. But, I felt it was best to separate myself from her and allow my heart to mend. It had been toyed with for quite a while and I just didn't care for it to be tampered with by her any more.

Unlike the first occasion I resorted to this cutting off communication, I actually have strong feelings for this person and have had them for quite some time. It honestly wasn't that big of a deal to cut ties with the first woman I spoke about earlier. After about a day, I was over it and actually felt a sense of relief, as I didn't have to deal with her stress-induced drama any more. It's different this time, though. I keep wanting to call her, write her, see her and yet know I probably shouldn't. Part of me hopes due to my absence in her life, she'll soon begin to realize how much she misses me and will come forth with a sincere and heartfelt phone call or even e-mail. I'm not counting on that to happen, though. The most difficult thing in all of this is the fact I just don't understand what has been going on in that mind of her's, what she truly thinks and/or feels and what in the world she thought I would think/feel when she said/did some of the things she said/did. As I came to find out just three short weeks ago, I guess a friend of mine had told her how I felt about her and she said she felt the same. After I told her about a gift I had bought, she had to have known I still had feelings for her. No male friend had ever done that for her as I later learned, so how could she really think any differently? What was her first line in her response? "Oh Craig, your e-mails make me smile, every time. : )." Who says that? When talking to a person you KNOW likes you as more than a friend, why in the world tell them they always make you smile if you don't feel similarly? I just can't understand that. I've never been told by a male friend I always make them smile. I've never been told by a female friend I always make them smile. I've never been told by a family member that I always make them smile. The only such people I've heard this from are girlfriends or women wanting to start a relationship with me. That's it. No one else. Even if she didn't know I liked her, why say that? The fact is she did know I liked her. Does she think a comment like that won't make me think she may feel similarly? Does she think her heavy flirtations and constant compliments aren't going to make me more inclined to think she has some feelings for me? I just wish I could understand her thought-process through these past few months (perhaps years), what she's been thinking and feeling, especially since our communication became much more frequent. I tried opening up to her. I tried engaging in serious, meaningful conversation with her, but she refused to reciprocate. She didn't want to have a serious discussion. She didn't much care for opening up to me as I did to her. Something seemed to be holding her back. Whatever that something was, I just wish I had some answers, so I could fully move on from this and hopefully learn so that this cycle won't repeat itself in the future.

She may not believe this at the moment, but she'll always hold a special place in my heart. Before her, I hadn't felt anything for a woman for 4.5 years and I honestly didn't think I ever would again. She helped prove me wrong and never in my life have I been so happy to have been proven wrong. I'll always love her and wish her nothing but the very best. She has a lot to work on before she thinks about involving herself in a serious relationship, but I know she'll learn and grow, just as I will. Who knows, maybe a couple years from now when I'm moved back and settled in Omaha, she and I will bump into one another and we can again work on establishing a friendship and if we've both grown enough by then, maybe build something greater than that. As I've said previously, I won't be expecting that, but again, who knows? All I know is I love her and hope that she attains happiness in life.

Cutting Off Communication

2011-03-30T21:58:00.002-05:00

So, I was led on to believe a woman had feelings for me. This was confirmed by a couple of inside sources. Her words, tone and body language seemed to support this as well. In the end, though, she evidently didn't feel anything for me. So, due to her toying with my heart and severely hurting me in the process, I thought it was time to just let go.

I just read some testimonies and studies regarding the effects of the "silent treatment". Some claimed it as a form of emotional abuse, that it's childish, that people whom fear confrontation and serious discussion are more apt to resorting to this tactic than the average individual, that it solves nothing, inflicts pain upon the other, etc. I think these comments may be true in a majority of cases, but not in every case.

This woman began giving me the silent treatment in a way. She stopped responding to my e-mails, returning my calls or answering my calls, ignored me when I visited this past week, said she tried keeping her distance, couldn't be herself around me and wouldn't until I accept the fact she doesn't share the same feelings toward me as I do toward her. So, when I cut off communication, did it really change matters all that much? No, not really. I just put the official stamp on things.

I don't plan on getting in touch with this woman again. If one wants to talk about an emotional rollercoaster, she put me on one. She was extremely wishy-washy, going back-and-forth on her thoughts, feelings and interest level on a regular basis. Every one of my friends whom knew about the situation confidently stated that she was obviously "into me," with even a couple laying claim that she told them this. A couple of females whom I didn't know, were told bits of the story and they said they'd be shocked if this woman didn't want to pursue something with me and that they'd never heard of a woman acting in such a manner whom wasn't interested in that person. It's not like I was the only one misreading her.

It's funny that I consistently read in these studies and testimonies that the individual whom resorts to silent treatment is typically fearful of confrontation and of serious discussion, but one reason I resorted to this drastic measure was because this woman was fearful of confrontation and serious discussion. On several occasions, I attempted to open up to her and engage in a serious conversation, but she consistently ignored these attempts, leaving me with no definite answer. She'd provide me with vaguery, no clear direction and seemingly ignore the discussions altogether.

She basically threw me out of her life without placing the official stamp on the envelope to be mailed. That's all I was doing. I wish I didn't have to resort to this tactic, but she's tampered with my emotions, pained me enough as it is and I honestly don't want to associate myself with her again. If she were a loyal friend, I'd have no problem in taking a step back, swallowing my pride and accepting the friendship as is. However, she's not like that. She's a good friend one minute and a ghost the next. I don't care to affiliate myself with such flakiness. Unfortunately, she's simply not the person I thought she was and I'm extremely disappointed in myself for misreading her like I did and that I allowed a person to string me along and use me as she did. I now know it's for the very best that she and I never wound up dating, but it's still fresh and painful right now. I'll eventually get over it, but it'll be a rather lengthy healing process. I still think that deep down, there's a beautiful person in there, but I sincerely hope she alters a few things about herself as to not lead men on and cross the line between flirting and indicating she likes someone and tampering with a man's heart and feelings in the process. I also hope I can alter a few things about myself, to be stronger, more assertive and more cognizant of a woman's true intent before developing feelings for them and allowing myself to get strung along and used in the process.

$7,500,000? No, more like $350,000. Fox was off by just $7,150,000.

2011-03-08T10:04:00.004-06:00

So, the most watched cable "news" network, the network whom claims to be "fair and balanced" and carry with them the slogan, "We report. You decide.," committed yet another error the other day. It wasn't their first and certainly won't be their last. Why then have I decided to write about it, since it seems to be so commonplace? Oh, because not only was Fox wrong in their reporting, the disparity between their numbers and the actual numbers is staggering.

Fox "News" reported that the Wisconsin protests will cost up to $7.5 million dollars or to write the longer version, $7,500,000. It has since been reported that the total costs will be around $350,000. That's a difference of $7,150,000. $350,000 is just 4.7% of $7,150,000. In other words, Fox was off by, oh, just 95.3%. If I took an exam and received less than a 5%, keeping in mind that a failing grade in college is 59% or 54 percentage points higher than my hypothetical score, chances are I wouldn't be in school for much longer.

Since these real-life numbers have been released, I've heard Fox supporters spout the following two lines pretty regularly: 1) Fox was just reporting information that was already out there and 2) Whether it's $7.5 million or $350,000, it's still costing the tax-payers money.

If Fox wants to be known as a "news" network, shouldn't they then double-check their sources? What were those sources anyway? If this "news" network just reports what they hear being talked about or rumors and speculation, then how are they any different than a gossip magazine? A genuine news network will report facts and the only way they can verify these statements is to garner credibility through the quality of their sources and double-checking those very sources. If Fox wants to come forward about being a gossip network, then fine, I then have no problem with them reporting these horrendously inaccurate numbers. However, call it a hunch by the title of their network (Fox "News"), but I'm guessing Rupert Murdoch doesn't want his network to be known as a 24-hour gossip column. If my gut is accurate in that assessment, then I do have a serious problem with Fox reporting such drivel. It's difficult for me to understand, but some people actually tune into Fox rather regularly, listen to the commentary and believe what is being spouted. In that case, since Fox initially reported that the costs of the protests would be up to $7,500,000, chances are many of Fox's viewers believed this. It's a true journalist's responsibility to be thorough and credible in his/her reporting and Fox has been remiss of these very responsibilities.

With regard to the second comment, that isn't the issue here. Saying that it doesn't matter what the numbers are, it's going to cost tax-payers money is an informal fallacy known as a red herring. The point being made here isn't that it's right or wrong for tax-payers to be financially responsible for these protests. The point being made is how drastically different Fox's numbers were to the actual numbers. Again, this brings into question the credibility of this "news" network. It's not like this was a minor slip-up. It's not like a meteorologist predicted a high of 64 and the high reached 67. It's not like a person told a cop he/she was going 56 when they were really going 57. It's not like a husband telling his wife he'll be home at 6:30 and he doesn't arrive until 6:40. While all of these actual numbers are different from the speculated numbers, the margin of error is very small. With regard to Fox's numbers, they were 95.3% wrong. If they were to do this poorly on an exam, 4.7%, they'd be the laughing stock of the school. Out of 100 questions, they would have answered between 4 and 5 right, while getting between 95 and 96 wrong. This isn't about Fox being wrong. It's about Fox being laughably wrong and still contending they're a viable news source. Once again, they've proven themselves wrong on that front.

A Reasonable Argument For the Existence of God, Eh? Not really...

2011-03-07T09:33:00.003-06:00

I, at one time, believed in God, as I was raised by two Christians parents and taken to church on Sundays fairly regularly. Over the years, I've developed more doubt in the existence of a higher power and in organized religion, in general. I now classify myself as an agnostic, because I have a difficult time believing there will ever be a 100% proof provided in either direction, toward the existence of a higher power or toward there not being one present.

I read an article today via the Huffington Post and the title of the piece was very misleading, as it said there's now evidence that belief in God is a reasonable argument. What was this evidence?

The writer spent 90% of this time talking about scientists and atheists being unable to fully prove God doesn't exist. He then concluded because of this, the belief in God is a reasonable argument.

How does that work? Just because person A can't fully prove X, that means it's reasonable for person B to believe Y? Can he spell the word f-a-l-l-a-c-y?

Going by that logic, we could go in a number of different direction on what is a "reasonable" argument. Since scientists have not been able to fully prove in the absence of God, it is now "reasonable" to believe that Elmer Fudd is the lord and savior. It's now "reasonable" to believe Gumby will be waiting for us at the gates of heaven when we all pass to determine if we are worthy of entry. It's now "reasonable" to believe that after we die, we will be probed by aliens for scientific purposes, dropped from a spaceship into a cornfield in central Iowa and then uplifted via a beam by a higher power with the name of Vernon Endowed.

I'm sorry, but just because one can't fully prove something, doesn't make one (of an almost infinite number of) possible option a reasonable one. The author of this article has to realize that his "rationale" could be utilized by the opposing side of the debate. Scientists and atheists alike could say, "Well, theists have been unable to prove the existence of God, which makes our position that much more reasonable." That can go both ways and in both cases, the "argument" would be a very weak one. I have to go. I'm watching a show pertaining to college basketball, where anchor B is telling anchor A, "Look, we can't prove that Kansas, Duke or Ohio State will win the title. So, Iowa State winning the Big XII Championship en route to a national championship after starting the season 3-13 in conference play is a perfectly reasonable argument to have." Indeed, it is. Indeed it is...

My Singles' Ad...well...sort of...

2011-02-23T09:13:00.000-06:00

Hey there. How you doin'? My name is Craig, am roughly 29 years and 359 days old, 6'4'' minus a few inches, weigh in at 156.5 lbs. of pure muscle, with eyes as green as marijuana, hair like that of Brian Williams, a voice like James Earl Jones after sucking on helium and he also possesses very large hands (length and girth).

I like: Watching Hallmark movies while tripping on acid; quizzing George W. Bush on spelling, pronunciations and He-Man; fine dining (Ex. Burger King and Runza); telling pastors, "That's what she said;" impressing women with my mad Boggle, Scrabble and Sudoku skills; taking four left turns around the block and pretending I'm a NASCAR driver; smooth-talking the ladies by utilizing my own book, "A Polish Guide to Make the Ladies Like You and Stuff;" quoting silent films and watching sloths for 24 consecutive hours.

I also believe I read Chinese better than I read women and for the record, the only languages I've learned other than English are Spanglish, Minnesotan and Jive.

Oh, and I like long walks on the beach.

Being Typecast As The Shrink

2011-02-19T19:49:00.002-06:00

Up until September 12th of 2003, I was known within my family and circle(s) of friends as the listener, the advice-giver, in other words, the shrink. When someone was having problems, I was the one to write, see or call.

The frequency and overall quantity of such occasions declined quite drastically following the before-mentioned date. After that date, I learned that while it's nice to be there for family and friends and to help as much as is possible, it's not good to partake in these activities so regularly that one loses track of their own needs and wants. That's what happened prior to September 12th, 2003. I put all my friends and family before myself and I wound up losing track of who I was, who I wanted to be and what I needed and wanted. After that date, I finally learned to look after myself first and foremost and to not let friends and family use me for constant listening and advice and/or typecast me as the counselor.

In time, I've been able to weed out most of my former "patients," but unfortunately, not all of them. There are a couple people in particular who come to me with regularity to vent and receive feedback on a problem they're having. I've known these two people almost all my life. They mean a great deal to me, but it seems they still have this idea that I'm their counselor lodged into their minds and they're seemingly unable to let go of that image. Once in a while, I don't mind it. I'll be happy to listen to them talk for a half hour and if they want, give them some advice. However, I can't do this on a regular basis.

Just the other day, they called in succession of one another, with their being about a 5-minute gap between the two phone calls. Both calls lasted about 20-30 minutes a piece and I may have uttered 20-30 total words in those two "conversations".

It gets a tad frustrating sometimes. It feels like my ears mean more to them than anything else. So long as I say, "Uh-huh," "Yeah," "Right" and "Mmm hmm," they're content. They also talk very quickly, so I have to find that split-second when they pause to get in a few words. Then when I'm about to speak, that's when I hear, "Well, I've got to get going. I'll talk to you later." Yeah, how true that sentiment is, THEY"LL talk to me later. I obviously won't be doing any talking.

I just wish these two people actually showed interest in more than themselves and their problems. If they're true friends, I'd think they'd ask me a few questions, be curious on what is going on in my life. Once in a while they will, but those times are few and far between.

It's kind of funny. From these two individuals in particular, I'll hear the comment, "You're kind of quiet." Yeah, I am when talking, excuse me, listening to them. They should hear what takes place when I'm talking with someone else. I and others can actually hear my voice! It's the damnedest thing! It's really quite something to have known a couple people for most of one's life and yet to come to the realization they don't know you all that well. Hopefully they'll eventually drop the typecast, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

Drunken Guilt Complex (DGC)

2011-02-19T19:34:00.002-06:00

For the first time in 2011, I decided to go out and drink last night. It was the first time I had drank alcohol in the new year (49 days). So, no, I'm not a drunk. However, it seems when I have a few drinks in an evening, there's a 50/50 chance I'll wake up feeling guilty about it. The same was true this morning.

I think it may be due to the fact someone very close to me has a problem with alcohol, so when I do drink, it instills a fear in me that I will one day become like him with regard to my consuming of alcohol. Also, it makes me feel guilty for being like him for even a single evening and that's the last thing I want to do.

I'm typically very happy after I've had a few adult soda pops. I become an exaggerated version of my sober self. But, when thinking back to an alcohol-filled evening, I feel guilt about not fully being myself, from being influenced by a foreign substance. I wasn't drunk, but was dang close and wound up calling someone fairly late. She is usually up until 1 am or so on weekdays and until 2-3 on weekends, so I thought if I called at midnight on a Friday night, she'd definitely be up. She probably was, but I was so paranoid about waking her up, I let the phone ring two full times and on the third ring, I hung up, thinking, "Well, if she's up, by her phone and wants to talk, she can call me back." This didn't happen and I'm probably making a bigger deal about it than I should, but still, I feel bad about it. I also spent more money than I should have. I'm not a beer drinker, so the cocktails I buy are $5-7 a piece, rather than $1-4 and that can add up, especially if one is at a bar for a few hours, which I was.

I think I'd be much more comfortable with drinking a few adult waters every now and again if certain individuals whom are close to me didn't drink so much. It's not my problem; it's theirs. At the same time, however, I don't want to feel like I'm encouraging their alcoholism by partaking in the same activity.

Guilt is a strange feeling to have after a night out at the bars, mainly due to another's bad drinking habit. Whatever it is and why ever it's present, I can't say with 100% certainty, but one thing I know for certain is that I don't like it.

I've noticed a trend among women I reject - They spread their legs to the public.

2011-02-17T07:56:00.008-06:00

In the past couple weeks, I've learned of two women whom I rejected becoming, for lack of a better word, sluts. In fact, this trend can be seen as much as 9-10 years ago, but especially of late it seems.

From about May of '09 to September of '10 (16 months), I was talking to one gal, we'll call her Medusa, pretty regularly. When I flew to Omaha in July and again in August of 2010, she and I spent quite a bit of time together. She claimed to want to start a relationship with me and at one point, while drunk, she asked me to go get some condoms from her purse. No, she wasn't strange and wanted to snack on some latex, but yes, she had a fetish for removing her clothing and spreading her legs as I soon discovered. She and I weren't dating and in the grand scheme of things, hadn't hung out very much, so that moment made me rather uncomfortable. I rejected her easy access request and asked that she sober up and take me home, because of course, she was my ride and that was the only riding she was going to do that night. After that very evening, she and I began drifting apart. I stopped calling her as much, stopped writing her as much and had my mind made up that I didn't care to associate with her much anymore, let alone date her.

Not long ago, I learned from a friend that Medusa was looser than a toilet seat after being sat on by a sumo wrestler for 36 consecutive days. I guess while she was attempting to persuade me in dating her, she slept with six different guys and on two occasions, had to take the morning-after pill, due to her not being responsible the night before. Typically, these adult missionary sleepovers followed me telling her I wasn't sure what I felt or that I didn't think I felt anything stronger than a friendship. So I wasn't even rejecting her so to speak, just saying that I didn't know and this prompted her to know a man's penis better. Sorry, I should pluralize that - men's penises. There, that is the more accurate assessment. All I can say is thank Valtrex I didn't do anything with her. I'm gagging now having just typed that.

That brings me to the more recent of the two stories. I heard this just yesterday, which persuaded me to write this blog in the first place, because if it happens just once, it's probably just a coincidence, but if it happens again, then it may be time to ponder about the whorish ways of those one has rejected. This woman, I'll pretend her name is Nikita, has been "friends" off and on with me for about 10 years. I place "friends" in quotes because she hasn't been the most reliable of people in those 10 years, not the most consistent and when looking back, I see her more as an acquaintance and counseling patient than a genuine friend. Obviously my free-of-charge psychological evaluation(s) didn't benefit her much. Nikita has had a thing for me ("thing" being ambiguous, I'm sure) these past 10 years or so she claims. Each and every time she has brought up the idea of dating or of something physical/sexual, I've said no. Yet she will come back 6-12 months later and bring up the same tired routine, "So, if I like go up to you in a crowded library, take off all my clothes, give you a condom and start moaning, will you stick your thing into my thing?" Okay, so she wasn't THAT eloquent with her wording, but it presents a very similar message.

Nikita divorced Rover about 12-18 months ago, I'd say. She dated one jerk, Maximus, off and on for about a year. After all three of their break-ups, she called me to cry, vent and like a silly psychology major, I listened to this half-friend and gave her constructive feedback. Yes, I'm too nice sometimes, perhaps not as nice as Mister Rodgers on marijuana, but nice enough. After all three of these break-ups and after my listening to her and giving her feedback on the matter, she'd bring up the non-redundant idea of dating and/or sleeping together. One time, she called and after hello, she said, "You know, I think we should have sex." Ah yes, hello to you too and no. She was persistent. I will have to give her that. But after having gone through this with her time and again, I think there may be a very fine line between persistence and insanity.

Just recently, after I began picking up communication with someone I've liked for a good three years now, we'll call her Miranda, she again asked about my dating status. While technically I am single, I am interested in someone and until she flat out tells me that she's not interested, I'm not going to lose all hope on the matter and attempt to send my heart to another destination. When I relayed this news upon Nikita, she was none too pleased, said she felt like crying and thought I should give her a chance instead of Miranda. I had to politely decline (again) and wished her the best of luck in finding herself a good guy.

We then chatted the following week and Miranda was brought into the conversation again. I had sent her a package of personalized gift items earlier in the week, to which she responded very positively and after describing the gifts and the poem I had written for her for Valentine's Day, Nikita said, "Wow, that sounds really awesome. I've said it all along. You're the perfect man and I stand by that today." Flattering? Partially. It'd be more flattering if it was said by a person not wanting to get down my pants (yes, I know I probably sound like a woman there) and hum Isaac Hayes' "Shaft".

Just yesterday, she e-mailed me and told me the story of her dating life in the past couple months. From Monday, February 14th through Tuesday, she and one Paulie spent some quality time together. When I mean quality, I mean deep (well maybe, size does matter in this case) conversations like this, "Hey baby, front or back this time? Yeah, I've got my rub-a-dub-dub. I'm ready. Let's do this...again!" He then left after those two days by telling her he didn't feel a connection (outside of the penal-vaginal kind) and that he didn't see much of a future for the two of them. She then told me how she's dated 10 different guys in the past couple months and with all 10 guys, things ended similarly. So what does she have planned for this upcoming weekend? Three more dates!

I find these two women's persistence on getting me to sleep with them rather hilarious, because they both knew that unless I'm officially dating a woman, feel a strong trust and bond with her and see the potential for something very long-term, there's no chance in hell (or Iowa) that I will sleep with them. They also knew how long it's been since I've engaged in that sort of thing, due to being used and cheated on before (again, yes, I may sound like a woman there). Perhaps they felt I was all talk and as a guy, it was just my way of manipulating them into doing the deed of touching each other's naughty parts. In any case, I really have to wonder what was going through their minds after being rejected each and every time by a male for sex. Well, I hate to go, but I think I'm going to celebrate my rejection of STD's by smoking a cigarette.

Things Are Looking Up Health Wise

2011-02-10T19:20:00.003-06:00

Well, I saw my neurologist today. It was potentially my last step in this battle I've fought for 20.5 months.

I had noticed that my symptoms had been waning since I began getting weened off a medication I had been taking for 11 years, tegretol, and being placed on another, lamictal. This trend has continued over the past month or two.

All I needed was to get a third opinion on what I should do from here. One neurosurgeon in Columbus stated that I shouldn't bother getting surgery around my spine, because the AVM (arteriovenous malformation) was not active and there would really be no point in my doing so. A neurosurgeon in Cleveland took the direct opposite angle and said if the AVM was active, it would get progressively worse, to the point where I could lose my legs and he'd recommend an angiogram to make certain AVM was present and if it was, to seriously consider surgery.

So, I asked my neurologist his opinion on the matter and he confidently sided with the Columbus neurosurgeon. He said there was no evidence of the AVM being active and due to that, he saw no reason to risk having surgery around my spine. If the AVM happened to be active, then I'd have something to think about, but based on what we know, there's no proof of that.

This was indeed a relief. As I told people with regard to the appointment, I was cautiously optimistic about it, because I know I am feeling better and if things supposedly get progressively worse with AVM being active, it was difficult for me to believe that it is in fact active. I also had a hunch that my doctor, not being a neurosurgeon excited about operating, would give me a more unbiased opinion than the two neurosurgeons I saw.

I can finally move forward with my life. For a little over a year and a half, I've been stuck in my household, unable to do a whole lot, uncertain of my future and seriously wondering if I'd ever attain happiness again. On February 10th of 2011, I got the final word, breathed a heavy sigh of relief, closed my eyes and tried to hold back the tears, before opening them and looking ahead.

Ah, Religious Hypocrisy At Its Finest and How That Makes My Back Tingle...

2011-02-08T15:16:00.002-06:00

I realize we're all hypocrites to a certain degree. We've all, at least once in our lives, said something or claimed to believe something and went against those words or morals. Some do this a greater frequency than others, there's no question, but we've all done this at least once. So, I'm not here to lay claim that I've never been hypocritical. I have. I don't believe I've done it very much, but I have been guilty of it before.

If there's one type of hypocrisy that drives me crazier than any other, it's when the holier-than-thou folks lecture, preach and shove their beliefs down others' throats, making themselves seem above it all and they then prove they're no better than any of us. I was witness to this again today.

First, let it be known that I am in no way religious. I could care less what a person believes, so long as they don't harm themselves or another in the name of their religion. So, with that in mind, here's the story.

Today, I heard about a bar in the Omaha area, the owners of which I know personally, that is having doubts about serving a man whom is a regular customer there. This is an older gentleman, who fought for our country, pays well at the bar, makes a decent living for himself and seems to be friendly with the people there. BUT, I guess his teeth aren't the prettiest to look at and the way he dresses makes him appear to be a bum, even though he's not. So, his presence there makes some people uncomfortable, even though he doesn't smell bad, he's friendly, he pays well and he fought for this country.

So, when I heard this story, I stood up for the guy. Two people told me that some people were complaining, that he didn't dress well enough and he wasn't appealing to look at, etc. These two people claim to be Christian, to believe and worship a man, whom, according to scripture, was the least judgmental person in the history of man. So, they claim to believe and worship this being, to want nothing more than to follow in his footsteps, yet they pass judgment on a man whom fought for our country in war, pays well and is friendly, just because his appearance does not please the average person? How hypocritical can one be?

So, what? Back when segregation finally came to an end, if a restaurant or bar was without any African-Americans for the majority of an evening, but at some point, one or more walks in to get served, should the manager or owner come forward and not allow them in, because some may not be comfortable with their being there? Yeah, that's moral and right. Not.

Shallowness bothers the hell out of me. What can we really tell about a person just from looking at them? We can tell if we find them physically attractive or not, but besides that? What? Can we tell if they're married? Single? Straight? Gay? Have kids? Work at a factory? Work at Wal-Mart? Enjoy video games? Collects bells? Watches the Chicago White Sox? Is a porn star? The only way we can get answers to these questions is if we sit down and talk to them. If we're uncomfortable with a person being around us simply because they may not appeal to us physically, then the problem is ours, not theirs. Would we ever want another to judge us in that manner? I highly doubt it, so why do the same to another? I don't want someone who doesn't know me in the slightest to judge me based on a quick glance. I would never want that and in turn, will never do that with regard to another.

"I'm Not Sayin', I'm Just Sayin'" - Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

2011-02-08T15:15:00.002-06:00

On ESPN Radio, I hear a personality, I believe his name is Fred Coleman, say the following line after he makes a "point" (which is debatable), "I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'."

I'm sorry, but how does that make an ounce of sense? Really? He's not sayin'. He's just sayin'? Huh, that is interesting, perhaps even profound to an extent.

It reminds me of this time when I saw a satire on pornos (one I wrote probably), where Jean-Claude Johnson is caught by his wife, Marisa Hooch, in bed with another woman, Chastity Slut-Johnson. Mr. Johnson says to his wife, "Honey, I'm not cheatin'. I'm just cheatin'." That's right, Mr. Johnson. Perhaps with him being a porn star, Chastity may buy this, but I doubt anybody else would.

He's not sayin'. He's just sayin'? Yeah, just like I'm not bloggin'. I'm just bloggin'. Right on, Mr. Coleman. Right on.

"Snow Reduces Visibility," eh? No S***...

2011-02-08T11:05:00.003-06:00

So, I just saw a headline on The Weather Channel which read, "Snow Reduces Visibility". This was quite the mind-blowing announcement. I mean, there was man landing on the moon, the invention of the airplane, George W. Bush becoming president, but none of these events could match the significance of this one - snow reduces visibility. To call this profound would be like calling McDonald's unhealthy.

I wonder what the next headline on this very channel will read. Perhaps it'll be something along the lines of "Rain Makes Things Wet" or "Heat Makes People Sweat" or even, and this would be a miracle which would prove the existence of God, "Sun Brightens Sky".

No matter what this headline reads, one can believe all eyes and ears will be waiting and watching (hearing too, I suppose) for The Weather Channel to reveal yet another bit of information likely to change the world. Well, I better go. I'm running an experiment to see if liquids go down a drain and am anxiously awaiting the results!

Big East Basketball Dominance

2011-02-08T08:53:00.002-06:00

So, I was reading up on the updated Top 25 rankings in college basketball yesterday. What did I see? Well, let me share that with you.

In the USA Today/Coaches Poll, the following Big East teams are ranked as follows: 4. Pittsburgh (21-2), 7. Notre Dame (19-4), 9. Connecticut (18-4), 10. Villanova (19-4), 11. Georgetown (18-5), 13. Syracuse (20-4) and 15. Louisville (18-5). West Virginia is ranked 26th and Marquette at 39. In the AP, West Virginia is ranked at 25 (15-7), Cincinnati at 29 and Marquette at 34.

So, to summarize, the Big East has 10 teams whom have votes in one poll or the other. They have 8 teams ranked in the Top 25 in the AP Poll and 7 in the USA Today/Coaches.

That's all very impressive, but what really stood out to me? Look at those rankings in the USA Today/Coaches Poll again. Of the top 15 teams in all the country, the Big East has 7, count them, 7 teams ranked in the top 15. That's unbelievable! That's unheard of (until now)! If this keeps up, the conference could send at least 10 schools to the big dance (that'd be a first for any conference) and the way things stand now, the Big East would have: 1 #1 seed (Pittsburgh), 1 #2 seed (Notre Dame), 3 #3 seeds (Connecticut, Villanova and Georgetown) and 2 #4 seeds (Syracuse and Louisville).

Of course, these rankings and numbers will be very difficult for the conference to maintain, but for the time being, as of February 7th of 2011, the Big East is looking like they're well on the way to shattering some records this year and if the rest of the college basketball world doesn't get with it, we may see an alteration in March Madness this year. Instead of having a field of 65, including schools from every conference, we'll just run a 16-team tournament to decide the champion. That's right, the Big East Conference Tournament will decide the national champion. It may as well. With 7 of the top 15 teams in the country, their conference tournament may be as good of a measuring stick to college basketball supremacy as the 65-team field.

Thoughts on the Super Bowl and Commercials

2011-02-07T09:07:00.002-06:00

I have to say, I was pleased with the game. Green Bay looked to be well in charge, up 21-3 late in the 2nd quarter, but Pittsburgh scored a late touchdown to trim the lead to 11 (21-10) at the half. From that point forward, it was tightly contested. Aaron Rodgers, the Super Bowl MVP, was great and in all actuality, his numbers could have been better. I don't have the official count, but the last time I checked, the Packers' receivers had dropped 4 passes and three of those could have gone a ways.

I will say, even though the Packers won the game 31-25, I am still amazed that the Pittsburgh Steelers had a chance to win at game's end. The Steelers had 3 turnovers compared to a goose egg by the Packers. Pittsburgh was -3 in the turnover department and ALL three turnovers led to Green Bay touchdowns. Even then, with a touchdown and extra point on their final drive, Pittsburgh would have won the game 32-31.

In any case, it was a good game. Congratulations to both teams, especially the Packers.

With regard to the commercials, I have mixed thoughts on them. From a first-impression standpoint, I'd probably grade them with a C, maybe a C-. I did think a couple of the Doritos commercials were pretty good, where the guy is so obsessed with the chips, he rips off a fellow employees' pants, which were rubbed by a consumer of the chips, and sniffs that particular area. The one with the dog knocking over the guy teasing him was pretty funny too.

Perhaps it's the pervert in me, but I thought the Valentine's Day commercial with Faith Hill was the funniest of the night. The guy in the commercial was sitting at the computer, about to send flowers to his girlfriend for Valentine's Day, but couldn't think of what to write in the card that would be sent along with the flowers.

Faith Hill said, "Just say what's in your heart."

The guy responds, "That will sound dumb."

Hill says, "No, trust me. Just go with your heart."

He then types something like, "Dear Kim, you have a great rack."

I'm sorry, that caught me off guard there and delivered the biggest laugh of the night from me.

There were plenty of misses as well, but overall, I'd say the commercials this year were very average, some pretty darn funny and others which were cringe-inducing.

So, all-in-all, it was a pretty good Super Bowl Sunday, a A- grade for the game, a C- grade for the commercials for a composite grade of a B-.

I have officially popped my "Glee" cherry...

2011-02-07T09:02:00.004-06:00

That's right. As of last night, February 6th of 2011, I can say I am no longer a virgin in the world of "Glee".

I'm not sure what to say. I've heard a lot about it. It is an Emmy Award-winning show. My friend, Ben, has been raving about it to me, as has my mother and I just heard about it from my friend Melissa a couple days ago. So, after watching the Super Bowl, I decided to sit down and give it a gander.

After watching the episode and admitting it on Facebook (sort of...), I have decided I need to find a quiet place, evaluate myself and where my life is going and ultimately decide if I'm still attracted to women. Okay, so I kid, I think...

The question I have for myself now is, will I continue to watch it? Like last night and how many players on the football team didn't want to be affiliated with the Glee Club due to image, I'm running into that same predicament myself. I do have one male friend (of which I'm aware) whom watches the show, so perhaps he and I can have one another's back and perhaps start a club with the title of, "Straight Male Glee Fans" or something along those lines, perhaps, "Jane Lynch Is Hot". Hmmm... Being the fact she's a lesbian, I'm not sure that would work. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but creating and joining a group by that name probably wouldn't persuade others that we males in the group are in fact heterosexual. I'll have to go over this idea with my buddy, brainstorm ideas and see what we come up with.

In the meantime, I'll be continuing to hum the song "Thriller". If no one is looking, I may even give the moonwalk and crotch grab a try. Eh, forget that. I'd feel much more secure knowing that someone is around being the fact I'm likely to trip over my feet or some inanimate object and potentially hurt myself in the process, requiring a trip to the E.R. So, I think I'll just type about the hypothetical situation and leave it at that, along with the crotch grab, of course.

Oh, Christina... (Aguilera)

2011-02-07T09:02:00.003-06:00

For anyone whom resides in the United States and was alive through the pre-game portion of the Super Bowl last night will know, Grammy-award winning artist, Christina Aguilera fumbled a bit with the words to the National Anthem.

As Jillian Mapes of billboard.com writes, 'Aguilera changed the words in the song's fourth line, which reads as: "O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" Instead, the 'Burlesque' singer merged the lyrics with the song's second line, which she had just sang ('What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?'), belting out: 'What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last gleaming?'"

Okay, I admit that I heard the flub right away, as did the rest of my family and millions others. I kind of laughed about it at first, because I find it a tad humorous when celebrities screw up. I'll also be the first to admit that she should have been able to get the lyrics right. However, I think many people are overreacting to her forgetting the lyrics. I think what deserves criticism is her overall performance. Her voice sounded extremely strained and forced. It was like she was attempting to reach notes she was able to reach in her younger days, but isn't able to anymore. Now, I'm fine with people putting their own spin on a song to make their rendition stand out from the rest. However, in my opinion, her's just didn't cut it.

I kind of feel bad for her. To mess up on the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, of all events, receives huge headlines and publicity. She's an established artist and grammy award-winning one at that, so it's not like this slip up will cost her any, but it will be what some remember her for, unfortunately (right, Janet?).

NFL Comeback Player of the Year was an easy decision

2011-02-06T17:06:00.003-06:00

The 2010-2011 NFL Comeback Player of the Year was Philadelphia Eagles' starting quarterback, Michael Vick. Honestly, I don't know how it could be anyone else. Two years ago, the guy was serving time in prison. Last year, he was used as more of a decoy than anything else in the Eagles' offense. This year, he was a back-up to Kevin Kolb at season's start and he went on to post the best numbers of his career.

On the year, Vick completed 233 of 372 passes (62.6%). The 233 completions was a career high and the 62.6% completion percentage was also a career high. He threw for 3,018 yards (another career high), averaging 8.1 yards per attempt (yes, a career high) for 21 touchdowns (take a wild guess - yup, a career high), a long of 91 (career high) with a quarterback rating of 100.2 (that's right, a career high). To go along with these great numbers, he was only intercepted 6 times, a career low for a season in which he played at least 12 games. To go along with his passing totals, the Eagles' quarterback rushed the ball 100 times for 676 yards (6.8 p/), with a long of 35 and 9 touchdowns on the ground (a career high). That's 8 career highs for Vick, a guy whom many doubted would ever play in the NFL again, let alone start, following his time spent in Leavenworth.

I don't care what the holier-than-thou folk have to say. There was only one viable candidate for this award and it was Michael Vick.

Super Bowl Prediction

2011-02-06T17:04:00.002-06:00

The team with the most points at game's end will win.

In other news, I predict that in the 2012 Presidential Election, the candidate with the most votes will win. Wait, that's not necessarily true. Sorry, Al Gore.

My Change in Energy (so says my friend...)

2011-02-06T10:48:00.002-06:00

I received a call from a friend last night. He and I traded stories on our daily lives, women, sports and health. He's a social worker and at times has given me a counselor vibe, which is fine if I seek advice from a person, but this typically wasn't the case. I actually talked to him about it 5-6 months ago and he apologized. Since that point, he's let up on attempting to be my counselor.

Last night, toward the tail-end of the conversation, after I had talked about my current love interest (3-year love interest), my health, what I hoped to happen in my future, he couldn't say enough about a certain change he hears/feels/sees in me.

He said something like, "You have this entirely new energy about you. It's amazing how much you've changed in 3-4 months. You're so much more open now. I really think you're taking a big step with (said woman) and are really moving forward with your life."

That meant a lot to me. It's the first time someone has told me about this "change" I've undergone. As I told my friend last night, I think there are two big reasons why this has happened:

1) My friendship/relationship with Michelle

2) My recovery from 18 months of health problems

Firstly, I was talking to a woman from back home (Omaha) regularly for close to a year. When I flew into town last July and August, she and I spent a decent amount of time together. But, something was always holding me back from taking the friendship a step further.

When she and I started talking was at the peak time of my health ordeal. There were days when I had difficulty walking or getting out of bed. I was in a zombie-like state the majority of the time. So, Michelle came along and became someone I could confide in when I most needed it, because I was stuck inside my house most of the time and unable to do much. It really helped to have that person to consistently communicate with, but that all changed in late May of last year. We started flirting with the notion of taking the relationship a step beyond that of a friendship and this complicated matters for the final four months in which we spoke.

While I was very appreciative of her friendship for a while, after "feelings" were brought to the forefront, I began to feel uneasy. She would tend to dramatize situations, when there wasn't any to begin with. She'd try to manipulate me, to hurry me along with making up my mind on where I wanted to take things with her (as well as physically when I flew back home, but I kindly told her no), etc. When she didn't get her way with me, which was pretty frequent, she'd hold me down, kick me while down and the end result was me feeling depressed and/or guilty. It was like this for four consecutive months and like the mere-exposure effect states, it took its toll on me.

I think after a period of time of going through this, my confidence took a shot and I began to feel as if perhaps I could do no better than her, so maybe I should give in and give dating a chance. My self-esteem had already decreased substantially over the months, due to my health problems, so for her to sink it even lower was quite the feat.

As of September 18th of last year, though, I had had enough. I was done with the manipulation. I was done with the lies. I was done with the drama.

In our final phone conversation, she became dramatic again, as out of nowhere she said, "Well, if you have a problem with me being who I am, then I think we have a problem!"

I responded with, "What? Where did that come from? When did I ever say I had a problem with you being yourself? Where did you get that idea?"

There was a slight pause, before she said, "I don't know."

I then laughed for a couple seconds, shook my head and then stated, "You know what? I think we're done. I really can't do this anymore. Perhaps in the future, when things have cooled down some, we can establish a friendship again, but I think for now, it's best to not talk for a while."

I then hung up, received a nasty e-mail and text, filled with expletives and an encyclopedia of scapegoating, as she had cast me as the sole reason things didn't work between the two of us. The insults were harsh and hurtful, but I slowly got over them. The scapegoating made me question what it was I said or did that may have been the reason for us not working out at all.

But, I then heard from an old friend of her's about a month or two ago and she sprung upon me some very interesting news. These tidbits of information included: She lied to me very regularly, especially with regard to guys, that she had slept with 6 different guys in the year we were talking, that she needed the morning-after pill on two occasions because she was irresponsible the night before, that she told some friends of her's my darkest of secrets, that she attempted to manipulate me on a regular basis, etc. Hearing all of that really helped put myself at ease and I was able to fully put that chapter in my life to rest.

As awful as that "relationship" sounds, I think in the end, it may have been to my benefit. I learned that I am ready for a relationship (just not with her), that I'm cognizant enough to notice red flags I wouldn't have seen prior to '03. I learned that I'm strong enough to say no, which was difficult for me prior to '03, because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I also learned that I do deserve better. So, while it was not a pleasant year for me, it has left me smiling and energized in the end.

Secondly and the most important factor, I believe to my new-found life and energy, is the fact I'm finally starting to recover from the 18-month soap opera regarding my health. When it first hit me that Sunday morning on May 31st of 2008, I knew something was wrong. This fear grew in the coming days and weeks, as the symptoms began to worsen. I had countless tests done on me, without so clear a sign as to warrant an official diagnosis. I was clueless, as were the doctors. Yet, I heard from some doctors that: "This could be with you for the rest of your life," "Your symptoms sound similar to MS (Multiple Sclerosis)," "You may have diabetes," "This could be guillain-barre syndrome," "I think you have some kind of small-fiber neuropathy (small-fiber sensory neuropathy," "We noticed an AVM-like presence around your spine (Arteriovenous Malformation)," "You might want to get brain surgery done for a second time," "We may need to operate around your spine" and "If you don't get this taken care of, you could lose your legs in the future."

To say I was bummed for 18 months would be like saying the 2008-2009 Detroit Lions were bad for 16 games. Also, hearing all of these potential negative outcomes, the worst being the thought of not having any legs, did anything but appease the situation. So, when one morning, I awoke and felt like something was different and for the better, I genuinely felt like bursting out into tears. I tried not to become overly excited, as to not know if this was an aberration or the start of a trend, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't overjoyed at that very moment and felt a sense of hope and optimism I hadn't felt for a year and a half.

Fortunately, that morning was not an aberration. Since then, I've been continually feeling better, as the symptoms have been waning in intensity. Due to this continued improvement, my joy, optimism and excitement have only grown in recent weeks and this change has brought to me a completely different perspective on life.

It's quite something to be told you're never going to feel any better and that one day, you may need your legs to be amputated, to have lost the small things in life which may have been unfairly taken for granted and to one day be able to cast aside those fears and to repossess what was lost.

I think those two were the main two factors in my change in energy, as my friend described it. I think I now appreciate life more than I ever have before. I'm happier than I've ever been before. I'm looking forward to tomorrow unlike at any other point in my life thus far. I felt dead for a year and a half, that my life had been prematurely stripped from me and now feel alive and more grateful for my very existence than at any other time in my 29 years here.

Marilyn Manson's Triptych ("Antichrist Svperstar" - 1996, "Mechanical Animals" -1998 and "Holywood" - 2000)

2011-02-05T12:49:00.002-06:00

I can't believe I haven't blogged about this before. I guess I just kind of assumed I did back in 2005 or 2006, but I'm pretty certain I didn't.

Anyway, while some may not enjoy the music of shock rocker Marilyn Manson or of their theatrics and/or controversy, I find the man and the band to be quite fascinating. The music is not what interested me at first, but the lyrics and interviews. That hooked me and I haven't let up sense.

Lyrically speaking, I found the band's triptych to be the most fascinating. As mentioned in the title of this blog, this started with the album "Antichrist Svperstar" in 1996, continued with "Mechanical Animals" in 1998 and finished with "Holywood (In the Valley of the Shadow of Death" in 2000.

Musically speaking, it was very interesting as well, as "Antichrist Svperstar" was very much industrial metal. "Mechanical Animals" was more space rock. Finally, "Holywood" was more goth rock. All three albums, musically speaking, were very different.

But, back to the lyrics. These three albums comprised a story the lead singer thought of and wrote. Supposedly, "Antichrist Svperstar" was the end of the story, "Mechanical Animals" was the beginning and "Holywood" was the glue that tied the story together. Now, it's highly debatable what the details were in the story being told, but I think get the gist of the story overall and like I said at the outset, I find it fascinating as well as thought-provoking.

In the story, Manson takes on the role of Lucifer or the fallen angel. In "Mechanical Animals," it tells the story of Lucifer's time spent in heaven, of him becoming a rock star, rebelling against God's wishes, before at album's end, he's sent to hell.

In "Antichrist Svperstar," Lucifer goes through different stages of self-discovery as the beast feared by many. He shows indifference at first, shows pain and anguish, displays fear, before by album's end, he discovers his ultimate power as leader of the underworld known as hell. He understands the power of temptation, of sin, of making people believe they should live for themselves and not a higher power.

Including "Holywood" as the glue to the story, with "Count to Six and Die" being the album's closer (and the story's closer), this is how I interpreted the overall concept of the triptych.

This is the journey of Lucifer (and in odd ways Manson himself and perhaps many of us). He was kicked out of paradise for not abiding by all the ruler's guidelines. He was then made into the scapegoat, blamed for every sin, every mistake, every wrong-doing in the world. At first, he was reluctant to take on this responsibility, but then said f*** it (as it so says in the song "Irresponsible Hate Anthem") and slowly, but surely took on this role with pride. He accepts the hate, the anger, the blame, the fear ("Man That You Fear"), but, by the story's end, Lucifer has to decide what to do with this power and as can be heard in "Count to Six and Die," he is playing Russian roulette with himself, pulling the trigger and we never know what comes of it.

Why does it end this way? The story is to provoke thought in the story of the Bible. Christians believe that Jesus is the savior, that one can only reach the paradise known as heaven if one has faith in Jesus. Yet, as this triptych asks, where would Jesus be without Lucifer? From what would he be saving mankind? If Lucifer is responsible for sin and he doesn't exist, for what did Jesus die and from what is he saving us? At story's end, Lucifer seems to want to end it all, as he will kill himself and undo the history that is know as Christianity. Jesus will no longer be the savior. Man will not be saved and sent to paradise in the after-life. The world will essential end. This brings up the question, where would one of these figures be without the other and does that then make both Jesus and Lucifer saviors in a way? Without Jesus, there would be no need for Lucifer and without Lucifer, there would be no reason for Jesus.

Like I said, I find the story to be quite fascinating, because I understand it and feel that it presents us with some very interesting questions to ponder. Of course, no one will be able to prove their theory beyond a reasonable doubt, but it can still provide us with a very intriguing discussion.

"Help Steviana Get Home" - Donate Money to Help the Cause

2011-02-05T12:38:00.003-06:00

I just learned of this through a friend via Facebook. The story is as follows:

"As you all know Steviana and Mike moved to Oklahoma not to long ago. They seemed happy when they left but as time went on Mike showed his true colors and Stevi realized what a scum bag he really was.

To make matters worse Steviana found out that she is 9 weeks pregnant and the news has really turned her life upside down.

So now she is trapped in Oklahoma in an apartment with a bad guy, with no way of getting back to Omaha. She has been out of a job for a couple months now and is nearly broke. She doesnt have a car to get herself back to Omaha and she doenst have enough money to pay for moving expenses.

She does need to get out of her current situation.
I am asking that if you are a friend of Steviana you find it in your heart to reach out to her in her time of need. Every little bit counts and if we all work together we can get her back to Omaha where she has friends willing to help.
Please send this link around to everyone who has a heart to help raise money and awareness of her situation.

Contact
Cara Marie Fleischman
if you would like to make a donation for a friend in need"

This information and more can be found at their Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pages/Help-Steviana-Get-Home/127776723957291?v=info

If after reading the story, you want to donate, please go to the following site and do so:

http://helpstevianagethome.chipin.com/steviana-wandersee-to-get-home

Thus far, three people have chipped in for a total of $110. She's needing $1,500 to move back to Omaha with her child. Hopefully she will be able to do that and very soon. Any and all donations are very welcome, from $1 to $1,500. If 278 people donated $5 a piece, she would have enough money. If 139 people donated $10 a piece, she'd be heading back to Nebraska. About 93 people donating $15 a piece would do the job as well and 70 people giving $20 per. Thus far, the average donation has been $36.67. If this kept up, we'd only need approximately 38 more people to donate. It can be done. At the very least, let's join the cause and spread word about it. The greater the quantity of members, the greater the quantity of information that will be spread and through that, the greater the quantity of donations. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Let's get this done!

Update: 4 people have now contributed for a total of $130. The last day to donate money to this cause will be Saturday, March 5th. $130 is a nice start, but as she will need $1,500 ($1,370 more), we'll need to pick things up in the next 3-4 weeks if she has a chance to get anywhere close to that amount.

The Secret to Losing Weight (Well...not really)

2011-02-05T09:48:00.004-06:00

I step on the scale every Friday morning, before I've consumed of any food or beverages and eh, without anything attached to me which may add to my weight... As of yesterday morning, I was down to 156.5 lbs. I've officially lost 29.5 lbs. since March of 2009. I had lost 24-25 by that next year, but it's been slow treading since then, until ::laughs:: I got the flu three weeks ago. As is typical, I didn't have the biggest of appetites. My diet usually consisted of water and chicken noodle soup. After a couple weeks, I was hungrier, but noticed not as hungry as I had been prior to the flu's onset. This has prevented me from eating more than I should. I've also been able to workout every day since then and have lost 5 lbs. in the past 3 weeks due to that. I'm still not QUITE where I want to be, but am definitely getting there and should reach my goal before too long.

I remember 3 years ago or so, I was out walking my dogs about three times a day, was walking on the treadmill and became frustrated that I wasn't losing any weight. At best, I'd maintain my weight at end's week, but more often than not, I'd gain weight. As I came to learn as of March, 2009, it takes a lot more than just exercise to lose weight. Some people depend on drugs, thinking it'll be a quick fix. Some people watch infomercials and buy into them, thinking they have found the answer. Most people just look for the simple solution, because they don't want to spend the time or make the sacrifices necessary to lose weight. That was me 3+ years ago. How did I lose all this weight? I call it common sense.

For a while, I went through phases with beverages. Back in elementary school, I was obsessed with Kool-Aid. In middle school, I was all about Hawaiian Punch. I switched to Dr. Pepper in high school and then Gatorade in college. The repercussions of consuming any and all of these drinks were cavities and weight gain. I figured Gatorade was safe. It's just flavored water, right? Wrong! I remember looking on the label and sure, it says 50 calories. That's not bad, right? Well, if one were to look closer, it'll also say there are four servings, which means if one downs the entire bottle, they will have added 200 calories to their daily total. If one, like I did, drinks several bottles in a single day, that will accumulate to 800-1,000 calories. This doesn't even include the food I ate. So, as of March, 2009, I switched to water. That's all I drank. I left the soda pop, fruit punches and flavored water by the wayside and just drank water. Even when just making this change, I noticed that I was losing weight. Water has no calories and when consumes of mostly this, it will benefit them in the short- and the long-term.

Next, I decided to alter my diet. This was the big problem for me 3+ years ago. I ate fast food quite regularly, wasn't afraid to munch on some chips, pretzels, fruit snacks and the like. I rarely passed on ice cream or milkshakes. I wasn't shy about eating fried food. While I didn't eat too much, what I did eat added calories and plenty of them. So, no matter how much exercise I got in a certain day, it wasn't going to offset the number of calories I totaled for the day and would, at best, keep my weight level. So, I made some changes as of March, 2009. I stopped eating red meat (Although, I do miss having a steak at times. I may make an exception if I go to a steakhouse in Nebraska. Nebraska beef is the best!). I stopped eating fast food for the most part. I may eat it once every 3-4 months. I rarely consume of junk food. Once in a while, I may have a few pretzels or some candy, but that's a rarity. I haven't had ice cream for 3 years now. Also, I switched from fried to grilled. I rarely ever eat fried chicken anymore. Once in a great while, I'll kind of crave it and give in to temptation, but again, those times are very few and far between.

Finally, I've worked out more than I ever have before. If I were to only do this, I wouldn't lose much weight, but in addition to altering my diet, it can pay big dividends. It's tough in the winter here, but during the other three seasons, I will take my dogs on about two walks per day. I also do a 30- or 60-minute cardiovascular workout 6-7 days a week, lift weights and do sit-ups and push-ups as well.

This has resulted in my losing close to 30 lbs. in the past couple years, 25 of which I lost within a single year. It is more difficult for some to lose weight than others, largely due to their metabolism, but I truly believe that if I can have the focus and determination to make some changes in my life to better my health and my body, so can most people. It's all about moderation. It's okay to have fried food once in a while, but not regularly. It's okay to eat fast food here and there, but not on a regular basis. It's okay to have a soda pop, a bowl of ice cream or a hamburger, but only moderation. So, that's my advice: Water, grilled meat, exercise and moderating the good-tasting, but calorie-inducing foods and beverages.

It Feels Good Not to Drink

2011-02-05T09:48:00.003-06:00

My family knows how to drink. There's no hiding that. This is especially the case on my father's side. When we get together for a holiday or just a random weekend, one can expect there will be some alcohol consumption. I even admit to consuming a bit of it between the months of October and December of 2010, as I went to two Halloween parties, visited family for Thanksgiving and again for Christmas. But, New Year's Eve of 2010 was the last night I had an alcoholic beverage and I have to say, it feels pretty good.

I'm not saying I had a problem. I don't. I may go out drinking a couple straight weekends (one night per), but I can also go 3-4 months or so without having a drink. But, not having drank anything for the past month or so, not only has it saved me some money, it's also saved me some time. I don't have to worry about feeling groggy in the morning after a night of drinking, possibly hung over, needed to chug water all day to hydrate myself, etc. My body feels clean and my mind feels clean. I've been able to write more, have been more content and more optimistic. Now, I'm not saying I'll never drink again, because let's face it, my 30th birthday is the 28th of this month. I have to imagine I may have a few drinks that night or that weekend, as I'm not sure which day it falls. Ah, a Monday. So, yes, perhaps on the 25th or 26th I will have some drinks, after close to two months without consuming of any.

This was the same case at the onset of my health problems in late May of 2009. I realized if I drank anything, it only worsened my symptoms, so I stopped, for about 4 months. After the symptoms decreased slightly in intensity, I tried again and the alcohol didn't seem to have the same negative effects as they did at the condition's inception. But, even during those four months when my condition was at its peak, it still felt good not to drink. There's less worry, for me anyway. I don't have to worry about transportation because I or another I'm with is intoxicated. I don't have to worry about feeling hung over on any day. I don't have to worry about saying or doing something I wouldn't normally do because of alcohol. I don't have to worry about setting aside a certain amount of money to spend on night's out at the bar.

I know there will be times when I go out with family to bars or perhaps I feel like kicking back and relaxing with one drink, but in any case, every now and again, it feels great to abstain from drinking any alcohol and who knows, perhaps I'll give it up for good one day. The way I feel right now, I think it is a good possibility and I'm perfectly fine with that.

What an Ice Storm Can Do (...and how 36 hours without the internet forces one to play catch up for the week)

2011-02-05T09:17:00.003-06:00

So, that snow/ice storm that hit a good 3/4 of the country this past week was quite something, wasn't it? Geez. I don't know of the exact totals, but I think I heard Chicago got close to 2 feet, parts of Indiana and Michigan got over a food, Nebraska received a good 9''. Even Dallas is icy if that tells a person anything.

Right here in Columbus, Ohio, we didn't get much snow accumulation, maybe 1-3''. However, we got almost a full inch of ice accumulation between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Upon looking outside Wednesday morning, the streets looked more like an extended, but narrow ice skating rink than actual streets. This resulted in quite the fun evening, well, next 36 hours to be more precise.

I'm not exaggerating here. The power went out between 15 and 20 times from 8:30 pm Tuesday evening (EST) to 8:30 am Wednesday morning (EST). I've experienced a couple power outages in a 24-hour period, maybe three max, but 15-20? That was a tad on the insane side.

Of course, with the multiple power outages, we lost internet and cable access for approximately 36 hours. That was fun. It's amazing how much I depend on this darn thing (Internet), as I do my work through it, communicate with friends and family very regularly, read the news from a few different sources (or as Sarah Palin might suggest, "All of 'em."), etc. I could do without cable for a few days, but not the internet. When we had access again Thursday morning, I went from two e-mails on Tuesday afternoon to 47 on Thursday morning. It's quite amazing how far behind one can get on e-mails and work in general, after missing just 24-36 hours. One would think, "Eh, that's just a day's worth or so. It won't be too bad." Yeah, well, I've been having to play catch up ever since and I'm finally to the point where I can say I'm about caught up, but even on Saturday afternoon, I'm not all the way there yet.

Hopefully the groundhog was right and we have an early spring, because I can't say between the cold weather and the ice storm this past week, that I'm enjoying this winter very much. Come on Punxatawney Phil, follow through for us!

Glass Half Empty (I used to be this way...)

2011-02-05T09:08:00.003-06:00

Between 13 and 18 years ago, I was quite the glass-is-half-empty kind of guy. When someone presented me with a situation, I'd typically picture it in a more negative light than the average person. When it came to grades, how I did on a test, how I'd do with a presentation, what a girl would say if I asked her out, etc., I usually expected the worst. My reasoning? If the worst did occur, the less painful the blow would be. My father seemed to understand this philosophy, but my mother certainly didn't and in hindsight, neither do I.

Now, I can semi-understand what I was getting at with my "expect the worst" attitude. I was assuming there would be a certain level of disappointment when I learned of the event's final results, so since I felt it was inevitable I would fall, I wanted to make certain the fall only pained me for a short period of time as opposed to many days, weeks or months. But, like I said at the outset, I can no longer understand this train of thought.

I know why I had this attitude. I was sexually abused at 8-years old and had a knife to my throat by the man, threatening to kill me if I told anyone. I had battled epilepsy since about birth until I was 11 and within a year of being told I'd never have to worry about seizures again and being taken off my medication, I began having them and very regularly. These two events really put a damper on my self-confidence. It was difficult for me to focus in the classroom, as there were times I'd have one seizure in every class in a single day. I wanted to believe I could control them and in conjunction with not wanting to frighten my friends or family (or myself for that matter), I kept them secret. They took their toll on me, however and after my grades began to fall, I started losing some friends, didn't have any luck with girls in the class, etc., this confidence (or lack there of) really began to go down hill and was a big reason I wound up implementing this negative attitude within myself.

That brings me to today. It's true that being overly optimistic about something has its downsides. If one feels, after a job interview, they will undoubtedly receive the phone call telling them the job is theirs and they never receive that call, it's going to sting. If a person has been dating another for quite some time, the two are engaged and living together and person X fully trusts person Y and finds out Y cheated on X, this will be devastating. However, I still think this attitude is more healthy than the polar opposite. If one continually expects the worst, they will, more times than not, get the worst. If I continually think women will reject me when I ask them out, many of them will be able to see this in my eyes and feel this lack of confidence in the tone of my voice and my posture and after making these observations, they will be more apt to saying no than if i walked right up to them with a confident look and strut, looked them right in the eyes with a glowing smile and asked them out with a very confident, yet warm tone of voice. If I expect the worst when taking a test, I may not study quite as hard as I would have if I had the confidence to believe I could ace it.

In my sophomore year in high school, this attitude finally began to leave my system. It wasn't completely gone until my first year of college, but it was beginning to wane on a rather consistent basis. I had a grand mal seizure in August of '99 and a tumor was discovered in my left anterior temporal lobe of the brain. I underwent brain surgery to have the tumor removed in August of '03. I've been sick for 20 months , where at the condition's peak, I wasn't able to walk or get out of bed on some days. Through all of this, it would have been easy for me to have developed a very pessimistic attitude about life. It would have been very easy for me to have gone about my every day life, thinking, "Something bad is going to happen to me today. I just know it. I don't know what it is, but something bad always happens to me." Heck, I didn't even include the nightmare dating experience I had in September of '03. As of February of 2011, I've finally turned the 180 I sought several years ago. I may not be overly optimistic, but while I do try to be realistic, I also try to hope more than doubt.

Many Republicans, Libertarians, some Independents and even a few Democrats poked fun at Barack Obama's hope mantra. But, while I thought it brought about unrealistic expectations at times, there's no doubting that hope is powerful. Without hope, for what is there to truly live? Without hope, why do we work every single day when all we have are doubts about tomorrow? Without hope, for what do we strive in the future? Without hope, how is it realistic to truly be satisfied with one's life? Without hope, how is it we can attain happiness? Hope is the reason I'm still here today, writing this blog, recovering from my health ordeal(s), a survivor of abuse, brain surgery and epilepsy and willing and wanting to date again, hold my head up high and move forward in life. Hope is the reason I smile for tomorrow, because I know happier times are ahead and I cannot wait to strive for and reach those very goals and I know I will.

My Singles Ads

2011-02-03T23:04:00.003-06:00

Ad #1 - Seriously? Yes, I Suppose
I don’t yell, hit, lie, cheat, smoke or do illegal drugs. I enjoy cleaning, am responsible handling the laundry and dishes on a regular basis, am good with kids, like poetry and foreign films, fold clothes and wrap presents efficiently, never leave the toilet seat up, am single and not gay (not that there‘s anything wrong with that)… Oh, and I like long walks on the beach. I could mention what I look like and what I do for a living, but with everything that was mentioned in this ad, do you even have to know?

Ad #2 - I'm Too Sexy (Sort Of)
I'm 6'4'' minus a few inches and weigh in at a robust 156 lbs. I also have eyes as green as marijuana, the best smile outside of Billy Bob-Joe Smith at a trailer park in Alabama, more hair than George Costanza, more teeth than the average hockey player, a voice reminiscent of Barry White when he hit puberty and more stamina in the bedroom than Jim from "American Pie". I also like long walks on the beach. Give me a call if you want to go out with the best piece of a** this side of Screech Powers.

Ad #3 - Pride Is A Thing Of The Past or in my case, The Never
Want to date a winner? Then I'm your guy! I've been known to do a killer rendition of the songs "I'm Too Sexy" and "Sweet Caroline" while fully inebriated. I'm not ashamed to check out what's happening on: The Weather Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Travel Channel, PBS, C-SPAN and The History Channel. The "sport" I exceed at the most is bowling. I have seen shock rockers: Alice Cooper, Kiss and Marilyn Manson all perform live. I'm unashamed to wear sweatshirts and sweatpants around the house. I know there are some drunken blackmail photos of me in someone(s) possession. If the word born-again virgin was in the dictionary, there would be a picture of my face right next to it. I'm now being told that is actually the case. I have memorized all the words to the film "Clue," along with all the state capitals, where the states are located and their abbreviations. I do cardiovascular workouts by watching an '80s video by Gilad. There was this one time at band camp... Eh, nevermind. I do like long walks on the beach, though, so I've got that going for me. Call me if you...like long walks on the beach also. You won't be sorry! I have to run. I'm going to go streaking around a church.

Ad #4 - Fictionalized Pride
With me, you always have to expect the unexpected, although, if that were true, the unexpected would be expected. Well, whatever, you know what I mean. Where do I start? I wear 3D glasses in bars at night, in airports and in strip clubs. No, my name is not Corey Hart and I am not in the Mafia (that can't be proven anyway). I like long walks on the beach. I wrote the book Kama Sutra and drew the pictures. I've been known to yell obscenities while in a crowded library. I'm all about the bling and my street name is Gold Buck Teeth. My two favorite films are "The Exorcist" and "The Notebook". I have a mini-crush on Betty White, six wives and am not Mormon. If you'd like to be lucky #7, feel free to give me a call and we can make it happen.

Ad #5 - Bah Humbug
People always seem to talk about their interests, what they can offer another in a relationship, mention what they feel are their good qualities and blah blah blah. Let me tell you what I don't like: anything affiliated with Fox News. Oh, but I do like long walks on the beach. Call me or whatever. I don't care.

The Over-Utilization of Pronouns

2011-01-31T11:56:00.003-06:00

Some people like to speak in cliches. Others like to speak in metaphors. Certain special people even like to speak in tongues. All of these forms of communicating language to another person are either annoying or frightening on a certain level. That brings me to another type of annoyance with regard to language and that's people who speak in pronouns.

It's perfectly alright to begin a story with a person's name, we'll say, Chuck Willard-Foolhardy, and then refer to this individual as "he" in the succeeding sentences, so long as no other character is identified. However, if a new character makes their presence known in a story, we can't go back to that pronoun, especially if the other character is also male. If we were to refer to one of them as "he," we may not know which one is being talked about.

This brings me to a couple people I know, one in particular, whom basically speaks in pronouns. She'll bring up a person's name, Buck Dolittle, at 1:42 pm EST and at 6:49 pm EST, she'll say something like, "Yeah and he went bungee jumping from the rim of a basketball hoop." I'll look confused and of course ask the rational question, "Who?" She'll then say, "Buck Dolittle, of course," like I'm supposed to know that.

There is almost always a fairly long gap between the original specific reference and the pronoun(s). This becomes confusing, because many other topics and people will have been discussed between those two points in time. Also, when multiple people or things are discussed and the words "he," "she" or "it" are used on multiple occasions, representing different nouns, this makes it all the more perplexing for listeners. Here is an example:

Tanisha (at 2:01 pm EST on Jan. 13th, 1994): "So, remember that freezer I saw on sale? Do you think we can purchase that?"

Geraldo: "Let me think about it, honey. We're on a very tight budget right now, with all the bookies we're having to pay off for all the miniature golf tournament bets we made."

Tanisha (at 3:19 pm EST on the same day): "Gosh, that air freshener is great. It reminds me of weed."

Geraldo: "I know. Are you hungry, sweetie?"

Tanisha (at 4:20 pm EST on 1/13/94): "Look at that baseball. Why is it yellow?"

Geraldo: "That's a tennis ball."

Tanisha (at 7:32 pm on the same day): "So, yeah, it's great, isn't it? It's really great!"

Geraldo: "What's great?"

Tansiha: "That air freshener, of course. What else would I be talking about?"

Geraldo: "Ehhh... I don't know. I was hoping you were referring to something else. ::as he looks down toward the nether region::"

...and so it goes. It can be a trying time following along with a regular conversation, but attempting to follow along with someone whom speaks in pronouns for a full day comprised of several references to different people, items and events, that is an entirely different beast. If one has to listen to these pronouns on a regular basis for an extended period of time, they will need to load up on excedrin, ear plugs, illegal substances and a trip to the loony bin, a psychiatrist or a singles' cruise. HE would really need IT, wouldn't HE? Indeed he would, whomever this he is. I'm not sure we'll ever know.

If crying were a drug, John Boehner would no longer be with us...

2011-01-31T07:28:00.002-06:00

New Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner of Ohio, has laid before this nation quite an image of himself. Just three months ago, before Republicans gained control of the House, Boehner could regularly be seen as a tough guy (sort of) and heard using very strong rhetoric. He was the epitome of what has become the Republican Party, outside the fact his skin tone confuses some with the Syracuse mascot (The Orange). But, after Republicans gained control of the house in November of last year, something happened to Mr. Boehner. He went from John Wayne to a woman on her period watching romance films. He went from an evil-sounding snarl which could be heard frequently at consistent intervals. Yes, John Boehner's image went from that of a Republican to a mother whose daughter was just wed to a drug dealer.

Due to these frequent outbursts of tears, Boehner has received his fair share of criticism from both the left and even from inside his own party. Faux News' editorialist, Bill O'Reilly, even claimed that Boehner is emotionally unstable. O'Reilly knows a thing or two about emotionally unstable people from all the badgering he's done to guests throughout the years. While it's true that Mr. Boehner has been spotted crying during the pre-game show of a basketball game, while watching the movie "The Little Mermaid" and even before, during or after sex (those Paparazzis, they watch everything, don't they?), shouldn't the guy be allowed to cry once in a while?

Okay, I understand the critique of that inquiry. "Once in a while," right? That'd be like me me implying that a crack-addicted prostitute only smoked the illegal substance and sold him/herself for sex "once in a while". Call it a hunch, but that's probably not the case.

Speaking of drugs, I have to wonder what Boehner may be taking? Have the doctors injected a certain about of estrogen into his system and removed any and every bit of testosterone he once had (it is debatable whether he ever possessed this, however)? Is Boehner actually a Hollywood actor and a very bad one at that? Or is he really the Speaker of the House, representing the party whom have prided themselves on being tough, being warmongers and being "manly" (sorry Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, among others)?

If you answered yes to the last question, you'd be correct. If you answered yes to any of the others, then there's no definitive answer to lend you at this very moment and I'll have to get back to you on that. Yes, John Boehner is a Republican Speaker of the House, a representative of the party whom holds a firm stance on gun rights, so firm they believe new borns should be allowed to carry them without a permit or license. This is the party that believes the United States should bomb any and every country whom holds one terrorist or one person whom doesn't believe that the United States is the greatest country in the history of man (and in the future as well). This is the party that calls anti-war protesters, environmentalists and global-warming believers a bunch of babies and Anti-Americans. This is the party where its members communicate one another through Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor grunts. John Boehner cannot fit this tough guy mold anymore, if he ever did to begin with.

I think for both John Boehner's sake and the Republican Party's, he will need to step down as Speaker of the House. It's obviously too emotionally draining on the Speaker from Ohio. He needs a job where he's not on camera nearly as much and will, in all likelihood, not be seen crying ever again. Some job possibilities would include: A janitor, garbageman, secretary, telemarketer or he change his party affiliation to Independent. The GOP needs this, because they can't have their tough-as-nails image destroyed, as it's one of the only reasons people vote for them in election, out of fear the party has promulgated to the American public. If they lose this fear factor, they will, in essence, lose their party. The only hope the two parties have of maintaining their current relationship is for the GOP to hire Tom Hanks, dress him as a baseball coach, and give Boehner a lecture on, "There's no crying! There's no crying in politics!" Outside of that remote possibility, the GOP may kick Boehner's behind to the curb and leave the man (that's debatable, I suppose) in tears yet again, not just from the kick, but from how he's feeling at that very moment. This will leave children scared and pointing Boehner out to their mothers, asking, "Mom what's that orange thing and why's it crying?" In answer to both questions, no one is really sure.

"Fox" and "News" should not be placed in succession of one another...

2011-01-29T11:59:00.004-06:00

Okay, I have to ask this, why do so many people trust "Fox News" as a credible source for news? Why? I'm not saying there aren't other biased news networks. MSNBC, especially in their late night programs, have an obvious slant to the left of center. However, they also carry with them Republicans Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. That's not much, but that's still better than Fox, whom carries with them Shepard Smith and that's about it as far as "fair and balanced" reporting is concerned.

Infotainment, as I like to call it, is huge in this day and age. It's like an extreme version of a creative non-fiction book, where an individual takes facts and adds attractive fictional elements to make it more exciting and entertaining. In filmmaking, we have Michael Moore, but even Mr. Moore can't equal the level of "infotainment" that transpires at Fox and does so in a very slanted fashion.

There's: Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Chris Wallace, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Greta Van Susteran, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade just to name a few. If I've forgotten anyone's name, I apologize. That's 13 hosts and/or contributors whom all lean to the right on some level, from slight (Wallace) to extreme (Hannity) to crazy (Beck).

Now, I'll be the first to admit that Fox had a good gameplan upon their network's inception. What is this gameplan, you ask? Fox wanted to stand out from the rest. That's what a lot of entertainers do. In order to get noticed by the mainstream, to garner good ratings, to make more money, they have to try and stand out from the rest. This is why we have shock rockers. Generally speaking, this is why we have controversial entertainment. That's what Fox wanted to do, to differentiate themselves from CNN, PBS, CBS, NBC and ABC, among others. So, they took that idea and ran with it. They then decided to run their "news" in an extremely slanted fashion, toward the far right of the political spectrum. Instead of admitting this bias, since they were far different from any other "news" network, they decided to try and implant the message into citizens' minds that they were the only unbiased network. This can be clearly seen in the network's slogans, such as "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". This gives viewers the impression that the network is central, unbiased, with their only intent being to report the news and allow the public to draw their own conclusions. They then spouted to their viewers that all other networks were biased toward the left and through this manner of thinking, it made them appear unbiased. Through this, Fox has told their viewers, "No other news network is reliable. Fox is the only place you'll hear of this story, the only place you'll get this kind of reporting. Every other news network is liberally-biased. We're not." Through this, many viewers wind up believing they can't trust any other news channel and end up not listening to any other outside of Fox. Their views then coincide with what Fox preaches and no one else.

Like I said, as much as I don't want to admit it, it was a clever way to manipulate the masses and that is exactly what they've done for the past 14+ years.

Now, it's highly debatable whether ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and/or PBS have any actual or significant bias overall. However, it is not debatable with Fox. I'm sorry. I don't care what anyone tells me. I don't care if they pull one unbiased report in the 14+ years of Fox's existence. It's not going to convince me. Just as I can admit that MSNBC is biased toward the left, Fox is biased to the right.

For regular Fox viewers, try to watch CSPAN, CNN, PBS, ABC, CBS or NBC for a week. Just watch. Watch as they relay the news unto you without much opinion. From Brian Williams to Katie Couric to Diane Sawyer to Wolf Blitzer to Charlie Gibson and beyond, pay close attention to the ratio of news they spew in comparison to opinions. Remember what facts and opinions are. I think many regular Fox viewers have forgotten the difference. Facts can be backed by credible sources. Facts can back a person's opinion, but opinions are not the equivalent of facts. It is my opinion that the death penalty is wrong and we'd be better off as a country if we abolished it, but this is not a fact. This is an opinion. I can find sources to back up my opinion, but once again, that does not make it a fact. Just because Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck say they believe something to be moral or immoral, it is just their opinion. It is not a fact. If Brian Williams relays a story about the war in Afghanistan and doesn't state what he thinks, he is relaying news, facts, that which is backed by reliable sources.

So, give these other channels a gander, a fair look and then go back to watching Fox and ask yourself what the differences are. Honestly, what are the differences? When Sean Hannity bashes on Democrats, on Barack Obama, etc., is what he is reporting factual? Or opinion? When Katie Couric reports on a trip Obama makes to China without mention of how she feels about the trip or the money that was spent, again, is what she is reporting factual or is it opinion?

The fact is (yes, fact) Fox News is biased. How biased they are is debatable, but they are biased. I see their slogans as false advertising, because outside of Shepard Smith, they are anything but "Fair and Balanced". They also don't give viewers an accurate reflection of the facts, so "We Report, You Decide," once again, is not an accurate representation of how the network conducts itself.

Listen to Bill O'Reilly and how often he bashes Republicans compared to Democrats. Listen to Sean Hannity and make a similar observation. Do the very same with Glenn Beck and other Fox personalities. You'll find that they don't criticize the Republican Party or any members of it very much. They will continually bash on the Democratic Party and its constituents, however.

These aren't gentle pokes at the Democratic Party either. Often times, these are very divisive, angry, hate-filled statements. Whether they compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler, Democrats to Nazis or they claim that Obama is a tyrant, trying to strip Americans of our rights and is leading us to a dictatorship, these are extremely slanted exaggerations and hyperboles, stated only to catch a person's attention and present a "wow" factor. That's all it is. It's about ratings.

The fact that Fox is the most watched cable news network is irrelevant when speaking of bias. Just because an Adam Sandler comedy hits number one and sets records at the box office, doesn't mean it's one of the top comedies of the year, let alone all-time.

Fox has manipulated the masses for over 14 years now and unfortunately, so long as people buy into their slanted message, they will continue to do so. Unfortunately, the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" presents a dual-sided element in the case of Fox. On one hand, ratings wise, Fox obviously isn't broken, so there's no need to alter their ways. However, on the other hand, from a bias perspective, it's been broken since the network's inception and needs to change its ways in order to give American citizens an accurate representation of daily news. It's about time Fox lived up to their slogans and presented Americans with "Fair and Balanced" coverage and allowed people to decide for themselves, based on this unbiased coverage, what to believe.

Not sleeping for four consecutive nights can cause a few problems...

2011-01-29T09:42:00.002-06:00

Okay, so I slept SOME, but not much. I usually get between 7 and 8 hours of sleep per night. From Monday night through Thursday night, I averaged maybe 4 hours a night. I'd finally fall asleep around midnight, wake up a few times throughout the morning, before finally waking up around 6 or 7 and not being able to fall back asleep. Stunningly, I was able to be semi-productive over the week and miraculously managed to workout all five days. No, I'm not sure how I accomplished that feat either.

I was also quite floored by how much writing I was able to get done in that same time-frame. The lack of sleep really caught up to me yesterday, as it was the first day in a while I didn't post a blog. But, I slept 8 hours last night and feel rejuvenated! It being a Saturday and all, I'm not sure how much I'll get done in bloggerworld, but feel that more is yet to come for the day.

Sarah Palin's WTF Moment

2011-01-27T16:31:00.006-06:00

Following President Obama's State of the Union Address, former beauty queen and sportscaster, Sarah Palin, had this to say to Faux News' Greta Van Susteren, "His theme last night in the State of the Union was the WTF -- winning the future. And I thought, okay. That acronym? Spot on. There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech."

Now, I'm not going to try and take the moral high road here and claim I've never written those three letters in succession before. Believe me, I have, often times at the expense of something Ms. Palin did or said. However, let's not forget what the GOP likes to claim, that they're the party of family values. Ms. Palin claims to be a Christian. So, why then use that acronym, when it stands for "What the F***?"

Also, who does this former sportscaster think she is? Like I mentioned, there have been numerous occasions when I have written "WTF" after hearing or observing something Sarah Palin said or did. She has had plenty of WTF moment, to be certain. In fact, it's kind of funny when one thinks about it, because in the grand scheme of things, WTF has Sarah Palin done? This is what many people were asking in the run-up to the 2008 election. A lot of independents and those sitting on the fence with their vote, after learning more about Palin and hearing her speak, said, "Eh, WTF has she done? I'm going to vote for Obama."

WTF indeed. I honestly wonder how many times Katie Couric mentally stated this acronym when she interviewed Ms. Palin in the run-up to the 2008 election.

Couric: "Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?"

Palin: "We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state."

Couric: "WTF?"

Couric: "And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?"

Palin: "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media."

Couric: "But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious."

Palin: "All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years."

Couric: "Can you name a few?

Palin: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America ."

Couric: "WTF?"

Couric: "Besides Roe v. Wade, what other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"

Palin: "Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―"

Couric: "Can you think of any?"

Palin: "Well, I would think of any again that could best be dealt with on a more a local level."

Couric: "WTF?"

WTF indeed, Ms. Couric. WTF indeed. For as many WTF moments as Palin's had, a new national holiday should be named after her, called WTF Day. I just looked up WTF in the dictionary and guess whose picture I saw right next to the acronym? Sarah Palin. I even wonder if this is how she answers the telephone, "Hey, this is Sarah, WTF?" Sarah Palin is the epitome of WTF moments. Hopefully she'll continue moving her lips and letting words emanate from her mouth, so that we can experience many more. As the saying goes (or will go in the near future), "Where Palin goes, WTF moments will follow."

http://tv.spreadit.org/sarah-palin-katie-couric-interviewpalin-couric-interview-transcript/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningnews/main4490618.shtml

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/video-of-the-day/10/01/sarah-palin-dumb-and-dumber/

Blog #1,000

2011-01-27T16:16:00.002-06:00

Yeah, I kind of took the cheap route to doing this. What can I say? I like discounts, sales, cheap prostitutes, etc.

I can remember the day when all of this started. ::thinks back::. Okay, so I can't. I don't even know what the first blog was about. It probably had something to do with sports or politics or perhaps music or movies. I guess it could have dealt with religion, been a top ten list, maybe a personal story or a short story about a killer pig by the name of Dudley.

It's been quite a ride and I'll be awaiting some reward (or award), a prize of some kind, cash or maybe one of those cheap prostitutes I mentioned earlier ("Five dolla!), preferably with the name, Chastity.

Obama may want to come up with a new slogan. "Win(ning) The Future" just isn't doing it for me...

2011-01-27T16:05:00.003-06:00

As I noted in a recent blog, I thought President Barack Obama did a pretty good job with his State of the Union Address. It lacked in specifics, but I think he accomplished what I believe he wanted to accomplish - to make it appear to the American public that he is able to bring both parties together, that he's willing to compromise on issues and that he's more of a uniter than a divider. With such angry partisan rhetoric that most people are sick and tired of, Obama, I think, tried to corner the Republicans and tell them, "If you want to continue the angry rhetoric, fine, but as we saw with the State of the Union Address, the American people believe that President Obama is a uniter, so this will only hurt your cause in the 2012 election(s)."

However, I have to say, I think the new slogan, "Win(ning) the Future" has to go. It just doesn't sound right to me. It reminds me of comedian Stephen Colbert's book, "I Am America (And So Can You)!" However, unlike Obama's slogan, Colbert came up with the title to generate laughs. Obama's slogan may generate a few laughs as well, but that was not the intention of he and his cabinet.

Slogans are generally very short catchy phrases. "Yes We Can!" is one such example. Obama used this in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election and it caught on. People would chant the slogan at rallies, "Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!" There were signs being made and passed around with that very phrase and being held up by many with grand pride. I just can't see that happening with "Win(ning) the Future". Can you imagine people at a rally chanting, "Win the Future! Win the Future! Win the Future!"? I don't think so. As Sarah Palin did, they could abbreviate it to WTF, but due to what many see it standing for, "What the F***?", I'd suggest they don't do that.

The Irony of hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words)

2011-01-27T14:06:00.002-06:00

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is the fear of long words. No, I'm not kidding. It's as if the creator(s) of this word was (were) playing a cruel joke on those whom suffer from it. I imagine the conversation went a little something like this:

Bruno: "What's next?"

Jerome: "Fear of long words."

Bruno: "Alright, so, something simple, I guess..."

Jerome: "No, let's mess with them and come up with the longest word possible. Kind of like supercalifragilisticexpealidotioius."

Bruno: "Oh, you're bad."

Jerome: "I know."

Bruno: "I like it!"

Jerome. "Let's draw a bunch of random letters out of a hat and see what we come up with."

Bruno: "How many letters are you thinking?"

Jerome: "Including 'phobia,' I'm thinking there should be 35 letters."

::draw a bunch of letters::

Bruno: "So, what do we have?"

Jerome: "Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. Ah, that's perfect!"

Bruno: "Indeed it is."

::both let out simultaneous evil laughs::

The Facebook Poke

2011-01-27T07:49:00.002-06:00

There are many different features on Facebook and the quantity is growing by the day it seems like. One feature I've been a bit perplexed by and of which I was not aware until a couple months ago, is what is termed the poke.

Over the past day plus, I've been poked four times by the same person, whom instigated it all four times and happens to be someone in which I have an interest. I haven't been poked this much since I was in a mosh pit at a Kiss concert. So, what does it mean, if anything?

Out of curiosity, I looked the Facebook poke up on, as former President Bush would call it, "The Google". Unfortunately or fortunately, depending upon one's perspective, there are multiple interpretations of this very feature.

These include a way to:

1) Aggravate

2) Flirt

3) Start a conversation

4) Say hello

5) Say I miss you

6) Say I'm thinking about you

7) Say what's up?

8) Hint that you should call them

9) Hint that you should write them

10) Say I like you

11) Say I want your attention

12) Engage in a poke war

13) Say did you know Ted Haggard is bisexual?

14) Engage in a Facebook staring contest

15) Set up a streakers' charity event

There have also been perverse interpretations and there was one story where a Facebook poke led to a marriage.

So, with all those (and others, I'm sure) potential interpretations of the poke, how does one know how to interpret it? As with all things, I'm guessing it depends.

It probably depends on how well the two people know each other, what kind of relationship they have, etc.

So, what does it mean in this case specifically? I couldn't say, because I haven't a clue as to where we are in our relationship. Go figure, right?

I must admit, though, that when I first saw this Facebook feature, my dirty mind made me laugh some. It made me laugh even more due to the fact my first poke was from a male friend of mine. What can I say? I go both ways with the poke and am secure enough in my Facebook-world sexuality to admit that!

Ted Haggard Comes Out That He's a Bisexual. That Cure-A-Homsexual Class Really Worked, Didn't It?

2011-01-27T07:29:00.005-06:00

In the current issue of GQ Magazine, former pastor, Ted Haggard, said the following, "Here's where I really am on this issue. I think that probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexual."

When writer Kevin Roose then asked him, "So why not now?", Haggard responded with, "Because, Kevin, I'm 54, with children, with a belief system, and I can have enforced boundaries in my life. Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."

"Exclusively" have sex with his wife? Since when? That wasn't always the case, was it? Hmm?

Mr. Haggard linguistically exaggerates with his response to Roose's question.

As it states above, Haggard said, "Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."

He's trying a bit too hard to illustrate his infinite devotion to his wife. He tries to compare a heterosexual not having sex with "every" woman he or she finds attractive and him "exclusively" having sex with his wife. That's a very poor comparison to make. It'd be like if I were to say, "Yeah, well, you don't do every illegal drug on the market, so I can be happy without partaking in any such substances."

His statement is an attempt to cast himself in a brighter light, as he juxtaposes an exaggeration on the part of Kevin Roose and compares it to a non-exaggeration on the part of himself. This is to suggest that Mr. Roose or another heterosexual is more promiscuous than Mr. Haggard, or at least giving readers that illusion. He's also trying to say that heterosexuals shouldn't judge him for who he is or what he has done (not "exclusively" have sex with his wife), as he tries to insinuate fault with them based on pure exaggeration and potential speculation to contrast his words of devotion and exclusivity.

Nobody is saying that a heterosexual should engage in intercourse with every person he or she may find attractive. No one is saying Mr. Haggard shouldn't be fully devoted to his wife. But, let's not attempt to play innocent by utilizing informal fallacies to paint a more positive picture of yourself, Ted.

No More Color-Coded Terror Alerts!

2011-01-27T07:17:00.002-06:00

I just read that the government is FINALLY going to do away with the color-coded system for terror alerts, which was initiated under then President George W. Bush following the 9/11 attacks.

Ever since its inception, I saw the color-coded terror alerts as scare tactics and a clever way to bait and manipulate the public for a boost in approval rating. The polls even showed this. Within a few days of the terror alerts being raised a level, Bush's rating would increase a significant margin. As time progressed, its efficiency waned.

There was talk from President Obama that something would be done about the color-coded system, but I hadn't heard much discussion about it in his first two years in office. I'm thankful that by April, we will no longer have to hear the following at the airport, "Homeland Security is reporting that the terror-alert level is Periwinkle, with Cerulean zig zags, Magenta horizontal lines, Fuchsia vertical lines and Violet polka dots." Yeah, I got very tired of hearing that.

I wonder what the blog-posting record is for a four-day span...

2011-01-27T07:14:00.003-06:00

Yes, I'm cheating by writing this, but eh, whatever. I'm amazed at how I had what I termed "blogger's block" just a week ago, as in the past 4 days (not including this one quite yet), I've posted 28 blogs equating to 58 pages (double-spaced). I'm not sure what has gotten into me, but it feels pretty good. I remember when I finished my most recent manuscript. I was in such a flow, I finished the 200+ page book in 7-10 days. The way I'm rolling right now, perhaps I should begin a new manuscript. Hmm... decisions, decisions...

Singles Ads I'd Like To See

2011-01-26T15:08:00.004-06:00

Sometimes I'll rummage through the singles ads, because some of them are rather hilarious. I read through some of these and I have to wonder, "Is this part of a joke or a dare or are they serious?" So, I'd like to have some fun in making up singles ads.

Politician
"I like long walks on the beach, telling people what they want to hear without actually meaning what I say, going both ways (in every way) and promising the impossible. Call me to make a donation to my campaign, I mean, to make all of your dreams come true!"

Stoner
"Dude, I so want to date right now. Wow. I mean... You know? Anyway, I like long walks on the beach, eating lots of snacks, watching 'Half-Baked' and listening to Pink Floyd. Oh and I like to smoke weed. Far out, man. Call me if you want to get high, go to jail and stuff. Peace."

Mime
" !!!!!"

Dick Cheney
"What do you want? Do you want me? Well, fine then, come and get me! Yeah, I like long walks on the beach, shooting friends in the face and doing all I can to be nicknamed Darth Vader. Call me if you want to wind up seeing a shrink for the rest of your life or if you want to apologize to me on national television because you got in my way during pheasant hunting. Argh!"

Bill Clinton
"Hey baby. How's it going? Yeah, come here. You and I both know I know what I'm doing when it comes to the ladies. I've bit my lip long enough. Let me help you to bite yours. Call me if you want to play with my saxophone and make sweet music. Oh and I like long walks on the beach."

George W. Bush
"Yeah, uh, so... Um... I like long walks on the beach and... Well... Anyway... If you want a man who's not going to misunderestimate you, who will supply you with the finest coke in Texas and who will make you feel smart every time you talk to him, then I'm your guy! Call me and like an OBGYN, let me practice my love with a woman such as yourself!"

Psychologist
"I'm not here to talk about me. Let's talk about you. How do you feel? What do you want from a man and from a relationship? Do you like long walks on the beach? I know I do. How about 'The Notebook'? Country music? George Clooney? Pole dancing? Well, if you want to feel constantly analyzed, to be asked more questions than a child would ask and always wonder if you're being judged, then I think we could have something special together. Call me and while we build a strong relationship, we can find out what all is wrong with you."

Doctor
"Hey. I may not be much to look at, but I do make a lot of money. I don't like to do much, but I do like long walks on the beach. If you want a man willing to poke and prod, to use all his tools to make you feel better, you may want to give me a call."

Model
"I don't have much to say. I like long walks on the beach and I'm hot. Call me."

Head Football Coach
"I don't know about the guys you've been with previously and what kind of effort they gave in making the relationship work, but let me tell you something about me. I give 110%! That's all I know how to do! I like to bark, scream, speak in cliches, take long walks on the beach and punish people for not doing what they're told! If you like a my way or the highway kind of guy, whom will protect you from anyone holding a camera or microphone, call me and I'll stay up all night to study your playbook until I master it!"

Valley Girl
"So, like, I'm like, for sure, you know? Like... I mean, totally! I like just so want to meet a guy like right like now. Like... I mean, I like think I have like a lot to offer and stuff. I like like long walks on the beach and like talking about stuff and I mean, I like totally like to do other stuff, you know? Anyway, like call me if you like want to like do some stuff."

Glenn Beck
"Now, let's think about this. ::busts out the chalkboard:: Okay, now see this dot over here? That's me. See this one way over here? That's you. See that third dot? That's another woman. See that 4th, 5th and 6th dot? Those are three more women. See the link? Do you see what could happen? It'd be the greatest event in the history of man! So, call me and while we will do plenty of walking on the beach and long walks at that, let's have a little fun with four other women and fulfill our magical fate. Oh, and Democrats are Nazi Socialist Commies."

Two Big Life Events Creating Surreal Paradox of Emotion

2011-01-26T10:43:00.004-06:00

About 20 months ago, I woke up on a Sunday morning (May 31st, 2008) and knew something was wrong. I had no idea what it was and I had hoped that perhaps it was just a case of over-sleeping and I'd feel better the following day. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case.

Over the next few days, my extreme fatigue was met with other symptoms, such as tingling in my limbs, numbness around my face and in my mouth and an extreme foggy sensation in my head. When the condition hit its peak, it was difficult for me to walk, to get out of bed and impossible for me to drive or do much of anything outside of the house.

The next year and a half, I was a pinball to doctors all across the Columbus and Cleveland areas. These included: Neurologists, neurosurgeons, neuromuscular specialists, ear-nose-throat doctors, regular physicians, specialists with AVM (arteriovenous malformation), seizure specialists, etc. I underwent a multitude of blood tests, a glucose-tolerance test, had MRI's of my head and also my back/neck, an EEG, a couple Q-Sart's, a couple EMG's, a sleep study and a skin biopsy from what I remember. My tegretol dosage was altered a couple times, first increased and then decreased. The doctors placed me on neurontin and when that failed to produce any results, they had me try klonopin, which I had to stop taking after a couple days due to some awful side effects. The doctors often times saw subtle signs that something was wrong, yet were never able to confidently diagnose me with anything. These theories ranged from: AVM, guillain-barre syndrome, small-fiber neuropathy, small-fiber sensory neuropathy, depression and a side effect from my medication.

Through the past 20 months, I've been told anything from: You show signs of multiple sclerosis, could have diabetes, could have this condition and these symptoms for the remainder of your days, could lose your legs if the AVM is active and as it has a tendency to do when active, progressively get worse, etc.

About two months into the health ordeal, I began feeling quite depressed. One or two doctors started stating that depression can be quite a powerful phenomenon and may be the reason for my symptoms. It was the whole chicken and the egg argument. I had to keep explaining to them, "Depression did not cause these symptoms. I became depressed after I felt the symptoms." To me, it seemed rather common sense, but they still had their doubts. Also, with the before-mentioned dire possibilities coming to light, I began to feel even more depressed, asking such questions as: "Will these symptoms ever pass?" "Will they ever find out what is wrong?" "Will I be ever be able to work full-time?" "Will I ever be able to live independently?" "Will I ever be able to date and find love?" "Will I be able to go out much, socialize and make friends?" "Will I ever find happiness?" I had put my entire life on hold. The little things in life, that which I took for granted and failed to appreciate over the years, had been stripped from my possession, not knowing if I'd ever feel the joy of possessing them again.

A couple months ago, I went in to see a seizure specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. She suggested that since I was still suffering from auras, sometimes of the mass variety, there would be no harm in me switching my medication. She said that being on tegretol for so long (11 years) could result in it having a sedative effect, so she switched me to another seizure medication, lamictal, which she said could potentially help with regard to the tingling sensation as well. So, I was slowly weened off the tegretol over the course of about a month and my dosage of lamictal was slowly increased over the course of between one month and two months.

After I was completely weened off the tegretol and my lamictal dosage was increased some, I woke up one morning and realized the symptoms had decreased in intensity. It's now been about four weeks since I felt this change and things have been progressively improving in that time-frame. I've been trying not to get overly excited, as I have two appointments at the start of February, one with a sleep specialist and another with a neurologist, but for the first time in close to two years, I actually feel a sense of optimism and it's quite an amazing feeling. I really can't begin to describe it.

My entire outlook on life has changed due to what has transpired over the course of these past 20 months. For a while, I felt as if the symptoms would never vanish as I wished they would, that I may need spinal surgery and a second go-round of brain surgery, that I may one day lose my legs and that the rest of my life, I'd be in a constant struggle to make end's meet financially and to obtain happiness. I now have a new-found life and energy. I look forward to waking up in the morning. I can't help but wear a goofy smile throughout the day. To have had so much that one takes for granted ripped from them for a decent period of time and to then possess them again, it makes me that much more appreciative of the little things in life.

On the opposite end of this hope is fear. Almost seven and a half years ago, I went through a very difficult relationship. All people say that, right? This was different. All people say that too, right? Well, yes, but that's true in this case. I even have a 200+ page manuscript about the events to prove it. It started in the summer of 2003. On February 20th of 2003, I had a seizure while in my Spanish class. It was the first seizure I had experienced since I was placed on tegretol in August of 1999. Due to this unexpected turn of events, I panicked and this added stress triggered more seizures that afternoon. After I went home, I immediately called my neurologist to schedule an appointment. He told me that I had one of two options: To be placed on an additional seizure medication or to undergo brain surgery to remove the tumor which was likely triggering the seizures. Without much hesitation, I said I wanted to undergo brain surgery. While it was most definitely the more risky of the two options, I saw an additional drug just being a temporary solution, not a long-term one. I had perhaps become desensitized to the tegretol, having been on it for three and a half years at that time. I just saw it as a constant cycle. I'd get placed on a second medication and once I became desensitized to that, I'd get placed on a third medication and so forth. To go along with all the potential side effects of medications and the potential damage it can do to one's body in the long run, I was adamant about not going that route. Brain surgery, in my mind (no pun intended), was the only possible long-term solution.

Due to this decision I had made, I spent the majority of the summer in the hospital, getting tests done, undergoing an extended EEG just to make sure the seizures did in fact derive from the tumor and setting everything up for the surgery. This made for very little time to go out, socialize, date or anything of the sort. One day, I received an instant message online from someone I had never spoken to before. She had obviously read my profile, because she brought up how she enjoyed writing as well, poems in particular. She was 21, in college and judging by her picture, appeared to be rather cute. So, in between all my hospital visits that summer, I began talking to her more and wound up meeting her. For 3-4 months, we talked and saw each other rather regularly. After my surgery, my mother gave her a call to let her know the procedure went as hoped. Since I couldn't drive for a time after the surgery, my mother was kind enough to drive me to this individual's house and the three of us chatted for a while. It was nice. In the summer where I had very little time to go out, make friends or date, it helped take my mind off my health ordeals to have a person to talk with fairly regularly, with something to look forward to after my surgery - a relationship.

About a month later, I found out this individual had lied to me (and my mother) about everything and I mean everything. She then set me up and got me into trouble. This turned my life upside down. Just a month removed from undergoing brain surgery and having a hope instilled in me that I may one day be without seizures to being released from that very high and dropped like a skydiver without a parachute from 20,000 feet. I won't go into vivid details about what happened, but that day in September of 2003 and for the following 6 months, life was a living hell for me. I no longer knew what my future held. I no longer knew if I'd be able to utilize the college degree I was to earn before long. I no longer knew much of anything.

Fortunately for me, things slowly began to turn around in my favor through those 6 months and what could have been an awful turn of events for me wound up being a slap on the wrist. However, the after-effects of this event would linger for many years to come.

For a long period of time, I was uncomfortable around the opposite sex. Even if they were at the opposite end of the room, I felt discomfort. I started keeping to myself more and just sticking to my studies. I didn't even think about the possibility of dating. I placed an invisible shield around myself, as to not let anyone prod their way in to penetrate and potentially damage my core as this lady had done. I numbed myself, so that while I couldn't feel love, I couldn't feel pain. I was emotionless. All the feelings I had taken for granted for many years, I had no more. Many family members of mine believed I'd never date again. I, myself, believed this also and that I'd never garner a romantic interest or any kind of feeling for the opposite sex again.

This level of discomfort and numbness was constant through 2005 and part of 2006, but things slowly began to turn around in the second half of the year. While I was still very much uncomfortable and frightened by the idea of dating, I began finding women attractive again and not feeling as uncomfortable when in their presence. This resulted in a very short, two-week dating stint. Right away, I noticed some red flags, but in hindsight, I'm sure the reason I broke things off was a combination of the red flags and my continued fear and discomfort with dating. My trust for others, especially women, had been shattered. My willingness to be open and make myself vulnerable to others, especially women, all but vanished. But, in 2008, something happened to alter that course.

From 2006-2008, some friends of mine and I frequented a local lounge. It was a neat little atmosphere, the food was good, it was relatively close to each of us, we knew the people whom owned the place and got great prices because of that. But, there was someone whom worked behind the bar that I took a liking to and didn't realize it for some time. She and I had known of one another for quite some time, as we went to the same high school, but she was a couple grades below me, so we never really associated with one another in those days. With each and every visit to the lounge, however, I talked with and got to know her better and to go along with her beautiful exterior, she seemed extremely laid back and like a lot of fun. At that time, however, I was still quite reluctant on relinquishing the shield I had placed around me for some time. Due to this, I wasn't able to establish any sort of cognizance regarding my feelings toward a person. I had all but shut down that component of my system. In my mind, this woman was just a friend, a fun person to hang around, someone that was easy to talk to, etc. That's all I saw her as for close to two years there. In February of 2008, that changed.

It was known for a little while that I was going to be moving out-of-state, from Omaha, Nebraska to Columbus, Ohio, but that reality didn't strike me until about 2-4 weeks before the move. I had lived in Omaha for 26 of my 27 years at that point. It was my home, where I grew up, where all my friends lived, where all my memories resided; it was the only place I knew.

Over my final 2-4 weeks in Omaha, I began going around and saying goodbye to friends. A bunch of them even threw me a going-away party at the before-mentioned lounge. While I was going around town, seeing friends, giving/receiving hugs and saying my goodbyes, I realized there was one person I had the most trouble saying goodbye to and that was the bartender, my friend, at the lounge. It was so difficult, I actually wound up saying goodbye to her on three separate occasions, at the going-away party and twice more after that. I didn't understand what was going on and was utterly confused by it. I had been without any sense of emotion for four and a half years. I hadn't a serious interest of dating in that time. I hardly even looked at women in that very time-frame. But, here I was, going to sleep at night and not being able to get her out of my head. Like with my health ordeal, I didn't realize what I had until it was gone. As I began to realize I'd be moving 500+ miles away, it soon dawned on me that I wouldn't be seeing her anymore and this reality hit me like Mike Tyson on a stuffed animal.

After the move, I still couldn't stop thinking about her. When I'd talk to friends of mine on the phone, I'd find a way to bring her up and see how she was doing. When I talked to my mother, I brought up the fact that if I hadn't moved, I would have asked her out. I wanted to come forward about my feelings at that time, but bit my tongue, because I didn't think it'd be fair or right of me to do that, having just moved out-of-state. When I visited Omaha a couple times in the following six months, I made sure to see her. I was again tempted to open up to her, but as I was surrounded by friends and family whom wanted to see me while in town, I didn't feel it was proper to do that. I wanted it to be a private matter. The next time I came to town, I invited her to hang out with my brother and I at his place. She seemed to be pretty confident that it'd happen and I thought it'd be the perfect opportunity for me, once my brother left us alone, to finally let her know how I felt. Unfortunately, she was unable to make it that evening. Not long afterward is when my health problems started and I had to put my entire life on hold. I still had feelings for this woman, but once again, I felt it wasn't the right time. I had contemplated moving back to Omaha, but lost sight of that possibility at the condition's inception. Because of this, I didn't know when or even if I'd be moving back home and due to the uncertainty of my health and also of my moving back, I felt it'd be pretty pointless to open up to her.

However, like I mentioned earlier, about a month ago, I began feeling a change with regard to my health. The intensity of the symptoms seemed to wane somewhat and for the first time in what seemed like ten years, I had reason to smile. Immediately after I felt these positive changes, I thought of her. I was finally recovering, could once again see the light at the end of the tunnel (that light being Omaha) and after three years of biting my tongue, after seven and a half years of not feeling such emotions, of being able to come to terms with it myself, of being able to express it to another, after the move out-of-state and the rough 20-month journey I had with my health, through all of that, I still had feelings for her and those very feelings, if anything, escalated.

That brings me to today. Over this past month, she and I have been communicating much more regularly. There has been some flirtation, some complimenting, lots of laughter and a large quantity of smiles shared between the two of us and I've decided to finally come forward about what I've felt for three years this upcoming Sunday. With each and every passing day, however, I become more frightened.

It's something I never thought I'd experience again. I almost forced myself not to feel anything again. To actually feel something is remarkable, but with the potential of love comes the potential of pain. Seven and a half years ago, pain was inflicted upon me like never before, by a woman I had trusted with all my heart, only to tear my heart out and with seeming glee. To actually feel something for a woman again, I'm very excited, yet very scared. I sincerely hope that my first experience with such emotions since that nightmare in 2003 will not end on a sour note Sunday. Due to this fear, I keep debating with myself and going back and forth on the matter, whether I should or shouldn't open up in 4 days. In the end, I imagine I'll be very hesitant this upcoming Sunday, but I've promised myself I have to go through with this. Even at the risk of her shooting me down and me regressing a bit with regard to dating, due to the further pain inflicted upon me with the rejection, I'll at least be able to not regret my inaction and I'll at least be able to forgo the hypothetical questions. As much as I don't want to experience pain again, I finally want to have the opportunity, for the first time in seven and a half years, to experience love.

Wouldn't it be funny if...? (Part 2)

2011-01-26T09:35:00.002-06:00

A few years ago, I wrote a blog entitled, "Would it be funny if...?", where I listed off ten very random, unlikely events that I'd find quite funny if they did happen to occur one day. I'd like to do that again here. I'll just have to make sure my hippocampus and amygdala are in line, so I don't repeat any from the first list onto here.

Wouldn't it be funny if...

...Jason Statham was a co-lead star of a gay porno alongside (and inside) Lance Bass?

...George W. Bush wrote a couple of new books entitled, "Dictionary for Dummies" and "Thesaurus for Dummies"?

...MTV played music videos?

...Wolf Blitzer starred in the reality television show, "The Bachelor"?

...lawyers were required to smoke marijuana before entering the courtroom?

...the E-Harmony commercials' background song was "The Beautiful People" by Marilyn Manson?

...the main criteria for awarding someone the title of Mr. Universe was to see how long the men could handle the shake weight?

...there existed the sport of Sumo Wrestler Tennis?

...mime's did stand-up comedy?

...Bill O'Reilly orgasmed on the air while yelling at a guest? (Oh, check that. I'm being told that's happened a few times.)

Repulsive? Me Thinks Not!

2011-01-26T09:33:00.002-06:00

The other day, a good friend of mine gave me the compliment of a lifetime. She said I'm not repulsive, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.

(By the way, if this friend is reading this, I'm not mad at all. I just thought the wording was funny. 'Tis all good and stuff...)

Nuclear vs. Nucular

2011-01-26T09:32:00.003-06:00

Isn't it nice that our current president, Barack Obama, knows how to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear" (as opposed to "nucular," which was frequently uttered by former president George W. Bush)? Yeah, I think so too.

What pundits are missing regarding President Obama's State of the Union Address

2011-01-26T08:09:00.002-06:00

Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address last night, I listened to the post-speech reactions from both left-leaning pundits and right-leaning ones.

Both sides made a valid point, but completely missed something that was critical in my eyes and which may illustrate the overwhelming approval of the speech by the public via polls.

On the left, there was the usual cheerleading going on, but one point they made which I found to be true was that Obama's message, the plans he laid out were very center to slightly left-of-center. Obama was not using far left rhetoric. He made statements to show support for his Democratic base, as well as statements which would likely garner some Republican support.

Over on the right, again, there was the typical criticism of the president, but they made one point which I found to be accurate as well. They said that the president's speech lacked in specifics. He painted the future and his plans with a much broader brush than some had hoped.

Following the speech, CBS conducted a poll, which found that a near unanimous 92% of the American public approved of the plans Obama had laid before them and 62% believe that the two parties can work together to move this country forward.

So, why the mixed reactions from the pundits and the overwhelming support from the public?

Obama may have lacked in specifics, but I think this was mostly based on strategy. In November, the Democrats lost control of the House and with that. They had solid majorities in both houses of Congress, but as the country was angry at Washington in general and because there were more Democrats than Republicans in Congress, the people punished the majority party more so than the minority one. With this, the president knew and knows he will have to try and find some common ground between the two parties if he wants to get anything accomplished over his final two years of his first term. He knows he'll have to make some concessions here and there in order for this to happen.

Also, let's keep in mind how divided Washington has been over the years and this was amped up a notch following the Republican's big day in November. Republicans were clamoring that "The people have spoken" and "This was an anti-Obama/-Democrat vote" and "This gives the Republicans a mandate for the next two years". Just last week, the House passed a symbolic vote to repeal Obama's health care plan. The rhetoric has often times been angry between both parties over Obama's first couple years in office and it hasn't progressively improved or anything. If anything, it's progressively gotten worse. In November, the American public didn't vote against the president's policies or the Democratic Party. They voted against incumbents. They voted against how things were or weren't getting done with these incumbents. They were voting to change things around a little bit, because they were sick and tired of the status quo and they wanted to shake up Washington in any way they could. Congress had the lowest approval ratings in their history not long ago. People are sick and tired of the angry rhetoric, the divisiveness and the reluctance for the two parties to come together in a compromise in order to improve the citizens' daily lives.

Taking all of this into consideration, think about Obama's plan of attack last night. If he had spoken in specifics all night, there wouldn't be a very unanimous applause for most all of the plans. The public would likely see the majority of Democrats stand up, clap and cheer and the majority of Republicans sit down with their hands in their laps, perhaps booing on occasion. However, what Obama did was speak a bit more vaguely, in order to create the illusion that he is obviously bi-partisan in his plans, that he can bring both parties together and things can get accomplished in Washington. He spoke in large-themed generalities often times last night, whether that be about education reform (do it for the kids...), America being the greatest country in the world, tax cuts, security, the soldiers' livelihoods, etc. I don't care what one's political persuasion is. If he or she sits and refuses to applaud the president when he speaks of such things, it's not going to look good in the public's eyes and as a result, there will be some backlash. With this strategy, Obama gave the impression that Washington isn't as divided as it was and with this, has put some pressure on the Republican Party and their majority in the House to deliver.

As the CBS Poll indicates, the people saw Obama last night as very center, as bi-partisan, as a compromiser willing to make sacrifices in order to get things done. If the Republican Party continues with their frequent no's, chances are a majority of the people whom approved of the president's speech last night will sit back and think, "Well, we all know Obama is bi-partisan. It must be the Republicans whom aren't willing to meet in the center. We'll have to vote them out of office in the next election."

So, the pressure is back on the Republican Party. Obama cornered them last night with his speech and if their House majority doesn't step up and illustrate a willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to move the country forward, they'll pay for it in 2012, while the president will then be elected to a second term. So, no, Obama's speech wasn't very specific, it wasn't the most exciting, but it accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish and that's corner the GOP, put the ball in their court and force them to make the next move. Well done, if I do say so myself.

I find this funny about the Republican Party...

2011-01-25T21:49:00.002-06:00

It's kind of funny how it seems the majority of the Republican Party spends a good amount of their time bashing the United States government and how ineffective it is.

"Elect me. I know the government, of which I'm a part, will cause Armageddon for this country. I promise I'll make sure nothing gets done in Washington in order to move this country forward. I'm Senator Dumbas* (pronounced Doo-mah) and I approve this message."

So, what, should doctors tell their patients, "You know, Bobby, we doctors are pretty worthless. We get paid a lot of money to serve you, but at the end of the day, we cause more harm than we do help. I honestly wouldn't ever see a doctor if I were you. We won't give you shots, MRI's, catscans, EEG's, or conduct a surgical procedure. Less is more and by not doing anything, we're going to help you recover from this awful disease."

Yeah, that makes perfect logical sense... ::scratches head::

Mitch McConell's Future Job

2011-01-25T20:18:00.004-06:00

Republican Senator (KY), Mitch McConnell, like John Boehner (R - OH), has a promising future ahead of him after he's through with politics. While Boehner will join the Big East as the Syracuse Orange mascot, McConnell will head south a ways to the ACC, where he will become the Maryland Terrapins' mascot. If/When Syracuse and Maryland face one another, it'll truly be a sight to behold. Perhaps we'll get lucky and there will be snow on the ground, so the fans can chuck a few snowballs at what will be the former politicians. Ready! Aim! Fire! Oh, and by the way, Mr. Orange and Mr. Turtle, you're welcome. If you need any more future advice from me, you won't have my number, my e-mail address or my address, so best of luck to you! I'll be sitting at home with an adult beverage and some popcorn, watching and laughing! It'll be entertainment at its finest!

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=rcw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&biw=1600&bih=684&q=mitch+mcconnell+turtle&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=QZE_TazBLpLegQer4uDQAg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQsAQwAQ

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Cew&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&q=maryland+terrapins+mascot&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=iJE_TYviF8jcgQeG2ZyjAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CFIQsAQwBA&biw=1600&bih=684

John Boehner's Future Job

2011-01-25T20:10:00.003-06:00

After he's done with politics, I have an idea for the new speaker of the house, John Boehner (R - OH). He should move to New York and become the mascot for Syracuse. He wouldn't even need a mascot's outfit. He could dress in a suit and tie, while cheering on the Orange and I don't think many people would be able to tell the difference.

John Boehner
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=john+boehner+orange&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=0pE_Td2WBc3pgQeNqLGiAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQsAQwAQ&biw=1600&bih=684

Syracuse Orange Mascot
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=syracuse+orange+mascot&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=7ZE_TZKQM4GugQfj7bHzAg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQsAQwAw&biw=1600&bih=684

Blogger's Block No More!

2011-01-25T19:44:00.002-06:00

I'm quite amazed that just a few days ago, I wrote a blog entitled, "Blogger's Block," because I hadn't blogged for about a week and couldn't think of anything to write about. That's even worse than having writer's block, because one can blog about anything, from Columbo to Columbia to Columbine to a duck-billed playpus to Bill Clinton's sexual escapades to the fascination of a fire hydrant while tripping acid. Yet, I couldn't think of anything to write about. I then concluded at the end of my blog that perhaps my blogging about not being able to blog would wind up being my first step in recovering from blogger's block en route to regularly blogging again. Let me check to see how many times I said blog in that sentence. ::counts:: Five. Not bad. Speaking of numbers, this is officially my 19th blog in the past three days. I don't know what has happened over the past 72 hours. Perhaps I was slipped some speed in my sleep. I'm not quite sure. In any case, like with any problem, it's nice to be over my blogger's block, even if it's only temporary. Just watch, with this blog, I jinx myself and go back to blogger's block, only to repeat this same cycle the following week. That'd be kind of funny. Maybe. Well, in hindsight, it may be humorous. Hopefully I won't have to laugh about it in another couple weeks. I'll have to ask for more speed while sleeping. It can't be weed or else I'd have blogger's block to the extreme. I may write two or three word blogs, such as, "Gosh, I'm bored" or "Man, I want a twinkie right now" or "I'm so high. hahahahahahahahaha". Yeah, I'll have to make sure and make note of that to whomever is slipping me drugs while in my slumber. Hopefully they themselves are not high at the time or else I could be in trouble.

Boggle, Scrabble and Sudoku

2011-01-25T19:40:00.002-06:00

Yes, I enjoy all three games and am solid at all three, especially Boggle. No one will play me anymore. So, yeah, I'm a geek and I'm okay with that. Some people enjoy Twister. Others like to play cards. Some enjoy Clue or Life. I like playing games which revolve around letters and numbers. Perhaps this is why I'm still single. I should put out a personal ad which reads something like this:

"5'9'', 156.5, dark brown hair, green/hazel eyes, dimples, fairly fit, enjoys long walks on the beach, blogging, boggle, sudoku and scrabble. If you want to have a great time, give me a jingle and we can stay in on a Friday night and connect letters to form words!"

Chad Johnson Will Again Be Chad Johnson

2011-01-25T19:36:00.002-06:00

I just read that Cincinnati Bengals' receiver, Chad Ochocinco, is going to change his name back to Chad Johnson, what his name originally was before he felt the need to alter his last name to "Ochocinco". Thank God. I have nothing against name changes, the Bengals or Chad Johnson, but his name alteration was fricking ridiculous. He's number 85, so he altered his name to represent his jersey number. Ocho = 8, Cinco = 5. Unfortunately for him, combining the two words does not equal 85 in Spanish. In Spanish, 85 is ochenta y cinco. There is quite a difference. In English, if I wore number 11, I wouldn't change my name to one one. The number is eleven. I'm not sure who taught Johnson about language and/or mathematics, but he may want to work on that a bit, especially for how much he likes to talk.

Ever wonder how other people see you?

2011-01-25T19:12:00.002-06:00

I've always been curious about this. Yet, it's virtually impossible to know, unless one were to bug some people's houses, phone lines, mic'ed someone, etc. and I'm sure once these individuals found out about this invasion of privacy, they wouldn't have very nice things to say about the curious individual. The only other way I can think of this being possible is if there's life after death and one is able to watch and listen to people interact, perhaps lending some insight in how they viewed another.

Most times, there seems to be a certain percentage of honesty when a person speaks of another to their face and also when they speak of them behind their back. There is probably some honesty in both scenarios, but it's not complete honesty most likely. They're probably more complimentary in person and more critical away from the person. One would have to try and balance these two set of circumstances to garner a clearer picture of how another sees them.

I find it to be fascinating to a certain extent. How do people in general view another as they make their presence known somewhere? How do friends or family view this same person? What do they say about him/her when they're not present? Do they genuinely mean what they say when they are present? How differently do people one associates with view him/her? Do three different friends view the same person drastically different from one another? If so, why?

I think it all depends on experience. People whom have no affiliation with another may judge them as they enter a room, but that's all it is. They have no idea what makes the person who they are. All they know is what they see with their eyes from a first-impression standpoint. Acquaintances may have a vague idea of another person, but may have trouble with specifics, since the two haven't engaged in many deep and/or personal conversations. Partial friends may be a step up, but in a more autistic sense, where they may know one side of the person very well, yet aren't cognizant of all the other sides the person presents. This can be true of distant family members too, I'd think. Friends and other members of the family may have a better idea of who the person is, where they know several components of the whole and fairly well, but still are unaware of many other components. Close friends and members of the family, along with girlfriends/boyfriends (sometimes) and spouses, I imagine, have the most accurate image of another, but even then, all of their experiences will differ, so their images of the same person will likely differ as well. Then the person him/her-self will have the very best idea, as they may not open up to certain people and may hide certain things from all others to the point where only they and maybe one or two other people are aware of the event/thought/feeling. Even the person him/her-self, though, is in a constant state of learning, expanding and changing. I think it's virtually impossible for anyone to have a clear 100% accurate reading of another, but I'm still very intrigued in seeing/hearing just how another honestly sees me. I'll never know and I doubt anyone else will, but it's interesting to think about, for me at least.

Muse kind of rules...

2011-01-24T15:47:00.002-06:00

Just as I realized I hadn't blogged about madman Glenn Beck since I began to blog again for the first time in a couple years, the same can be said of British rock trio, Muse.

I admit, I'm an American and wasn't much exposed to them until about three years ago. So, yes, I'm a bit of a newbie. However, in the past three years, I have been a bit obsessive with listening to their music and I can say at this point in time, they are my favorite band, past or present (or future...).

I would also like to admit, although I am a newbie, I have helped provide Muse with a number of new fans, including those 50 or older. ::pats self on back::. I even went to two concerts of theirs over the past year. I had to sell two tickets for the show in Columbus, Ohio (long story) and one of the individuals I sold the ticket to, an older gentleman, said it was by far and away the best concert he had ever seen and he has been witness to many. I've been witness to my fair share of good shows for my age: Elton John/Billy Joel, Kiss/Ted Nugent/Skid Row, Alice Cooper/Blue Oyster Cult, Marilyn Manson/Stabbing Westward/Stain'd/Buckcherry, Metallica, Def Leppard, Aerosmith/Seven Mary Three, Megadeth, Foo Fighters/Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Smashing Pumpkins, Deftones, Korn/Limp Bizkit/Ice Cube/Rammstein/Orgy, Chicago/Earth, Wind & Fire, Sponge/Iggy Pop, etc., etc., etc. I don't like to speak in absolutes, because I believe there are shades of gray in just about everything. So, I'm not going to sit here and say Muse was the best concert to which I've been witness. However, I will say they were one of the very best I've seen. Between being spot-on musically in conjunction with the insane light show, stage set-up and theatrics, it was truly a unique and wonderful experience.

Muse has run into some criticism since their debut album, "Showbiz," which was released in 1999. The criticism has mainly dealt with claims that they're nothing but a rip-off of Radiohead and/or Queen. Some critics have compared Muse frontman, Matt Bellamy's voice to that of Radiohead's lead singer, Thom Yourke. Some have also said that Muse plays an epic style of rock that is very reminiscent of Queen. There's no doubt that Radiohead and Queen have influenced the band, but that's how it always is. There are other bands and musicians whom have influenced the British trio. There are musicians whom influenced Thom Yourke and Radiohead, along with Queen. Personally, perhaps because I've listened to Muse so much over the past three years, I honestly don't hear too much similarity between they and Radiohead. Both Yourke and Bellamy have great range vocally and unlike most other rock bands, they aren't afraid to break out the falsetto and reach notes that hardly any other singer in the rock business can reach. But, that's the only similarity I see (hear) between the two. With regard to Queen, I don't hear much similarity in Muse's first four albums ("Showbiz," "Origin of Symmetry," "Absolution" and "Black Holes and Revelations"). The only album I hear a good deal of influence is with the band's fifth and most recent album, "The Resistance" (2009). I don't hear an influence on the majority of songs either. I don't hear much influence on: "Uprising," "Undisclosed Desires," "Guiding Light," "Unnatural Selection," "MK Ultra" or the three-part symphony. I only hear an influence on three songs: "Resistance," "I Belong to You" and especially "United States of Eurasia". I only hear slight influences in those first two songs I mentioned, only in certain portions of the songs, but hear it throughout the third, "United States of Eurasia," which sounds like a track devoted to Queen. When it comes right down to it, however, I don't see Muse as a rip-off of either Queen or especially Radiohead. Just because Bellamy has similar range vocally to Yourke, doesn't mean they're identical and he's attempting to copy the Radiohead singer.

One thing I love about Muse is their diversity in sound and their being willing to experiment musically and attempt to expand their horizons as musicians. I don't know many bands whom can pull off a hard rocker like "Stockholm Syndrome," a spacey number like "Knights of Cydonia," a R&B-esque song in "Undisclosed Desires," electronica with "Map of the Problematique," funk with "Supermassive Black Hole," epic rock in "Resistance" and a three-part symphony, among many others.

The albums themselves are all very distinct of one another. From "Showbiz" to "Origin of Symmetry" to "Absolution" to "Black Holes and Revelations" to "The Resistance," each and every album shows a contrast to all the others and illustrates the band's attempt to expand their sound through experimentation. Due to this, I feel as if the band is anti-Nickelback, and I'm very grateful for that. It's one reason I look forward to each and every album they release, not truly knowing what to expect.

While Bellamy's operatic voice can take some getting used to, when one does, it's remarkable, especially when combined with his skills on the piano and guitar, Dominic Howard behind the drums and Chris Wolstenholme at bass guitar. As a unit, they're tremendous, both in the studio and in concert. For those whom have not heard much of the band or at all, I highly recommend giving them a chance. I finally gave them a chance three years ago, instantly fell in love and have grown to enjoy their music more as each and every day passes.

My Apologies To Jay Cutler... Sort of...

2011-01-24T15:44:00.002-06:00

Okay, as I said I would do if his MRI did indeed show a knee injury, I would like to apologize to Jay Cutler for calling him a wimp. The MRI showed he suffered an MCL sprain. However, I do stand by everything else I stated... Mr. Cutler, best of luck healing this off-season and please don't miss any playing time next year due to a broken nail, bad haircut or smiling for the second time in your life.

My Attempt At Thinking Like Glenn Beck

2011-01-24T10:22:00.004-06:00

Okay, I'm going to give it a go. I've never been able to understand how Glenn Beck comes up with the ideas he does. So, I'm going to attempt to become one with Glenn Beck, crawl inside that noggin of his and see what I can come up with. Alright... ::closes eyes, takes deep breaths, listens to Metallica::

For my first connection, I will show you that without any hesitation, we can conclude there's a direct link connecting Hillary Clinton, Sean Penn and Mystic River. There's no mistaking which way Hillary Clinton leans on the political spectrum. She's a left-wing loony, much like actor Sean Penn. If you didn't realize this, Sean Penn starred in the film "Mystic River" and this means only one thing - Hillary Clinton drowned someone in a river! There should be a full investigation into this criminal act and I am going to be the one leading the way to her conviction and life sentence!

How about if I connect four?

Today I'm going to draw a link between: Barack Obama, Michigan, the Qur'an and dinosaurs. It's really very simple when you think about it. Dinosaurs were here a long, long time ago and according to my studies, the Qur'an has been around for a very long time as well. There are a significant number of Muslims whom practice Islam through the Qur'an in parts of Michigan. Barack Obama won the state of Michigan in the 2008 presidential election. Therefore, Barack Obama wants to kill all the infidels! All those whom don't follow the Qur'an, you might be next!

Okay, that was another attempt. Let me try and connect more dots...

I'm going to show you all that there's a direct link between: Bill Clinton, a skunk, a Siberian Husky, Russia and chicken vindaloo. Now, stay with me on this one. These are very scary times, which I'm about to show you. There can be no question about it, Bill Clinton stinks, much like that of a skunk after its sprayed. Now, if you'll notice on a skunk's back is a strip of white sandwiched in between black. Siberian Huskies can be all (or partially) white. There are huskies in evil, communist Russia and some southern parts or Russia aren't too terribly far from northern portions of India. Chicken vindaloo is the the spiciest dish in Northern India and through this, we now know that Bill Clinton has engaged in a number of hot, steamy spicy affairs and should be punished! Be on the look out, guys. Clinton may soon be after your wife! Come prepared! Make sure to buy a gun and if he trespasses, take care of business! No, I'm not advocating violence. I'm not saying to shoot the guy. But, if he criminally trespasses on your property, do it!

Okay, let's see if I can do this by connecting six people, places or things. This could get a little tricky, but I have confidence I'll be able to pull it off.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am about to announce before you the biggest, most valid and most frightening conspiracy in the history of man! Your life will forever be changed by what I'm about to say. I'm about to connect the following: Democrats, Jesus, a blue whale, a lamp, Will Ferrell and gatorade. Actor Will Ferrell's biggest role to date was his starring as Ron Burgundy in "Anchorman". In the movie, Steve Carell's character states, "I love lamp". His character's name is Brick. Like Brick, the blue whale starts with the same letter, "B". Gatorade now has a blue colored and flavored water from which to pick. Like with any kind of water, one can be baptized in this very water to be saved in Jesus Christ's holy name. But, what's lost in this is the fact the Jews killed Jesus and the Jewish demographic almost always votes Democrat. So, ladies and gentlemen, hear me now, hear me loud and clear. Democrats crucified Jesus!

There you have it. I must admit, finding some of these links was very difficult, but Mr. Beck's cognizance of the unprovable, his audacity of the impossible, his conviction for the ludicrous inspired me to no longer think for myself, to no longer listen to actual logic, reason or to any credible source. I can now utilize my imagination to the very fullest to turn truth into fiction and fiction into reality, my reality. So, thank you Mr. Beck, for convincing me that ignorance truly is bliss.

Glenn Beck's Stategery

2011-01-24T09:59:00.003-06:00

As I took quite a break from blogging between '08 and '10, I recently realized I had yet to blog about Glenn Beck of Fox News.

Now, I've never been a fan of Fox News, from Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly to Brit Hume to the morning crew and beyond (Shepard Smith being the lone exception), but Glenn Beck is another beast entirely. While Hannity and O'Reilly make me shake my head at their angry rhetoric and heavy slant, Beck simultaneously frightens me and makes me laugh.

I laugh at the man and his show because the majority of what he says is so outlandish and ridiculous, his words and actions come across to me as over-the-top comedy more than anything. However, the fact that so many people listen to this guy and take his words seriously, that frightens me a bit.

Beck is quite a fan of the chalkboard and using the chalkboard to connect the dots of people and events to form a conspiracy. He's drawn links between different Democrats and the likes of Adolf Hitler, Stalin, etc. There are times when there are so many different lines drawn on the chalkboard, connecting one person and event to another, it really appears to be the final product of a child whom just connected the dots in a book. I don't even know how he does it. I have a theory of my own on the matter, though.

Every morning, Glenn Beck picks out anywhere from 3 to 6 things to connect from a random set of pieces of paper in a bowl. After he picks out these 3 to 6 names, places, events, political parties, ideologies, etc., he then gets to work. It doesn't matter if he draws: Stalin, Obama and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer or cornfields, Harry Reid and thunderstorms or even Nancy Pelosi, a firetruck and gravity. He will find a way to connect those dots and convince his audience that the Democrats are out to get them!

This is why most or all of conspiracy theories don't work to a T. There may be components of some theories that may hold some potential validity, but for a full conspiracy to work, every event, every connection made within the conspiracy has to be valid in order for the theory to work. This is nearly impossible. Mathematically speaking, it may not be impossible, but more than likely, next to impossible. So, when Beck tries to link three to six (or so) different people and events to one another, he may have a point with regard to one link, but for him to draw multiple links as he tends to do results in an utterly ridiculous theory. This is why I have to laugh at his rhetoric sometimes. His theories are so off-the-wall preposterous, my immediate reaction is that of laughter. Unfortunately, there are many whom don't laugh when Beck speaks and actually believe his every word. How anyone could believe this man's every word is beyond me. Perhaps he has a history of distributing spiked kool-aid to people and through this, is able to brainwash his supporters. In any case, I really hope people stop believing this clown and he winds up being just a phase. Even for how slanted Fox News is to begin with, Glenn Beck brings them to a whole new level partisanship and ridiculousness.

Slanted Stories Following Break-Ups

2011-01-24T09:44:00.004-06:00

I'm sure this is quite ubiquitous. When a couple breaks up or even if they have yet to break up, but are going through some problems, both parties slant their stories to make them appear as the victim and paint their partner as guilty.

It'd be quite something for an outsider to listen to both sides of the story and believe he was hearing the same story. He/She may be wondering if he/she spoke to two people whom even knew one another, let alone dated. Why is there that need to paint oneself as the one without fault in a relationship and portray the other as the guilty party? As is rather common knowledge, in the vast majority of such relationships, both sides are responsible for the relationship's demise. One party may be a bit more responsible than the other and in rare scenarios, one party may be fully (or close to it) responsible, but in most cases, about 50% of guilt can be bestowed upon both parties.

I just learned in the past week that a woman I wasn't even dating, but one whom was interested in dating me and I not in her, told her story to friends that I was the sole reason things didn't work out between she and I. I didn't tell any stories, because we never dated. I didn't feel the need to tell people about a relationship in which I was never interested to begin with. Perhaps she just wanted to convince herself that she was not responsible in any sense of the word for what occurred (or didn't occur) between the two of us and she was able to do this (or at least try) by slanting the story.

Another problem may be the fact that while some people have a strong ability to be empathetic, it's virtually impossible to know exactly what another person is thinking or feeling. We're only genuinely in tune with ourselves. So, when telling a story about a fallen relationship, perhaps it has more to do with only being able to see things from our perspective and not the other, or putting blinders on and refusing to look at things from the other person's perspective.

A friend of this lady, whom wanted to date me, contacted me a few weeks ago, has sprung some information upon me in the last week or two and even though she heard the slanted stories by my former friend, she said she always believed I wasn't to blame for things not working. Why? Because she knew this woman was lying to me on a pretty regular basis and repeating what I told her in private to her friends. She was also quite promiscuous and consistently displayed contradictions in how she claimed to have felt for me with her actions which suggested otherwise.

Even taking all that into consideration, I'm not going to stand here (sit, I suppose) and claim that I was perfect. I made some mistakes, just like anyone. When I look back at things, there are a couple moments I wish I had handled differently. But, I'm also not going to sit around and be made to feel entirely guilty due to this woman's slanted picture of me that she's painted to others. Just as I had some fault during our friendship/relationship, so did she and as her once close friend said to me, "It was mainly her fault. Nothing you said or did was the primary reason things didn't work." I'll take her friend's word over this former friend of mine, especially since she gabbed to her friend quite repeatedly that I was fully to blame.

The Ex-Is-With-Douche Complex

2011-01-24T09:26:00.002-06:00

So, has an ex of yours started dating again? Have you met him or her? Do you know much about them outside of what you've heard from your friends? What do you conclude about the guy or gal? According to a non-scientific study conducted inside my noggin, there's a 71.2% chance that you concluded, "They're a douche."

Now, it's perfectly understandable to not be an immediate fan of a person whom is dating your ex, especially if you and this ex of yours dated for an extended period of time and got pretty serious. It's also quite understandable if your ex started dating again very soon after the break-up and he/she hasn't given you much time to get over the demise of the relationship. However, if you and this ex of yours have been far removed from the relationship you once shared with one another, then what's the problem?

I have exes just like the next person and while it'd hurt quite a bit if I found out one of them started dating and getting serious with another guy directly following the break-up, after a certain duration of time, I could really care less about whom they go out with, bring home to mommy and daddy or for whom they spread their legs. We're no longer dating, so that's their decision.

But, I've noticed quite frequently that the philosophy I shared above doesn't hold true for many people. Someone very close to me dated a gal for about four and a half years, off and on. They got pretty close and contemplated marriage at one point. They broke up around four to four and a half years ago. This buddy of mine has since gotten married, having been either dating or married to this women for about two and a half years. His ex just announced that she's getting married in the next year or so. What does this friend of mine have to say about the guy she's marrying? "Yeah, he's a douche."

He'd continue, "He's loaded in money. That's probably why she likes him, but he's a douche. Even all his friends think he's a douche." I believe this friend of mine has met this other guy very briefly on one occasion and has heard such commentary about this fellow's douchiness from friends of his own, whom I'm sure aren't slanting their stories any to appease my friend. So, based on very little research and knowledge, he has adamantly concluded that the man his ex is marrying is a douche.

This sign of bitterness, jealousy and hostility makes me want to ask one question, "Are you sure you're over her yet?" Because, why would he or someone else in his position care whom his ex marries? He's married now, has been with someone for two and a half years, comments on how she's everything his ex wasn't (that makes me wonder as well...), etc. So, why's it really matter? Who cares that she's getting married? Doesn't he want to see her happy. Break-ups almost never end well, but I don't wish any ill upon my exes. Obviously things didn't work out between they and myself, but hey, that happens. I hope they find someone they can be happy with for the long-term.

All this makes me wonder just how ubiquitous this is and if it can be applied to almost everyone on at least one occasion. I wonder if an ex of mine hears that I'm dating or engaged to someone, if they find out from an unreliable source, "Yeah, I heard she's a douche."

So, yeah, if that rings true, I guess I can only conclude one thing: Each and every one of us is a douche to at least one person. I don't know about you, but that makes me feel warm and toasty inside. This is a fellow douche signing out.

I see that I'm not the only one whom thinks Jay Cutler is a wimp...

2011-01-23T21:47:00.004-06:00

So, I see that my very short blog (the shortest of my life) regarding Chicago Bears quarterback, Jay Cutler, being a wimp has generated some traffic.

Seriously, though... Now, let it be known that I had nothing against any of the four teams whom played today: Pittsburgh, NY Jets, Chicago or Green Bay. I think I may have preferred Chicago to face New York in the Super Bowl, but the only reason for that is Pittsburgh has now been to three Super Bowls in the past six years and Green Bay won the title 14 years ago, I believe. Meanwhile, Chicago hasn't won in around 25 years (approximately) and the Jets haven't won it since 1969. I don't feel like doing research right now, so I'll stick by those approximates. They're close enough.

For all those that watched the early game today between Green Bay and Chicago know, Jay Cutler was taken to the locker room just after he had thrown an interception to basically end the half. Green Bay took a knee on the following play and that was it for the first thirty minutes of action.

After the teams exited their locker rooms to play the second half, word came out that Jay Cutler had injured his knee and was questionable to return. I'm sorry, but watching him jog off the field to the locker room like he did made me think the injury may have dealt with his bloody elbow. I, in no way, thought he had injured his knee.

He never returned to the game. Chicago brought in Todd Collins and then Caleb Haine to replace Cutler. All throughout the second half, Jay Cutler was standing on the sideline. If his knee were really banged up, why in Buddha's ganja was he standing on the sideline, putting pressure on his knees? Why did he not just sit on the bench and rest it? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If the guy can stand up for thirty minutes of play in the second half, why in the world can't he take the snaps behind center? As I said in the other blog, the only answer I can come up with is that he's a wimp and unless I hear some news tomorrow about him having torn an ACL or something along those lines, I will stand by that statement.

Cutler played better this year than he has in the past couple, but I still don't believe the guy has it upstairs yet to become a premiere quarterback in this league. The guy has all the physical tools, but something is missing mentally. The guy was a good game manager this year, as he didn't force nearly as many balls as he did last season and played within Mike Martz's gameplan. But, that's all he was - a game manager. He was a slight upgrade from Trent Dilfer when he played with Baltimore and their great defense. Chicago had one of the best defenses in the league this year and one of the best special teams, to which Devin Hester can attest. But, Cutler, more times than not, played not to lose the game and to be a great quarterback in this league, you can't play like that. You've got to play to win. You've got to want the ball in your hands when you're down four late in the game. Today, Chicago trailed by 14 going into halftime. The game was not over by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, third year quarterback, Caleb Haine, almost brought the Bears back at game's end. Jay Cutler can't be standing on the sidelines. He has to want to play in the NFC Championship Game, at home, against his division rival for a chance to play in the Super Bowl. If he can't do that, then maybe the guy just isn't cut out for the NFL. Hopefully, for Cutler and Bears fans alike, that's not the case. But, to this point in his career, he has yet to prove that to me and has a long ways to go before he does.

My Life Is a Shadow of My Horoscope

2011-01-23T21:31:00.007-06:00

That's right. Each and every day, I read my horoscope and that's how I plan my day. I also have a lifetime supply of fortune cookies, where I will follow their advice on a daily basis. In addition to that, I see palm readers, fortune tellers and tarot card readers to tell me what my future will be like and what I need to do on a daily basis to attain what is my fate.

Okay, so none of that is true. I really wish I had come up with the idea of writing horoscopes. How easy would that be? Just give an extremely vague and general form of advice, with no clear direction whatsoever and ask people to read and believe in its wisdom.

It reminds me of comedian George Carlin's old bit about the Hippy Dippy Weatherman.

He said something along the lines of, "Tonight - dark. Light in the morning, with chance of precipitation and the temperatures will change off and on for a very long period of time." After that forecast, he could retire.

A horoscope is vague much like that, where it may read, "There may be problems adjusting to your current situation. Do something to take charge. Tonight - go out. Tomorrow - stay in."

Yeah... I really wish these horoscopes would become more specific. I think there would be a much greater opportunity for laughter if they specified on our futures. While, yes, it's true that these horoscopes would not be applicable to as wide an audience as they currently are in their vague format, for the people to whom they did apply, they would seem much more genuine than what they are currently.

For example, how about this horoscope for Aquarius:

"Christina isn't worth the trouble. Dump her tonight and get laid on the rebound with a woman by the name of Jessica at the bar across the street from your house. She'll be wearing a very showy outfit and will be drinking a Bloody Mary at the end of the bar. Tell her you're vulnerable and that you need to get laid. She will smile, immediately pay her tab and go to your place. It will be a wonderful night, but she will get pregnant, the two of you will get married and name your child Jonathan Jacob."

For a Pisces, it could read:

"Yeah, your day is going to royally suck. First, you're going to lose your job at Ace Hardware. Upon hearing the news, your girlfriend, Shawniqua, will dump your sorry a**, only to go out with your brother, Hezekiah, that very night. Yes, the two of them will embrace one another all night long. Meanwhile, you're going to get drunk on O'Douls, continually listen to you and Shawniqua's song, Nine Inch Nails' 'Closer' and watch your movie, 'Kickboxer'. Tomorrow, you will be hung over for the day's duration and Shawniqua will call you, moaning at the top of her lungs and yelling Hezekiah's name. This will set you off and you will wind up in a loony bin. But, don't worry, things go uphill from there. Good luck."

I would take those horoscopes much more seriously, I think. I'd know this specific horoscope may not apply to me, but someone out there, perhaps just one person, will read that and start crying, saying, "How did they know? Oh my God! How did they know?" Exactly. Hmm... Perhaps I will start writing horoscopes, just in my more specific form. I'll have to ask my Magic 8 Ball if it's in my future. Hmm.. Two out of three. Three out of five. Eh, whatever.

Is it just me or are the Coors and Miller Light commercials not that funny?

2011-01-23T21:10:00.003-06:00

I admit, when I first saw the Coors Light football commercials, I thought it was a good idea and was optimistic I'd find the commercial funny. However, I think the execution of the commercials have been mediocre at best.

Head coaches can give a lot of what is known as "coach speak," which basically means they talk in cliches and you can predict what they're going to say before they say it. However, there are also those rare instances when a head coach gives a memorable quote and it'll be replayed for years on ESPN. There are even top ten lists devoted to such quotes. One such quote was said by former head coach, Jim Mora Sr. His club had been struggling and a reporter asked him about the playoffs and if he felt they'd make it to the post-season. Mora replied with something like, "Playoffs? Playoffs? We can't even win a d**n game and you're asking me about playoffs?" It was quite humorous at the time and even years after Mora said that, it's been replayed online and on television, with laughter being the typical response.

So, going into the commercial, I was optimistic it'd be humorous, as we'd get to hear some memorable quotes by the coaches in response to questions asked by fake members of the press. However, this wasn't the case. All we get in these commercials are fake reporters asking questions where there can only be a handful of fitting responses and the coaches give one or two word answers, like "Yeah, that's right" or "What?", along with the occasional stutter or noise which results in no words being spoken. The commercials just seem to lack the creativity and execution to be very funny. A funnier version of one of these commercials would be a fake reporter asking Jim Mora, Sr. something like, "Coach, your team has struggled recently. What if you guaranteed buying all your players a case of Coors Light if they make the playoffs?" Mora could then respond with his now famous quote about the playoffs, "Playoffs? Playoffs? We can't even win a d**n game! Playoffs?" That's a very memorable quote from a NFL head coach and would make for a much more humorous commercial than what we've been given thus far. I hope they improve the humor of these commercials, because I see potential in them. Unfortunately, I haven't been very impressed with the final products thus far.

This is strange for me, because I typically like beer commercials. On Super Bowl Sunday, most of the time (not always), the most memorable commercials are affiliated with one beer or another. But, like with the Coors Light commercials, I haven't been all too impressed with the Miller Light commercials. Again, I see promise, potential, but I haven't been impressed with the creativity (or lack there of) and execution thus far.

In these commercials, the bartender asks a customer if he/she wants a Miller Light or some other light beer. The customer always orders something else, to which the bar tender responds by making an observation on the customer's clothing, saying, "Well as soon as you (fill-in-the-blank), perhaps you'll order a Miller Light." These commercials include: A dragon outfit, tight pants, European swim trunks, etc. Then at the tail-end of the commercial, the customer order a Miller Light and his/her friends then make a comment about his/her attire. The one-liners aren't very funny. They just state matter of factly what is obvious. If someone were dressed in drag, the bartender would say, "Well, as soon as you stop dressing like a woman, perhaps you'll be man enough to order a Miller Light." There's nothing creative about that. It wouldn't be funny if I were at a barbecue and someone with a gaudy ring came up to me, asked me for a beer, to which I asked what he/she would like; they responded with "something else" and I came back with something like, "Well, when you don't feel the need to show off your ring, then maybe you'll drink a Miller Light." Now, if I were to say, "Well, as soon as you stop feeling the need to compensate for something else with that big ring of yours, maybe you'll be big enough to order a Miller Light," that, to me, would be more humorous. Of course, I'm not sure that could be aired, but, it's a start, I suppose.

So, Coors and Miller Light, please improve upon these poorly executed commercials. They have plenty of potential. Let's actually garner a few more laughs with these, especially with the Super Bowl just two weeks away.

Jay Cutler Is A Wimp

2011-01-23T16:59:00.001-06:00

That's all I really wanted to say. Back to the game...

"Thankskilling" - Perhaps the Best Worst Movie I've Seen

2011-01-23T16:48:00.003-06:00

A few weeks ago, I saw a movie by the name of "Thankskilling". I ordered it On-Demand, because I found the description to be interesting and wondered if it'd be funny on a certain level. It was about a killer turkey on the loose, attempting to get back at Caucasians for what they did to the Natives and for the traditions and celebrations on Thanksgiving.

The direction was choppy, appearing to have been a home video, it was of such bad quality. The actors had inferior skills to my friends and I, none of us having acted before. The dialogue came across like it had been written by a 3rd grader. The plot was thinner than model Twiggy. It was a horrendous film. However, some way or another, I enjoyed it. It was quite funny actually.

In the opening scene, a woman with an old-school Pilgrim-esque outfit on and no top is seen running in a forest. There is some frightening music as she continually looks behind her, making it appears as if she's being chased. She then stumbles on a tree stump, has difficulty in getting up and then she looks up and sees the being/thing that chased her - a turkey. The turkey looked right at her and said, "Nice t**s, b***ch!" and kills her. That's the opening scene right there.

It gets better/worse from that point. There's one disturbing scene where a guy is engaging in intercourse with his girlfriend, one of the main characters in the film, from behind. The turkey comes along and kills the boyfriend and presumes to finish the job the boyfriend started. The woman says something like, "Gosh, you feel different." After the turkey is finished, he says, "You just got stuffed!" and kills her. Yes, these events happened in this movie. I didn't believe it either, even as I saw the plot unfold before my very eyes.

"Thankskilling" was a rather disturbing movie at times, was awful on just about every single level, yet if you are not expecting an Oscar-worthy film and leave your brain and conscience at the door, it can be a very enjoyable film. This is one movie I'm quite embarrassed to say I liked, yet when thinking back on those two scenes I described and others, all I can do is simultaneously shake my head and laugh. That's what I did throughout the film and that's what I'm doing now, two months after the fact.

It's amazing what you can learn about a person after the fact...

2011-01-23T16:04:00.003-06:00

For about a year (as of 4 months ago), I was consistently communicating with a female from back home (Omaha). She and I never dated. We just considered ourselves "best friends." We felt comfortable talking to one another about anything, from politics to religion to our pasts to our relationships to our friends and family to our secrets.

I've had some trust issues over the past 7 years, so it's been especially difficult for me to start and establish a genuine, complete friendship with another person. I've been able to make partial friends aplenty and acquaintances, but due to the trust issues and my reluctance in opening up much to another person, it made it very difficult for me to make what one would consider a "best friend". It took a while for me to find fully trust in this person, but once I finally let go, it felt great. It felt nice not being so guarded about opening up on certain things or having to over-analyze things before speaking. However, as of September 18th of 2010, we stopped talking and haven't communicated on any level since that point.

What happened was she developed stronger feelings for me and I felt there might be some potential in that area, but I honestly didn't know how I felt. I knew I loved her as a friend, but with us living so far apart from one another and never having hung out too much while we both lived in Omaha, I didn't feel I could really conclude on the matter until she and I spent some time in person together, to see if our face-to-face chemistry was equivalent to that which we experienced over the phone and online. At the time of this talk, I was one month away from visiting Omaha for a week and a half and I'd return there again two weeks from that point.

Instead of waiting for one month to see if we had potential dating, she set up a date that very afternoon (Monday) for that Wednesday. I was a bit hurt by that move and said I was befuddled by it, because for one to say they have such strong feelings for a person and the same afternoon they talk about waiting a month to see if they have potential dating, only to set up a date that very same day, it made me question if she had any feelings for me on any front. I'd think it'd take longer than a couple hours to get over a person one has strong feelings for.

Our friendship was rocky after that. She went on the date, said she'd wait for me after that and we did spend some quality time together when I was in town that July and August. Not much happened between the two of us on a physical level or anything, but she certainly wanted it to happen. When I finally left in August, I knew deep down that things were not going to end pretty and that they would likely end in the near future. Unfortunately, I was right.

About a month following my second visit in as many months to Omaha, she and I had a very lengthy conversation about where we stood. I mentioned how I felt guilty about making her wait at all for me and said she should be able to go out and date whomever she so chooses, that I didn't know when I'd be moving back to Omaha and I didn't know what was going to occur with regard to my health situation. She responded by repeatedly saying she'd wait for me, saying she didn't want anyone else, etc., etc., etc. In all honesty, I said what I said to try and alter the course of the relationship. I didn't want to date her. After spending time with her in Omaha, I knew that. At the same time, I didn't want to hurt her and took the easy way out by saying what I did about not worrying about me and dating again. Again, she repeatedly kept telling me she'd wait and I was very torn about this. I was flattered that someone would feel so much for me to say this, yet knew deep down that it wasn't going to amount to anything. She and I were just on completely different wavelengths and even though I'm about as laid back as they come, we'd find ways to butt heads. Also, there was too much drama for me, especially with all I had to deal with on the health front. She found ways to twist and turn my words around on me and attempt to guilt me into rushing a decision or giving into her temptation, whatever that happened to be at the moment. After almost every conversation toward the tail-end of our communication, I'd become tired at a certain point and when I get tired, I get quiet. That's how I've always been. I'd tell her this and say I should get to bed and there would then be an awkward silence, followed by her saying, "Why have you been so quiet these past few minutes? What's wrong? Are you mad at me? What did I do?" This was a very regular line of questioning the last month or so of our friendship. I had to explain time and time again that I wasn't mad, that I was just tired. This became too much for me.

A day later, she and I talked for a little while and guess what? She set up another date. A day after she said she'd wait, she set up another date. Once again, while I wasn't so upset that she was dating again, I felt that she was hiding something from me, that she was lying to me about something. I didn't know what it was at the time, but something felt wrong. She then said some things that were none too kind, blamed me for everything that went wrong in the friendship/relationship and I finally let out a big sigh and said, "You know what? I'm done with this. I think it's best if we don't talk for a while, let things settle down and perhaps we can work out a friendship after the dust settles." Of course, she had to send one last nasty text message and a nasty e-mail, blaming me for everything and wishing ill upon me. So, yeah, that was lovely. For a while, I let it get to me. I was constantly questioning my words and actions and contemplating if they were the primary reason things didn't work out between she and I, on any level. Over the past four months, I've slowly been able to rid myself of most guilt which had been instilled in me, but there was still some left over. As is the case most times, it takes two to tango and there's usually fault on both ends of a relationship.

I thought this until just recently. It's kind of funny when one thinks about it. A couple months after we stopped talking, one of her long-time friends e-mailed me. At first, I saw it as just a way for my ex-friend to communicate to me, so I told this friend of her's I really didn't want to partake in that, so I stopped replying to her e-mails. About a month ago, she said she noticed this and said she didn't want to be the middle person for my ex-friend anymore, but was interested in becoming my friend. We've e-mailed one another back-and-forth pretty consistently since then and just recently, she's relayed some news upon me which is very disturbing on one hand, yet leaves me content in an odd way on the other.

I can now honestly say my words and actions were not the reason for things not working between my ex-friend and I. I guess she consistently lied to me for that year, about many things. She was the first person I had trusted in seven years and she told others about secrets of my past. I also found out that during the time she and I were contemplating a relationship, she slept with six different guys in that very span. She even had to get the morning after pill on at least two different occasions, from not being responsible the night before. Two days before we were to have that big talk about what we wanted to do, she slept with a guy. After she set up the date with another guy the same day we were to have a serious talk about us, she slept with him that Wednesday. A couple months before, she had talked about making out with some guy at a bowling alley, staying the night with him and kissing/cuddling with him all night. She was adamant about nothing else occurring. I guess she slept with him too.

She lied to me about numerous other things as well, I've discovered. If I learned about all this when she and I were still talking, I'd be very hurt and upset right now. But, after four months of not talking, all I can do is shake my head and laugh. I can now rid myself of guilt and I now know why I felt something was fishy about her. I knew she wasn't telling me something and now the pieces of the puzzle I couldn't fit into their proper place, I now can.

I'm not even upset about her, how do I put this, being promiscuous. It's her body. She can do with it what she pleases. What does sting a bit is the fact she was so dishonest with me. She knew how long it had taken for me to trust someone again. She even told me that of everyone she has known, I was the most difficult when it came to fully earning her trust. She then claimed that people just trust her and pretty instantly. I now have to laugh at those statements. There was obviously a reason my gut told me not to give in to her on any level and there was a reason why my gut told me something smelled rotten with her story-telling and rationale. I can now move forward without any regrets. I now know I made the right decision in cutting off communication with her and while I did say there would be potential in us attempting to re-establish a friendship, there's no chance that will happen and I have no qualms about that either. It's obvious she was never a genuine friend, she never had genuine feelings for me. She just craved attention on all levels on a constant basis. This is a sign of insecurity on her part and for her children's sake, I sincerely hope she's able to turn things around and put her kid's first in her life, because that's not what she's doing at this point. They're last on the priority ladder, whereas her wants and needs are first, second, third and fourth. My thoughts and prayers are with her for that very reason. As she did with me, I don't wish any ill upon her. I never want to talk to her again, but I really do hope she can find herself, learn to believe in herself and make for a happy household with she and her children.

Some Intelligent People Can Be So Stupid

2011-01-19T15:14:00.003-06:00

I think any and everyone, regardless of their intelligence level, can admit (or they know a witness) that they've said or done something stupid. "Stupid" is a fairly grey-area term and due to that, is pretty subjective. One person's perspective on what constitutes a stupid action may greatly differ from another's interpretation. However, there's someone close to me, whom is very book smart, whom is, in my opinion, being stupid.

First off, this person has had an issue with alcohol. He may not admit this, but it is fairly obvious to outsiders that he's an alcoholic. One drink is never enough. Drinking to the point of intoxication is essential. Without alcohol, an event lacks the fun factor. Monday through Sunday, there will be a time to drink. Even when one knows they shouldn't drink, they'll sneak alcohol to their hideaway whenever possible. This has been this individual's mentality, especially over the past year. I and others have tried talking to him about his problem, but he doesn't listen. He denies he has as problem, denies our observations and reports of his drinking excessively or drinking at all, etc. So, he's yet to reach stage 1 of getting over his problem and that's admitting he has one to begin with.

Since early August, he has battled pneumonia not once, but twice. Actually, there's now debate on whether or not the pneumonia ever fully left his system that first time. Day after day, he's fatigued like he's never been before and will complain about this. He'll take naps when he returns home from work. He'll cough uncontrollably at times. Yet, throughout these past 4-5 months, he's continued to drink alcohol excessively. He can't seem to see the connection between his long-stay with pneumonia and his alcohol binge-drinking. Just last night, he claimed to have been feeling slightly better and instead of being excited about his road to recovery and continuing to do the things he has done in the past few days, he snuck some beer down in his dungeon with him. He had at least two, probably more. So, that's it. At the first sign of an improvement, it's time to drink? The system is healing and it's time to weaken the immune system again?

Again, when he's been called out on his drinking during pneumonia, he's either denied it or said, "Well, I already had it (pneumonia), so drinking didn't have anything to do with it." He said, "My doctor told me to drink lots of liquids." He also said, "My doctor said drinking alcohol with pneumonia is fine so long as I don't binge drink." Like I said, stupid.

Articles have been sent his way pertaining to the dangers of drinking alcohol while battling pneumonia and they have seemed to have an effect on him for up to a week at the very most, but he then regresses back to his previous bad habits, like one week of not drinking much will forever alter the course of the sickness.

The thing is, I'm extremely worried about the guy, but anymore, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for him. I've tried reaching out. Other family members have trying talking to him about matters. Yet, he still can't admit he has a problem. He was hospitalized a year or so ago, which was largely due to his drinking. Again, he made an excuse that it was because of something else.

He actually thinks he's being clever. He thinks that by hiding beer bottles and bottles of Crown Royale in his pants while going downstairs by himself will completely conceal the fact he's drinking alcohol, even when others can hear the clanging of bottles from upstairs. He'll slur his words, make inappropriate jokes, get sloppy with doing the dishes or so much as eating his dinner, yet he still feels he's being sly about his excessive drinking and that the others in the house are clueless about it.

It just amazes me, for how brilliant he is with numbers and in other areas, how stupid he can be about such simplistic concepts as letting the body heal before consuming in drugs (which includes alcohol). I've been ill with the H2N3 influenza virus over the past week and a half. Have I even contemplated about drinking alcohol in that time? No, of course not. When I'm sick at all, regardless if it's a common cold, the flu or pneumonia, I know alcohol weakens the immune system, so if I drink, my condition is apt to worsening or regressing to an earlier point before having the chance to get back to where I was prior to the drinking.

It's up to him anymore. Others have tried to reach out and get him some help, but he has refused, because he's in denial that he even has a problem. I only hope and pray he comes to this realization before it's too late, because if he continues to be stupid like this, he's not going to last much longer.

Forever the Victim - Sarah Palin

2011-01-19T13:27:00.002-06:00

I'll admit it, politically speaking, my beliefs coincide with Sarah Palin's about as much as the GOP loves the ACLU. But, my disdain for Ms. Palin has nothing to do with her politics. We don't agree on much. Oh well. I don't agree with a lot of politicians on a wide range of issues. No, what drives me crazy about Sarah Palin is her seeming obsession about being in front of the camera, of being a top story in any and every news cycle and when things don't go her way, her need to wave the victim card in front of our faces.

Sarah Palin wasn't very well known until she become Republican presidential nominee, John McCain's, running mate for the 2008 election. Before then, she was well-known in Alaska, but not many other areas. There was an initial curiosity in Palin, due to the fact she's a woman and could be the first female vice president in U.S. history and also because not much was known about her. Due to this, there was an initial wave of excitement, both among Republicans and women. But, as it happens often times when we get to know a person, that initial wave of excitement can wear off rather quickly to the point where we lose interest all together and head elsewhere. This is what happened with Palin in the run-up to the 2008 election, as women overwhelmingly approved of her until they got to know her a bit and that approval dropped faster than someone's IQ after watching a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.

This is when the victim mentality first made its presence known nationally in the world of Sarah Palin. As she was a surprise to many in becoming McCain's running mate, most people were curious. Who is this Sarah Palin? From where does she hail? What does she believe? What has she done? Does she hunt wolves while flying around in a helicopter? Etc.? But, of course, as we soon discovered, this questioning wasn't so much based on the fact that we knew little about her and wanted to find out more about a person whom would be one step away from becoming president. No, these questions were asked by the liberal media in an attempt to make Sarah Palin look inexperienced and unqualified for the vice presidency. It was sexist, because the media didn't treat Democratic running mate, Joe Biden, in the same manner.

Not many can forget Sarah Palin's interview with CBS Nightly News anchor, Katie Couric. Following this interview, Palin and many Republicans alike, called Couric's interview "gotcha journalism," that Couric threw "gotcha" questions to the Alaska Governor.

This has been a growing trend in the world of Sarah Palin. When a Democrat used the word "retarded" to describe a person, Palin too offense to this and spoke up on behalf of all mentally handicapped person's to score some political points and paint herself as a victim. This happened again not long ago, when Palin received criticism following the tragic shootings in Arizona. Critics pointed to Palin's violent rhetoric ("up in arms" and "reload") and a site which pictured crosshairs located across the United States map at locations where Democratic nominees had to be taken down, politically speaking, of course. So, again, she used her life-time guaranteed membership victim card and used this to turn the tables back onto the Democrats.

Doesn't anyone get a little tired of this? In the run-up to the election in 2008, the reason Joe Biden didn't receive the questioning that Sarah Palin received is the simple fact Biden has been around Washington for quite a while now. People know him and what he's about. There are many more knowns than unknowns regarding the former Delaware Senator. That wasn't the case with regard to Sarah Palin. Most of the country was unfamiliar with her. There were many more unknowns than knowns, so questions were asked to learn more. The same held true for the two presidential nominees. John McCain has been around for 273 years, while Barack Obama has been around for just a couple. Due to this disparity in age and time in Washington, Obama received more questioning and curiosity than McCain. Does this mean the media was out to get Obama? That they were pro-McCain? No, not at all. If I know a great deal about automobiles, but don't know much about home building, am I going to focus more time on learning something I'm ignorant about (home building) or something I've already mastered (automobiles)? Unless I'm a complete idiot, I'm going to try and expand my knowledge of what I know little about.

As far as Katie Couric's interview went, that was about as "gotcha" as a blind police officer running down an Olympic track star. Let's look back at some of Couric's questioning. She asked Palin to name one, just one Supreme Court case she disagreed with (besides Roe v. Wade). The Alaska Governor said she'd have to get back to Couric. The CBS news anchor asked Ms. Palin about what types of newspapers and/or magazines she read. Palin's response, "All of 'em". These were not difficult questions. Couric did not ask Sarah Palin to recite the first 39 digits of Pi. She did not give Palin a pop quiz on world geography. She simply asked to name ONE, just one Supreme Court case she disagreed with and to name one newspaper or magazine she went to for news and information. These are softball questions Stevie Wonder could handle with ease.

Now, Sarah Palin would have had a better reason to oppose the use of the word "retarded" (the "R" word as it's become known) if she didn't later contradict herself on the matter due to whom the source was. Sure, she laid into the Democrats for a person uttering that word, yet when conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, used the word retarded when referring to Democrats, Sarah Palin was asked about this and she said, "Well, that's different." She said that Limbaugh used the word as satire, when the Democrat whom spouted the word was just using ugly, discriminatory, hate-filled wording. Yeah, that's right. It's okay for someone she may agree with politically to use the R-word, but if someone on the other side uses it, then it's dishonorable to all and he/she should apologize to the world! If she had spoken up about Limbaugh's use of the word, I'd give her credit for standing up for principle, as opposed to going both ways due to politics. She went both ways, so I don't respect her stance on principle, when it's obvious there wasn't a very strong base and foundation on which to stand.

I have the most sympathy for Palin with regard to her being lambasted in the wake of the Arizona shootings. It wasn't the Fox News host's fault. But, again, she had the opportunity to look like the mature adult in the room and she failed worse than if I took a test in Arabic. Instead of taking the high road, Ms. Palin talked about how her detractors will not silence her, that she will not be brought down by those on the left and that the real reason for the killings in Arizona was not of any political persuasion, but because the man was a lunatic. That sounds sane enough, right? She then had to continue talking, though. Her intent was to not make this incident political, yet she said the Arizona shooter is a left-leaning person. Wait, back up a second. So, again, there's a double-standard. It's a disgrace to affiliate the right with this shooting spree in any way, shape or form, because this guy was a bit loony, yet due to one or two books he's said to have read, it's perfectly fine for the right to make the claim that he's a lefty. Also, Ms. Palin, she really wants to drag this out, doesn't she? The victim card hasn't served her well in the past, except for with the die-hard conservative base of the party. She really said that the left will not silence her? A woman whom has her own reality tv show, has her own show on Fox, is able to make a guest appearance on any other show that Fox presents in the course of a day and whom seems to find a way to make a news story of even the most miniscule of events, is saying she will not be silenced? Yeah, and a guy writing a blog is going to receive all the media attention in the world due to this. ::rolls eyes:: I don't think so.

So, what will Palin next suggest? What will she use her lifetime victim card on next? Will it serve her any good? Will it fire up the base? Will it aid her in some feeling sorry enough for her that it'll prompt her to the Republican nomination for president in 2012? Will there be odds and bets made in Vegas with regard to when Palin will use the victim mentality nationally again? What it will entail? My prediction? She will use this victim card in another two weeks, blame Democrats for it, receive a lot of airtime on Fox "News" and receive such a frequency of eye rolls from 74% of the public, that the day this occurs, it will become known as Linda Blair Day.

Blogger's Block

2011-01-19T12:57:00.002-06:00

I don't know what it is, but my writing, or blogging in this case, has hit a brick wall in recent days. It's a tad bit perplexing, because my mind has been overloaded with thoughts, so why this transfers to a lack of ideas when writing I find to be unusual. I mean, sure, I've had writer's block before, where I'll be working on a manuscript and can't seem to find any new ideas or find a certain flow to the book that I had attained before the block made its presence known. But, for blogging? Really? I could blog about anything, from sports to music to politics to a dream I had about a water buffalo scuba diving and getting into a battle with a Great White Shark for underwater supremacy.

Perhaps this has been due to many personal real-life situations that have been on my mind of late, from being ill to thoughts and plans for the future to a dating interest and I don't really care to write about any of that. However, when it comes to current events, jokes and storytelling, I'm currently running on empty.

I'm not even sure why I'm writing this. What is the point of blogging about my problems blogging? I might as well write a book about writer's block. The book would be 214 pages, but only 106 of which would be complete, leaving 108 blank pages and screwing people out of a few dollars. Yeah, it'd be a lovely temporary business solution, but call it a hunch, the majority of my customers wouldn't have much interest in a second book I authored.

I'm hoping that by admitting to my problem it is the first step to finding a cure and fully getting over this issue of mine. Okay, so I've admitted I have a problem. What's the next step? Get help. Alright. Where can I find help for blogger's block? Is there a class I can take for this or a book entitled, "A Dummy's Guide to Defeating Blogger's Block"? I have yet to see such a book, but have also yet to see Uranus and that doesn't dismiss from the fact it exists.

So, I finish this blog right where I began, yet for the time being, I guess I sort of defeated Blogger's Block by writing a blog regarding the fact I'm having issues coming up with ideas to blog about.

Mark Levin Just Doesn't Get It

2011-01-15T10:20:00.003-06:00

I wrote just a few days ago about how the two political parties shouldn't be using the Arizona shooting as a means to score political points. I still stand by that, but another thing I've noticed in recent days that has been irritating me is how it seems everyone whom is said to have potentially influenced the nation (or certain portions of it) to become angry are going the "1st Amendment" or "free speech" route and then re-direct the blame elsewhere.

Now, I don't think we can blame the hate-filled rhetoric of some politicians, radio personalities and talking heads for the crimes instigated in Tucson, Arizona last week. We can't blame those that are not responsible for the acts themselves. We can't scapegoat them for crimes they didn't commit. However, one also can't say these same individuals are not riling up anger in their base, dividing the nation further on a regular basis, being hypocritical and then attempting to play the free speech card when someone acts upon their anger at the government.

This past week, MSNBC host, Chris Matthews stated, "Every time you listen to them, they are furious. Furious at the left. With anger that just builds and builds in their voice and by the time they go to commercial they are just in some rage every night with some ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk and it never changes."

Conservative radio talk show host, Mark Levin responded with these words, "I challenge Chris Matthews, I'll put $100,000 on the table, to find any example where Sarah Palin has promoted the murder of anybody." He then threatened to sue anyone at MSNBC whom makes a specific allegation against him.

Levin is completely missing the point. Does he really think anyone in their right mind would believe that a talk show host of any persuasion would encourage the murder of a person? Chris Matthews wasn't suggesting that and Levin's angry response tells me that perhaps he's feeling a tad guilty himself. Matthews talked about the anger in which Levin and his ilk speak on a consistent basis and with the building anger in Levin's voice and quite possibly in the minds of his listeners, it could result in some unwanted consequences. The problem with Levin and the like is they want to be seen as entertainers. They want to be seen as rock stars whom may write controversial lyrics or authors whom write about touchy subjects or an artist unafraid to portray sex and nudity in an obscure, yet disturbing light. They want to believe that like these other entertainers, whom earn their money by selling their music, paintings, books and other merchandise and are appreciated for their artistic endeavors, these radio and television personalities will be seen in a similar light, which would negate them from any responsibility if someone were to take their anger at government, in which the talking heads harped about for an entire show, and acted upon it. So, like artists attempting to use shock to sell their product, many of these personalities are doing likewise. However, what these personalities seem to forget is the difference between the real and the fantasy world. Some video games may be ultra-violent, but even when one dies in a game, the system will eventually be turned off and the gamer can return to their life. The same is true of some movies, of music, of literature, etc. Many of these mediums require a user to utilize their imagination in certain ways, to transition from reality to fantasy. These radio and television personalities aren't representing the fantasy world. They're representing reality. They're talking about real world issues taking place, so the anger that is presented on a radio talk show and how it can potentially influence a person is far different from anger showcased in a movie or song and how that can potentially influence the same individual. In a violent song, what are the listeners supposed to be angry about? Do the songs specifically single out individuals to harm? Do they continually repeat the same rhetoric, about whom to be angry with, whom to fight, whom to kill or conquer? After hearing these songs, do individuals then get so riled, they run out their front doors and decide to wreak some havoc on the city? This is fantasy. The music is real, but it is derived from a person's imagination. However, when the Mark Levin's of the world or the Sarah Palin's of the world make mention of specific politicians whom we should be angry with and while not encouraging the murder of these very politicians, they use angry and violent rhetoric at their expense, we are talking about real people with real families with real consequences. Gabrielle Giffords is not a make-believe character in a novel or a video game. She is a real person whom was treated as fictional by Sarah Palin and others. This image gives some listeners a false sense of action without consequence, which is very dangerous. While we can't state point blank that Mark Levin is guilty of murder in the first degree due to his angry talking points, we can say that he is providing a very negative influence and should tone things down a bit, so that people don't mistake reality with fantasy and with that, confuse violent rhetoric with violent action.

A Look Back at the Bowl Games (and My Picks)

2011-01-11T23:30:00.003-06:00

Following is a list of the 35 bowl games that were played, in the order that I picked them, from 1 confidence point to 35. I will share my predictions, the results and follow each with a brief analysis.

1 - Central Florida (10-3) over Georgia (6-6) in the Liberty Bowl on Dec. 31, 2010.
Like the scoring would indicate, I'm not the most confident with regard to this pick, unlike many "experts" on ESPN, whom are giving Georgia anywhere from the mid-teens to upper 20's in confidence points. While it's true that Georgia has played much better in recent weeks since star wideout A.J. Green returned to the line-up from suspension, but their defense is still very average and that may be a kind label. Central Florida is not a team to be taken lightly. Their three losses came by a combined 21 points to three bowl teams: North Carolina State (8-4), Kansas State (7-5) and Southern Mississippi (8-4). UCF ranks 24th nationally in points scored (33.8 ppg) and are 12th in points against (18.0 papg). Georgia is likely to score some points, but I like how UCF's offense and defense matches up with Georgia's more than the other way around. It should be close, but I like the Golden Knights to attain their first ever bowl win.

Prediction: Central Florida 24 Georgia 21

Result: Central Florida 10 Georgia 6

Analysis: The score was a bit lower than I had anticipated, but I can't say I was surprised by the results. Going into this game, while Georgia had a poorer record than Central Florida, the non-AQ schools have something extra to play for when they face AQ schools in bowl games. That was no different here. Also, I think many ESPN "experts" underestimated the skill and speed of UCF's defense. They were solid all year and proved that once again against the high-flying Georgia offense, which included stand-out wide receiver, A.J. Green.

2 - Florida International (6-6) over Toledo (8-4) in the Little Caesar's Bowl on Dec. 26, 2010
Toledo may have a bit of a home-field advantage in this one, but in FIU's first bowl game, I look for them to make the most of the opportunity. FIU may have 6 losses, but 4 of them were to non-conference opponents in the major conferences: Rutgers (4-8) 14-19, Texas A&M (9-3) 20-27, Maryland (8-4) 28-42 and Pittsburgh (7-5) 17-44. Toledo, meanwhile, beat Purdue (4-8) 31-20 and got blown out by Arizona (7-5) 2-41. Even though they played in the Sun Belt Conference, which is the weakest in Division I-A, their difficult non-conference I believe prepared FIU more for this game than Toledo's did.

Prediction: Florida International 31 Toledo 28

Result: Florida International 34 Toledo 32

Analysis: Score wise, I was almost right on the money with this pick, but I can't say the game transgressed the way I had thought it would. FIU came from three scores back in the 2nd half and kicked the game-winning field goal as time expired to vault the Golden Panthers to a winning season and their first bowl win in school history.

3 - Illinois (6-6) over Baylor (7-5) in the Texas Bowl on Dec. 29, 2010
I seem to be in the minority on this pick, especially with it being basically a home game for Baylor. However, like with the Central Florida/Georgia match-up, I just like how Illinois' offense and defense matches up with Baylor's defense and offense more than the reverse. Illinois' defense got a little sluggish at times down the stretch, but with the break, I think they'll play better in this game. Speaking of defenses, Baylor ranks 83rd in points allowed (29.8 papg), having given up 150 points in their final three games of the regular season (50.0 p/), losing all three by a combined score of 82 - 150 (average of 27.3 - 50.0 = -22.7). Illinois' spread option attack has slowly improved each week with their freshman quarterback and I look for it to give Baylor's defense fits, a defense not used to facing such an offense, playing in the Big XII. So long as Illinois doesn't turn the ball over, I like for them to win this game.

Prediction: Illinois 38 Baylor 31

Result: Illinois 38 Baylor 14

Analysis: As my low confidence level would suggest, I didn't see this coming. Sure, I picked Illinois, but not by 24 points. As expected, Baylor's defense couldn't stop the spread option look of the Illini and Illinois' defense, which had been roughed up near season's end, rebounded very nicely against Robert Griffin and the Bear's offense.

4 - Navy (9-3) over San Diego State (8-4) in the Poinsettia Bowl on Dec. 23, 2010
San Diego State appears to be the favorite in this one as well, but there's something I've learned through the years - don't bet against Navy in a bowl game. This is one of the most disciplined teams in the league and even though the Aztecs have some explosive players on offense, it's difficult to utilized those weapons when Navy dominates in the ground game with their option attack, chewing up clock like marijuana addicts chew twinkies.

Prediction: Navy 27 San Diego State 21

Result: San Diego State 35 Navy 14

Analysis: If I had a couple games to switch, this would be one of them. Usually, Navy matches up pretty well with teams in bowl games and they use that pesky triple option attack to chew up clock and frustrate opposing offenses (and defenses). But, their defense was no match for the Aztecs' speed on the outside and this cost them dearly.

5 - Northern Illinois (10-3) over Fresno State (8-4) in the Humanitarian Bowl on Dec. 18, 2010
This should be referred to as the Pain-in-the-butt Bowl, as neither team seems to fear taking on major conference schools in their non-conference schedule and more times than not, they compete for 60 minutes. Segueing from that, however, Fresno State has struggled in bowl games in recent years and under Pat Hill, the team has prided itself in taking on the big boys, anytime, anywhere. Playing a MAC school like Northern Illinois may decrease the level of motivation for the Bulldogs, which will give a mental edge to the Huskies. If Fresno is focused, flip a coin on this one, but I'm thinking Northern Illinois will get the upper hand.

Prediction: Northern Illinois 31 Fresno State 24

Result: Northern Illinois 40 Fresno State 17

Analysis: Over the first couple drives, Fresno appeared to be the quicker team and I was immediately wondering if I had made the right pick. But, NIU made adjustments and never looked back. Fresno, which has been notorious for this in recent years, played with a lack of heart and motivation against a non-conference opponent from a non-AQ conference. This was the case yet again.

6 - TCU (12-0) over Wisconsin (11-1) in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
Yet again, I'm going with the underdog. For how many upsets that occurred in last year's bowl season, who can really blame me? Wisconsin is a fine football team, with arguably the best offensive line in all of college football. However, like Boise State and Oklahoma a few years ago, this is TCU's Super Bowl right here. This is their chance to ultimately make it known to the world that they are a legitimate undefeated team and deserved a shot at the national championship. Also, due to last year's sluggish performance against Boise State in TCU's bowl game, especially by quarterback Andy Dalton, I think the Horned Frogs will be especially focused and crisp this time around.

Prediction: TCU 24 Wisconsin 21

Result: TCU 21 Wisconsin 19

Analysis: I was pretty much dead on with this pick, but was nervous at first. It's not every day Wisconsin takes the first play from scrimmage 40 yards and winds up with only a field goal for the drive and with that, only 19 points for the game. Kudos to TCU head coach, Gary Patterson, and the rest of his staff. Early in the game, the Badgers' offensive line appeared to be dominating TCU's defensive line and if that continued, the Horned Frogs likely wouldn't have won the game, as their defense would have been worn down by the 4th, possibly even the 3rd quarter. But Patterson and company made some great adjustments and controlled the game in the second half en route to an unbeaten season.

7 - Stanford (11-1) over Virginia Tech (11-2) in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 3, 2011
I could see this game going either way. Along with Wisconsin, Stanford has been arguably the best one-loss team down the stretch of the regular season. Virginia Tech, after losing their first two games of the season, one to Division I-AA James Madison, they have gone 11-0, going unscathed in ACC play, closing things out with a dominating win over Florida State in the ACC Championship Game. To say that both teams are hot going into this game would be like saying the Chicago Cubs haven't won a World Series for a while. It's kind of a "Duh" comment. But, even though Virginia Tech's young defense has improved as the season has progressed and their offense has been pretty solid, Stanford is definitely the more solid and balanced of the two teams, much more consistent defensively. The two potential X-factors in this game will be: 1) Jim Harbaugh - there have been rumors of his potentially leaving the school after the game to go to Michigan. Will this play as a distraction for his team? 2) Tyrod Taylor - Playing in the Pac-10 Conference, Stanford has not faced many dual-threat quarterbacks, outside of Eugene, Oregon and that resulted in their only loss of the season. Even then, I think Stanford pulls one out en route to a 12-1 campaign.

Prediction: Stanford 31 Virginia Tech 27

Result: Stanford 40 Virginia Tech 12

Analysis: Obviously, Stanford wasn't distracted by the rumors swirling about their head coach, Jim Harbaugh, heading elsewhere at game's end. Virginia Tech kept it close for one half, as they trailed 13-12 going into intermission. But, Stanford came out looking like a completely different team in the second half and made it known that they were #4 for a good reason, perhaps three or four good reasons.

8 - Arizona (7-5) over Oklahoma State (10-2) in the Alamo Bowl on Dec. 29, 2010
I'm just rolling with these underdogs, aren't I? There's no question about it, Oklahoma State has an explosive offense and of these two teams, they've had the better season. Yet, their reward for a 10-2 campaign is a December 29th date against a 7-5 school? Meanwhile, Arizona comes into this game losers of four straight. They also got embarrassed by Nebraska last year in the Holiday Bowl. Down the stretch of the season, Arizona was banged up all over the place. The long break will give the team some much needed rest and with that time to recuperate, I think Arizona comes into this game wanting it more than Oklahoma State. Let's not forget, when Arizona was healthy, they were a top 15 team, even beating then #9 Iowa. Their defense is one of the top two or three in the Pac-10 and Okie State, while dynamic offensively, aren't very good (to be kind) on defense. I like the Wildcats to upset the Cowboys and end the season on a positive note.

Prediction: Arizona 38 Oklahoma State 31

Result: Oklahoma State 36 Arizona 10

Analysis: The score here is a little misleading. Arizona dominated time of possession at nearly a 2 : 1 ratio, led in total yards, etc. But, there was one key category that OSU won and by a hefty margin - turnovers. Arizona beat themselves early and often with the turnover bug and left themselves in too big a hole to ever climb out. It was a very difficult end to the season for Arizona and it'll be interesting to see how they try to rebound next year.

9 - Michigan (7-5) over Mississippi State (8-4) in the Gator Bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
I think the outcome of this game will have a lot to do with distraction and motivation. How distracted will the kids from both teams be with regard to their respective coaches. Michigan's Rich Rodriguez may be out the door following this game and MSU's Dan Mullen has been rumored to have been looking around at another head coaching position. With all that in mind, which team will come more prepared, focused and motivated? In answering those questions, I think it will be Michigan. Freak quarterback, Denard Robinson, has been hampered by nagging injuries all year, but now has a chance to heal up for a month before this game. Mississippi State hasn't faced such a weapon this season and that plays into the favor of the Michigan offense. If the Wolverines' defense can stop Mississippi State on even just half of their possessions, I think Michigan will come out victorious.

Prediction: Michigan 35 Mississippi State 31

Result: Mississippi State 52 Michigan 14

Analysis: I mentioned the San Diego State/Navy game as one I'd like to have switched. This is the other. I thought, going into the game, the Wolverines would have something to play for - Rich Rodriguez's job. Sure, they played pretty well for about a quarter and a half, but their defense did what only their defense can do and allowed 42 consecutive points to close the game.

10 - Notre Dame (7-5) over Miami (Fla.) (7-5) in the Sun Bowl on Dec. 31, 2010
Motivation is the key factor in this game. Miami (Fla.) had grand expectations this season, in Randy Shannon's 3rd year with the school. They were picked by many (most) to win the ACC Conference and possibly contend for a national championship. Following an overtime loss to 7-5 South Florida of the Big East to close out the regular season, head coach Randy Shannon got fired and in comes Temple head coach, Al Golden. Notre Dame, meanwhile, finished the season strong onward to this bowl game. With first year head coach, Brian Kelly, at the helm, the Irish appear to be fired up and headed in the right direction, whereas Miami (Fla.) is headed the opposite way. Miami (Fla.) has the speed and talent to win this game, but then again, they had the speed and talent to win all 12 games and they wound up winning just 7 of those.

Prediction: Notre Dame 27 Miami (Fla.) 24

Result: Notre Dame 33 Miami (Fla.) 17

Analysis: Just as I suspected, Miami (Fla.) was disinterested in this game, as the team was disappointed with their season and distracted with the firing of their head coach, Randy Shannon. Notre Dame, after being excluded from bowl season a year ago, had much more to play for under first year head coach, Brian Kelly, and that showed on the field.

11 - Iowa (7-5) over Missouri (10-2) in the Insight Bowl on Dec. 28, 2010
This game is basically a direct replica of the Arizona/Oklahoma State match-up. Just like in that game, it appears as if the Big XII school, Missouri in this case, got the short end of the deal. Missouri surprised many with their 10-2 season this year, finishing 2nd (behind Nebraska) in the Big XII North. Iowa, on the other hand, was a pre-season Top 10 team and unlike last year, where it seemed every bounce in every close game went their way, just the opposite was true this year, en route to a very disappointing 7-5 record, capped by a loss to Big Ten doormat, Minnesota. Kirk Ferentz always has his team ready to play in the bowl game, though, and he'll want his team to take out their frustration on the Tigers in this one. Iowa has one of the top defenses in the Big Ten and like last year against the option offense of Georgia Tech, they should be able to clamp down on Missouri's offense and score enough points on offense to win.

Prediction: Iowa 27 Missouri 20

Result: Iowa 27 Missouri 24

Analysis: Yeah, I was very close on the final score, but in the 4th quarter, I really thought Missouri had the game won. Iowa had led early and controlled things until early in the 4th quarter, when Mizzou went up 24-20. Iowa's offense looked to be about done and their defense was having trouble getting off the field, when the Hawkeyes picked off a pass thrown by Blaine Gabbert and returned it for what would be a game-winning touchdown. This was one of the lone brights spots for the Big Ten in this bowl season.

12 - North Carolina (7-5) over Tennessee (6-6) in the Music City Bowl on Dec. 30, 2010
Like with all the games to this point, this was a toughy, especially with it being a home game for Tennessee. Both clubs have had a rollercoaster season, but the T.J. Yates to Dwight Jones combination will be too much for the Vols to overcome. I like Carolina to cap off what was an amazingly bumpy and emotional year at 8-5.

Prediction: North Carolina 20 Tennessee 17

Result: North Carolina 30 Tennessee 27 2OT

Analysis: I'm still not certain what happened here. This is one game I was kind of regretting going into bowl season. North Carolina was without a couple of key players and Tennessee had played well down the stretch. But, I got lucky with this one. I have to say, Tennessee has not have much luck this year with the last play of games. They thought they had beaten LSU earlier in the season, when they stopped the Tigers short of the goalline on the last play of the game. But, they were flagged for having too many men on the field and this led to the Tigers getting another chance and cashing in on it. The same occurred in this game. The Vols felt they had won it after T.J. Yates appeared to have spiked the ball with no time remaining. But, after further review, there was one second. Carolina kicked the game-tying field goal as time expired and eventually won in double overtime. This was the craziest finish of the bowl season.

13 - Ohio State (11-1) over Arkansas (10-2) in the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4, 2011
Yeah, I live around Columbus. I better pick the Buckeyes, right? Eh, not really. I could see this one going either way. Let's not forget, against SEC teams in bowl games, Ohio State is a combined 0-9. If they lose this one, I may never pick OSU against an SEC opponent in a bowl game again. But, I think things will be different this time around. The difference is two things: 1) Arkansas' defense and 2) Terrelle Pryor. Arkansas' has an explosive offense, led by quarterback Ryan Mallett and while their defense has improved significantly this season, they still are a fairly average defense. Also, let's not pretend that the SEC has a presence at quarterback like Terrelle Pryor at Ohio State. So long as he doesn't get sloppy with the football, I like for the Buckeyes to earn their first win against a SEC team in a bowl game.

Prediction: Ohio State 31 Arkansas 24

Result: Ohio State 31 Arkansas 26

Analysis: The Buckeyes appeared superior in the first half, but got mighty lucky in the second. Arkansas fought their way back to 31-26 and blocked a Buckeyes' punt late in the 4th quarter. A Razorback pounced on the ball, which set up the offense in great field position. However, when watching the replay, the Razorbacks could easily have scooped the blocked punt up and run it in for what likely would have been a game-winning score. This didn't happen, though, and Ryan Mallett was picked off by the OSU defense, which would be the game-sealer.

14 - Auburn (13-0) over Oregon (12-0) in the National Championship Game on Jan. 10, 2011
Here it is, the big one - the National Title Game. I'll actually be pulling for Oregon. How can one really hate the ducks? That mascot of theirs doing how many push-ups this season? Their speed on the offensive side of the ball? Chip Kelly's attitude? Their 20-some odd uniforms? They're a fun football team. But, like I've said before, I just like how Auburn matches up with Oregon more than vice versa. If Oregon can throw the football consistently, this will be huge for the Ducks, but Darren Thomas wasn't always the most consistent passer this year. Auburn struggles in the secondary, but are fairly solid against the run, which is what Oregon's strength is on offense. This may limit the Ducks' powerful offense just enough. On the other side of the ball, while Oregon is quick on defense, they lack the size to compete with Auburn for a full 60 minutes and by the 4th quarter, Cam Newton and company should wear the defense out. It should be an entertaining affair and I hate to do this, but I'm going with Auburn.

Prediction: Auburn 45 Oregon 35

Result: Auburn 22 Oregon 19

Analysis: I can't say I'm surprised by the final spread, but was very surprised with the final score. Both teams came in averaging 40+ points per game and Oregon averaged nearly 50 a contest. To say the two teams would combine for 41, which is about the average for one team, would have been crazy talk. But, both defenses stepped up and without much success running the ball, Oregon had to play to their weakness and this limited them offensively. Also, both teams missed some golden opportunities to score in the red zone.

15 - Air Force (8-4) over Georgia Tech (6-6) in the Independence Bowl on Dec. 27, 2010
I hope you like the ground game, as both teams bring the option offense to the table. But, it's uncertain if Georgia Tech starting quarterback, Joshua Nesbitt, will play in the game, which leaves them with back-up Tevin Washington and their offense wasn't nearly as efficient with him under center. Air Force, like the other two academies, are one of the most disciplined teams in the league and they should have no problem pounding the ball against the atrocious Yellow Jackets' defense. Georgia Tech will need to outscore the Falcons in order to win this one and I don't see that happening, especially if Washington is the starting quarterback.

Prediction: Air Force 28 Georgia Tech 21

Result: Air Force 14 Georgia Tech 7

Analysis: This may have been the most boring game to watch. I was excited going in. Georgia Tech played awful defense this year, yet with their speed on offense, I thought they would be able to put up some points on Air Force's under-sized defense in what could be a rather high-scoring game. This was about as high-scoring as the NHL All-Star Game.

16 - Troy (7-5) over Ohio (8-4) in the New Orleans Bowl on Dec. 18, 2010
Troy is a solid football program. They're loaded with speed, especially on the offensive side of the ball. They gave one-loss Oklahoma State a run for their money this season, falling 38-41. They also played the runnr-up in the SEC, South Carolina. Ohio, under head coach Frank Solich, had another fine bowl-caliber season in the MAC, but I believe Jerrel Jernigan and the Troy offense will be too much.

Prediction: Troy 42 Ohio 31

Result: Troy 48 Ohio 21

Analysis: Jerrel Jernigan made a bigger name for himself with his performance in this game. From the opening to the final snap, Troy just looked to be the faster team. Even their defense, which had underachieved all season, appeared to have more speed than the Bobcats' offense.

17 - BYU (6-6) over UTEP (6-6) in the New Mexico Bowl on Dec. 18, 2010
After starting the year 1-4, BYU closed the season 5-2, winning 4 of their last 5 (only losses to unbeaten TCU and 10-2 Utah). They scored only 76 points in their first 5 games (15.2 ppg), but have gone on to score 212 points in their final 7 contests (30.3 ppg) and this includes a 3 and 16 point effort against the before-mentioned Horned Frogs and Utes. If one excludes those two games, BYU averaged to score 38.6 points a game in their final 5 wins of the regular season. UTEP had a decent season, but unlike BYU, whom is coming into the game hot, UTEP goes into this game having lost 5 of their last 6. BYU should win this one and finish the season with a winning record.

Prediction: BYU 38 UTEP 24

Result: BYU 52 UTEP 24

Analysis: Watching BYU at the end of the year, I can't believe they started the year 1-5. They dominated UTEP in the first quarter and never looked back, en route to a 7-6 season. Keep your eyes on this team next year!

18 - Miami (OH) (9-4) over Middle Tennessee (6-6) in the GoDaddy.com Bowl on Jan. 6, 2011
Miami (OH) didn't win pretty this year, but as they demonstrated in the MAC Title Game against 10-win Northern Illinois, they just find ways to win, as the won their last 5 games of the regular season. Middle Tennessee won some close games as well, as of their final three victories, two of them came by a single point, one of those against 2-10 Western Kentucky. In the end, I just think Miami (OH) played the tougher schedule and due to that, will be coming into this game more prepared than Middle Tennessee. I like for the Red Hawks to win their 10th game of the season.

Prediction: Miami (OH) 28 Middle Tennessee 17

Result: Miami (OH) 35 Middle Tennessee 21

Analysis: This was a back-and-forth affair for much of the night and while it appeared as if Middle Tennessee held the edge in speed, they also led between the two teams in turnovers. Their quarterback was very careless with the ball, especially in the second half, and this prevented any chance at a comeback.

19 - West Virginia (9-3) over North Carolina State (8-4) in the Champs Sports Bowl on Dec. 28, 2010
This should be an entertaining game. On paper, I really like West Virginia in this one. The only question I have is, will the team be focused after their head coaching change? On the other side of the field, Tom O'Brien is enjoying his best season at N.C. State and would love to close the season out with a 9th win in this bowl game. It should be close, but I just don't see it happening. So long as West Virginia hangs on to the football, which they've had problems with at times this year, they should come out on top. Their defense is quite underrated and should do enough to allow their offense to prevail.

Prediction: West Virginia 27 North Carolina State 24

Result: North Carolina State 23 West Virginia 7

Analysis: I was very disappointed in this game. I thought both teams were very evenly matched and thought West Virginia was the only legitimate top 25 team in the Big East this year. I was wrong on both accounts, as NC State led from the start and stepped on the gas in the second half to close the game.

20 - SMU (7-6) over Army (6-6) in the Armed Forces Bowl on Dec. 30, 2010
This should be quite an interesting match-up, as it showcases the pass-happy June Jones of SMU against Army and the option. If SMU can take control of the football, they should win this one. Army had their best season for a number of years, but they did not beat a team whom is going to a bowl game this season and let's not leave out, there are 35 games (70 teams) this bowl season. SMU has come a long way since Jones took over as head coach and they should continue to head in the right direction with a win in this game.

Prediction: SMU 31 Army 21

Result: Army 16 SMU 14

Analysis: SMU simply beat themselves in this game. They dominated in every statistic but one - turnovers. They drove the ball early and often, but these drives would finish with the ball going to Army and this led the Black Knights to a 16-0 lead before SMU attempted to showcase a rally. They came within two, but that's all the closer they would get.

21 - LSU (10-2) over Texas A&M (9-3) in the Cotton Bowl on Jan. 7, 2011
Texas A&M has been one of the hotter teams in the Big XII over the past month or so and LSU, under Les Miles, continues to find ways to win at game's end. I declined to give LSU much credit during the season due to the lack of dominating wins, but I think I'll finally give in and expect Les Miles to pull another one out of his you know what. LSU is ranked 9th in scoring defense (17.8 ppg), have improved on the offensive side of the ball in the past month of the season and have defeated 6 bowl teams this year. That's enough evidence for me to side with them in what should be a low-scoring affair.

Prediction: LSU 20 Texas A&M 13

Result: LSU 41 Texas A&M 24

Analysis: This was the polar opposite of the National Championship Game between Auburn and Oregon, whom were known for their potent offenses, yet were involved in a lower-scoring affair. Both Texas A&M and LSU succeeded this year, in large part, because of their defenses. Both schools' offenses were anything but consistent. Well, it appears as if the coaches focused their attention on the offensive side of the ball in the practices leading up to this game and that showed. A&M led early, but LSU put forth a nice comeback in the first half, before dominating in the second.

22 - Southern Mississippi (8-4) over Louisville (6-6) in the Beef 'O'Brady's Bowl on Dec. 21, 2010
I heard someone at ESPN give Louisville 18 or so confidence points. Why? They were 2-4 against bowl teams, winning against UConn (8-4) and Syracuse (7-5), while also losing to Cincinnati (4-8) and Oregon State (5-7) to go along with those four bowl teams. The Cardinals have improved on the defensive side of the ball quite a bit this season, but don't score very frequently. On the other side of things, Southern Miss brings a very balanced offense to the table, ranking 31st in passing offense, 21st in rushing offense and 15th in scoring offense. They struggled some on defense this year, but as always, are quick on that side of the ball. It should be a tightly-contested game, but I give the edge to Southern Miss.

Prediction: Southern Mississippi 24 Louisville 20

Result: Louisville 31 Southern Mississippi 28

Analysis: Southern Miss led 14-0 early in the game and overall, appeared to be the better team, but give credit to the Louisville coaching staff. They made the proper adjustments in the second quarter on both offense and defense and were able to take their first lead of the game in the 4th on a field goal to make it 31-28, which would be the final.

23 - Maryland (8-4) over East Carolina (6-6) in the Military Bowl on Dec. 29, 2010
Maryland could run into a motivation problem in this game, as they finished with a strong 8-4 record in the ACC and are stuck playing a 6-6 Conference-USA club in a bowl game, but Maryland wasn't expected to do much this year, so I don't see that happening. On the other side of things, while East Carolina can score some points, they're coming into the game losing 4 of 5 and allowing, this is not a misprint, 274 points in that time (average of 54.8 per game). I don't care how good an offense is. If you give up almost 8 touchdowns per game, you're not going to win very many.

Prediction: Maryland 45 East Carolina 28

Result: Maryland 51 East Carolina 20

Analysis: I realized East Carolina's defense was bad, which is why I predicted the Terrapins to score 45 points against them. But, I didn't realize they were this bad. Maryland scored 51 against the Pirates' defense and it could very well have been more.

24 - South Carolina (9-4) over Florida State (9-4) in the Chic-fil-A Bowl on Dec. 31, 2010
This is an interesting match-up on a number of levels. Firstly, based on their results from this season, it appears as if both teams are headed in the right direction under Steve Spurrier and Jimbo Fisher. Secondly, the two teams, on paper at least, are very similar to one another and seem to match-up very well with each other. On the season, Florida State is 6-4 against bowl-bound teams and South Carolina is 7-4 against such teams. Both teams also rank in the top 40 both offensively and defensively. Lastly, the two clubs were runners-up in their respective conferences, getting pounded in their conference title games, Florida State losing to Virginia Tech 33-44 (wasn't that close) and Carolina getting pounded by Auburn 17-56. So, my first question is, where are the teams' heads? Will both be focused on this bowl game following their horrendous performances in their conference championships? Fortunately for both they and the fans, I think both clubs will be ready to go for this one. Both teams exceeded expectations this season and are on the right track. Based on what I've seen this season, though, I give a bit of an edge to the Gamecocks. The guy to watch out for is standout freshman tailback Marcus Lattimore of South Carolina. Florida State finished the regular season ranked 42nd in rush defense, giving up over 167 yards on the ground per game. Look for Lattimore to get the ball early and often and keep the explosive Florida State offense off the field. As could be seen at times this season (Oklahoma, Virginia Tech), if FSU gets down early, they can have a tendency to press and through this, make mistakes. Look for Carolina to take advantage of this en route to a victory and through that, a 10-win season.

Prediction: South Carolina 27 Florida State 20

Result: Florida State 26 South Carolina 17

Analysis: As we've seen in previous games, South Carolina appeared to be the better team, but they were too careless with the football and Florida State made enough with those turnovers to prevail at game's end.

25 - Clemson (6-6) over South Florida (7-5) in the Meineke Car Care Bowl on Dec. 31, 2010
For most other games that present such a match-up, I've typically gone with the South Florida's, but am treating this game differently. What I mean by that is the fact that South Florida comes into this game winning 4 of their last 6, with those two losses being to Connecticut (8-4) and Pittsburgh (7-5) by a combined 10 points. USF plays a lot of such games. This season, the Bulls have had seven contests that were decided by one possession and finished 4-3 in such games. The main reason for this is their defense. Their offense has sputtered at times, finishing 88th in points scored (23.5 ppg), but their defense often times excelled, ranking them 19th in the country in points allowed (19.5 papg). On the other hand, Clemson comes into this game losing 3 of their last 5 and finishing with a disappointing 6-6 record. Like South Florida, however, the Tigers liked the close games, struggled on offense and dominated on defense. The only difference is I think they're a bit better on both sides of the ball and they showed me more in the games they played, even lost, as it was to better competition. In five of their six losses (exception was 7-29 defeat to South Carolina), they lost by a combined 26 points (average of 5.2). Even when including the blow-out loss to the Gamecocks, Clemson lost the six games by a combined 48 points (average of 8.0). All six losses were to bowl teams, as the Tigers finished 3-6 against such clubs. These six losses came against: Auburn (13-0) by 3 in overtime (should've won that one), Miami (Fla.) (7-5) by 9, North Carolina (7-5) by 5, Boston College (7-5) by 6, Florida State (9-4) by 3 and South Carolina (9-4) by 22. So, their six losses came to teams with a combined record of 52-23 (.693). So, while it's true Clemson finished at 6-6, they had arguably one of the toughest schedules in the country this year. Even with the tough schedule, they finished ranked 9th in the country in scoring defense (17.8 papg). When combining their preparation for this game with their difficult schedule and their stout defense matching up with South Florida's inept offense, I like the Tigers to finish the year with a winning record in what should be a defensive slugfest.

Prediction: Clemson 17 South Florida 10

Result: South Florida 31 Clemson 26

Analysis: As has been the case in recent years, Clemson just didn't seem fired up for their bowl game and South Florida, probably feeling disrespected as a Big East school and under first year head coach Skip Holtz, had more than enough motivation to prevent a Tigers' comeback and come back with a W for the Big East Conference.

26 - Pittsburgh (7-5) over Kentucky (7-5) in the Compass Bowl on Jan. 8, 2011
I initially picked Kentucky in this game, but a lot has happened since then. Firstly, Kentucky's starting quarterback, Mike Hartline, who threw for almost 3,200 yards to go along with 23 touchdowns, will be out for this game due to a suspension. Secondly, this will be Pittsburgh head coach, Dave Wandstedt's, last game. Due to both these factors, I give Pittsburgh a mental and physical advantage going into the game. Also, when looking at the two teams on paper, especially with Hartline out, I have to give the edge to the Panthers as well. Kentucky finished the season 2-5 against bowl teams, while Pitt was 4-5. Also, Kentucky was not known for a staunch defense, finishing 74th in points allowed (28.5 papg) and 31.5 points allowed on average to the seven bowl teams they played. Pitt will pound the ball early and often with the dynamic duo at tailback in Dion Lewis (956 yards and 12 touchdowns) and Ray Graham (832 yards and 8 touchdowns). This is a much better match-up for the Panthers than when the Wildcats have the ball, as Pitt finished the season ranked 22nd in scoring defense (19.8 papg). I look for Pitt to finish the season winning their sixth contest in a span of eight games and Kentucky to finish losing their seventh in ten.

Prediction: Pittsburgh 31 Kentucky 17

Result: Pittsburgh 27 Kentucky 10

Analysis: The game was a defensive slugfest in the first half, but without quarterback Mike Hartline playing for the Wildcats, this absence was truly felt in the second, when Pitt's offense finally started making their presence felt with tailbacks Deon Lewis and Ray Graham leading the way.

27 - Alabama (9-3) over Michigan State (11-1) in the Capital One Bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
I shouldn't completely discount the Spartans' chances in this game, not so much on account of their being as good as their record would indicate (they're not), but for the pure simple fact that Alabama may not be quite as motivated to win this game as the Spartans will be. Let's not forget, Alabama won the national title last year against Texas and had aspirations of going back-to-back. Three losses later and they're playing in the Capital One Bowl, a fine bowl game, but one which is well below where they had hoped to play. But, I like to compare this Michigan State team as a slight downgrade to the Iowa team from a year ago. Last year, Iowa finished the season at 11-2, getting the lucky bounce almost every game, it seemed, and finding a way, through both luck and skill, to win in the last minute. That's Michigan State this year. Their schedule was kind to them, as they had the fortune of not having to play Ohio State (who would have beaten them) and also of having a rather weak non-conference schedule which included: Western Michigan (6-6) of the MAC, Florida Atlantic (4-8) of the Sun Belt, Division I-AA Northern Colorado and Notre Dame (7-5), whom Michigan State beat on a fake field goal in overtime. They also struggled against Northwestern (7-5), Purdue (4-8) and Penn State (7-5), but found ways to win all three games. Their one loss was an embarrassing 6-37 loss to Iowa (7-5). So, while I give kudos to the Spartans for finishing the season with an excellent 11-1 record, I'd be lying if I said I thought they were a genuine 11-win team. Alabama, on the other hand, played a much tougher schedule, beating: Penn State (7-5) by 21, Arkansas (10-2) by 4, Florida (7-5) by 25, Tennessee (6-6) by 31 and Mississippi State (8-4) by 20. They had a couple hiccups along the way, but I think this team is just too solid on both sides of the ball for Michigan State to handle for a full 60 minutes. On the season, the Tide finished 28th in passing offense, 36th in rushing offense and 21st in scoring offense, while their defense finished 5th in scoring defense (14.1 papg). The speed on the defensive side of the ball will be too much for the Spartans and Alabama will leave Florida with their 10th victory of the season.

Prediction: Alabama 24 Michigan State 13

Result: Alabama 49 Michigan State 7

Analysis: There's really no excuse for Michigan State here. They had everything to play for in this game, much more than Alabama did, that's for certain. The Spartans were complaining that they deserved a bowl bid to a BCS game, that they were the only 1-loss team without such an invite. Well, after this thrashing, I don't think there will be any gripes by the men in green of their absence in the five elite bowl games. They may have won 11 games this year, but lost their two games by a combined score of 13-86 (average of 6.5 - 43.0 = -36.5) against teams with a combined 18-8 (.692) record.

28 - Texas Tech (7-5) over Northwestern (7-5) in the TicketCity Bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
I have to give some props to Northwestern. They may win a lot of close games, but they rarely get blown out. They play hard and compete for 60 minutes, until the clock reads zeroes. But, with stud quarterback, Dan Persa, out for this game with injury, I have a difficult time seeing the Wildcats come out of here with a win. Their defense struggled tremendously in the team's final two regular season games, as well, allowing 118 points in those two games (average of 59.0 ppg). No, that's not a typo. They gave up 48 to Illinois and 70 to Wisconsin. Also, the Wildcats didn't play the world's toughest schedule, as they went 1-4 against bowl teams, their lone win being against Iowa (7-5) by 4. Texas Tech didn't fare the best against quality competition either, as they finished 3-4 against bowl competition, but that's still an improvement. They also showed signs of improvement on both sides of the ball in their final two games. With Dan Persa out, the Red Raiders defense should appear improved (whether that will actually be true or not is highly debatable) and unless Northwestern makes some serious changes on defense before this game, Texas Tech's 34th ranked offense (32.1 ppg) should score more than enough points to come out of this game with a win.

Prediction: Texas Tech 31 Northwestern 21

Result: Texas Tech 45 Northwestern 38

Analysis: One has to give credit to Northwestern. They fell behind early and without starting quarterback, Dan Persa, in the lineup due to an injury, they could have folded, but they didn't do that. They fought back to within 7 and even had an opportunity to tie the game in the end, but weren't able to get that done.

29 - Kansas State (7-5) over Syracuse (7-5) in the Pinstripe Bowl on Dec. 30, 2010
Syracuse is a nice story and will have a home-field advantage in this game, but they are coming into this game losing 3 of their last 4 games, are 2-5 against bowl competition and rank 99th in scoring offense (21.0 ppg). They have been solid defensively, as they ranked 13th in scoring defense (18.1 papg), but that increases to 25.1 points against bowl competition, while averaging to score just 14.1 points in those same games. Kansas State makes me nervous sometimes. An ideal example of that was their final regular season game against North Texas, when the Wildcats won by the final score of 49-41. Their defense wasn't great this year, but their offense, led by stud tailback, Daniel Thomas (1,495 rush yards and 16 touchdowns), will be too much for the porous Syracuse offense to overcome.

Prediction: Kansas State 27 Syracuse 17

Result: Syracuse 36 Kansas State 34

Analysis: It's amazing how one bad defense can make a bad offense look good. This was definitely the case here. I had thought that with the extra time off between the final regular season game and the bowl game, Kansas State's defense would have enough time to rest, heal and play with more efficiency, after allowing 41 points to North Texas. That was anything but the case, as the 99th ranked scoring offense, Syracuse, scored 36 points against the hapless Wildcats' defense.

30 - Florida (7-5) over Penn State (7-5) in the Outback Bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
I actually debated this one for a little while initially, as Penn State has improved some after their quarterback switch, but then news broke of Florida head coach, Urban Meyer, retiring after this game. This game now becomes all about the Gators winning one more for their coach. Penn State consistently struggled on offense this year, finishing 52nd in pass offense, 75th in rush offense and 80th in scoring offense (24.6 ppg), while their defense was pretty solid, but not great, ranking 41st (22.6 papg). Also, PSU struggled with bowl competition, going 2-5 against such teams and being outscored by them 131-199 (average of 18.7 - 28.4 = -9.7). Florida had a very difficult schedule, as they faced 10 bowl teams, going 5-5 against such clubs. Even with the tough schedule and the youth on offense, the Gators still managed to finish 48th in scoring offense (29.3 ppg) and 31st in scoring defense (21.1 papg). With their speed, especially on defense, I look for the Gators to dominate Penn State's offensive line and for the offense to do enough to win Urban Meyer's final game.

Prediction: Florida 20 Penn State 10

Result: Florida 37 Penn State 24

Analysis: This looked like it would go down to the wire for a while, but Florida's defense and special teams stepped up to lead head coach Urban Meyer out of Gainesville with a bowl victory.

31 - Hawaii (10-3) over Tulsa (9-3) in the Hawaii Bowl on Dec. 24, 2010
As usual Tulsa goes into this game knowing how to score a lot of points, but not being too knowledgeable on how to stop the opponent. The Golden Hurricane finished the season ranked 10th in scoring offense (39.7 ppg) and 84th in scoring defense (29.9 papg). They were 3-3, beating: Notre Dame (28-27), UTEP (31-28) and Southern Miss (56-50), while losing to: East Carolina (49-51), Oklahoma State (28-65) and SMU (18-21). Like I said, they know how to score points, but not stop the opposition from scoring. On the other sideline, Hawaii showcases what I feel is quite the underrated or perhaps underappreciated is the more appropriate word, team. After losing two of their first three games, to USC and Colorado, they finished the season 10-1, with their sole loss being to Boise State (11-1). Hawaii doesn't have a dominant defense, but they get the job done more times than not, allowing an average of 22.7 points a game, which ranks them 43rd. On the other side of the ball is where they should dominate Tulsa, however. Tulsa's defense couldn't stop a five-man team composed of four-year olds from scoring 28 points against them, let alone the top ranked passing offense and 9th ranked scoring offense in the country, which Hawaii possesses. With the game being at home, I look for Hawaii to win and win fairly handily.

Prediction: Hawaii 56 Tulsa 35

Result: Tulsa 62 Hawaii 35

Analysis: I didn't see this coming. Hawaii rarely ever loses at home and in particular, in a bowl game at home. As was the trend this bowl season, they just turned the ball over far too much and Tulsa, who showcases a high-scoring offense of their own, took full advantage of that.

32 - Nevada (12-1) over Boston College (7-5) in the Hunger Bowl on Jan. 9, 2011
Credit must be given to the Boston College coaching staff and players for finishing the way they did. At one point this season, BC was 2-5 and had to finish, at worst, 4-1 down the stretch in order to attain a potential bowl bid. They won their final five games to finish the season 7-5. However, they were just 2-5 against bowl competition, with those wins being against Clemson (6-6) by 6 and Syracuse (7-5) by 9. The Golden Eagles' defense is solid. They've allowed 24 or fewer points in all but two games this season, ranking 19th in scoring defense (19.5 papg). But, even with that stout defense, BC's offense makes the Carolina Panthers' offense look good. They finished the year ranked 93rd in pass offense, 87th in rush offense and 109th in scoring offense (18.9 ppg). That's right, even when going 7-5 and allowing just 19.5 points a game, BC's offense averaged to score fewer than that. Nevada didn't have the toughest schedule out there, but did finish 3-1 against bowl teams, with their lone loss being a six-point loss to Hawaii (10-3) on the road. Their defense was often overshadowed by their dynamic offense, but did their job, finishing 36th in scoring defense (22.1 papg). But, where Nevada will showcase their talents are on the offensive side of the ball and dual-threat quarterback, Colin Kaepernick. Kaepernick threw for 2,830 yards and 20 touchdowns this season to go along with 1,184 yards and 20 touchdowns on the ground. This led to Nevada ranking 3rd in rush yards and 7th in scoring offense (42.6 ppg). BC may be able to hold Nevada under their average, but their offense won't be able to generate enough points to overtake Kaepernick and the Wolfpack offense.

Prediction: Nevada 31 Boston College 17

Result: Nevada 20 Boston College 13

Analysis: This was a much closer game than I anticipated. Nevada appeared to be the better team all game long, but the BC defense kept them in it, as they have all season Nevada quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, was limited offensively, especially in the run game and this, in turn, limited the Wolfpack offense to a grand extent. However great BC's defense was, though, their lackluster offense couldn't generate enough points to eek out a win.

33 - Nebraska (10-3) over Washington (6-6) in the Holiday Bowl on Dec. 30, 2010
Haven't we already seen this before? Earlier this season, in Seattle, Nebraska dominated the Huskies by the score of 56-21. I see no reason why Nebraska shouldn't win again this time around. The only thing that would worry me if I were a Nebraska fan would be the two teams' focus and motivation. As mentioned, Nebraska beat up on Washington by 35 points earlier this season. Washington quarterback, Jake Locker, had a career worst day, completing just 4 of 20 pass attempts. This will be Locker's final game in college and will want to avenge for his awful performance against the Huskers earlier this season. On the other side of things, will Nebraska feel they were shorted by this bowl game? They were runner-up in the Big XII this year, losing a tightly-contested battle against Oklahoma in the conference championship. But, while I see this game as being closer than the first meeting, Nebraska's defense and running game shall prevail in the end.

Prediction: Nebraska 38 Washington 24

Result: Washington 19 Nebraska 7

Analysis: Well, this is what I feared. I didn't think it'd happen, but it's what I had feared. Nebraska showed no effort, no heart, no determination, nothing. They may have been in San Diego physically, but their minds and hearts were elsewhere. Washington, meanwhile, had everything to play for in an attempt to avenge their loss to Nebraska earlier in the season at home by the final score of 56-21. Quarterback Jake Locker still didn't look sharp at all, but the Huskies' offense did enough to even the season series and finish with a winning record.

34 - Oklahoma (11-2) over Connecticut (8-4) in the Fiesta bowl on Jan. 1, 2011
First, I'd like to congratulate UConn for attaining their first BCS bowl game in school history. Now for the downside. While Oklahoma has struggled in BCS games in recent years and they have seen this kind of pairing before, losing to then Cinderella-story, Boise State, in this same game, I don't see that happening this time around. UConn, under Randy Edsall, excels in the fundamentals of football, but at the end of the day, they just lack the speed to compete for 60 minutes against the Sooners. Oklahoma can't take the pesky Huskies for granted, but if they limit UConn's standout tailback, Jordan Toddman, it will be a long evening for the Huskies, as they finished the season ranked 112th in pass offense. Sooners win and win big.

Prediction: Oklahoma 31 Connecticut 10

Result: Oklahoma 48 Connecticut 20

Analysis: UConn played Oklahoma pretty tough for about 2.5 quarters or so, but as I expected, OU's speed was too much at game's end for UConn to compete with for 60 minutes. It wasn't a great victory for Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops, but it did get him off the BCS snide.

35 - Boise State (11-1) over Utah (10-2) in the Las Vegas Bowl on Dec. 22, 2010
Utah's a good team, but like they showcased against TCU, losing 7-47, they are not an elite football team. Coinciding with that is the fact Boise State is angry and will take that out on their bowl opponent, whomever that was to be. They were a short field goal away from finishing the season unbeaten and going to a BCS bowl game. Quarterback Kellen Moore should have no problem with the Utes defense and the 4th ranked scoring defense in the country (13.6 papg) should be able to limit Utah's offensive output. I like the angry Broncos to win and it shouldn't be close.

Prediction: Boise State 45 Utah 10

Result: Boise State 26 Utah 3

Analysis: Boise's offense looked rusty in the first half, but came to life in the second and put aside any worries that they wouldn't come to play due to their disappointing loss to Nevada to close their regular season.

Record: 24-11

Points Earned: 406 (1 + 2 + 3 +5 + 6 +7 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 21 + 23 + 26 + 27 + 28 + 30 + 32 + 34 + 35)

Points Given Up: 224 (4 + 8 + 9 + 19 + 20 + 22 + 24 + 25 + 29 + 31 + 33)

Total Potential Points: 630

Points Left: 0

Best Potential Score: 406

I Read Women About As Well As I Read Chinese

2011-01-10T14:59:00.002-06:00

No offense to anyone whom speaks Chinese, but I don't know the first thing about how to read or speak the language.

So, given that fact and the comparison I made in the title, one can only imagine how well it is that I read women.

I finally opened up (somewhat) to someone I've had feelings for the past 3 years. Her response was very quick, positive and gave me a very good vibe. When I asked a female friend to interpret certain portions from a woman's perspective, she basically said, "Well, it sounds very good, but women are extremely difficult to read." Ah, even a fellow woman sees that. Very interesting... If some women can't read each other at all, how do they expect men to read them?

Us guys, we're like cavemen. We need the ladies to keep things simple. Just give us the caveman's version of sign language, point to us, smile, put your hand over your heart before extending that hand forward or blow a kiss or make some strange sounds and then come in for a kiss. We'll understand that. Or, if women would be obvious like guys are notorious of, again, we'd understand that. Just by hearing the exact words in a straight-forward manner will get the message across. "I like you" or "I want this dress right here in this catalog for Christmas" or "I really don't want to go to that game," etc. Just let it out, because trust me, most of us males aren't psychic. If a woman laughs and perhaps subtlely flirts, we males may interpret that as someone just being friendly. If a woman subtlely hints at a gift idea by bringing up a sale at JC Penny's the next week, we likely won't get the connection. Like I said, we're a rather simple people. You can make a disgusted face at the thought of going to a sporting event, but until we hear the words, "I don't want to go," we're not going to think you have a problem with it.

So, back to my horrendous woman-reading skills. While I felt pretty good after hearing my long-time crush's response, my friend's interpretation befuddled me. It makes me wonder if my gut feeling here was correct in the slightest bit or if I really am that lost when it comes to reading women. Hmm... Perhaps I should take up learning Chinese. That may be easier.

Now's Not the Time to Score Political Points in Light of the Shooting in Arizona

2011-01-10T11:22:00.002-06:00

Ever since the tragic events that unfolded in Arizona over the weekend, I've heard/read members of both the left and the right attempt to use this incident to put forth their political agenda. Both sides may have some points to make, but can we wait a little while before making them please? This tragedy occurred just two days ago. Many families will forever be scarred because of it. Let's have some sympathy for the families whom suffered the brunt of these despicable acts by the individual whose name I won't mention, as I do not want to make him the celebrity he wanted to become with these killings.

There will be other days where we can debate gun rights vs. gun control. There will be other days when we can debate the killer's true motivations for the murders and if this was a mere aberration or if we have to start worrying about it becoming a trend. There will be other days when we can pick scapegoats on either/both side/s of the aisle in an attempt to dominate a 24-hour news cycle. But now is not the time. Neither is tomorrow. It won't be time next Monday or next Tuesday. It's time to tone down the violent rhetoric and show genuine sympathy and empathy for those most affected by this horrific event.

Plenty of Blame to Go Around For the Eagles' Loss

2011-01-10T10:21:00.002-06:00

It seems that many people love scapegoats, finding that one person to pin the blame on, whether it be in regard to a crime, a traffic accident or a sporting event. Over the past several years, veteran quarterback, Donovan McNabb, has played this role for the Philadelphia Eagles' franchise. While McNabb led the Eagles to many successful regular seasons, several runs to the NFC Championship Game and even one appearance in the Super Bowl, he was not able to lead the Eagles to a championship. Being the face of the franchise, which the quarterback often times is, McNabb was unfairly singled out by many fans as the one to blame for this.

This was the first year without McNabb under center for the Eagles and at the end of the season, a familiar tune made its way into Philly, with the Eagles falling to the Green Bay Packers 16-21 in the first-round of the playoffs on Sunday. Many fans are taking similar action with this failed playoff run as they did when McNabb was the head chief in town and that's pin the blame on one player. Some have singled out quarterback, Michael Vick, while others have pinned the blame on place kicker, David Akers. Having watched the game in its entirety, I can say with no hesitation that the blame can be shared by the offense, defense, special teams and coaching.

First off, let's get something straight here. The Philadelphia Eagles were lucky to just be in the game when they got the ball with under two minutes to go in the 4th quarter, down by 5. The Packers, already up 14-3 at the time, failed to convert a long pass play late in the first half. Wide Receiver, James Jones, dropped a ball that was laid in his hands perfectly by Aaron Rodgers and if Jones had caught the ball, he likely would have taken it to the house for a touchdown and a 21-3 lead going into the half. That would have all but sealed it for the Packers. The Eagles were very fortunate to have only trailed by 5 late in the game.

Okay, but the fact still remains that the Eagles were only down 5 late in the game, so someone has to take the blame, right? Pluralize the word "someone" and that would be correct. We'll start with the quarterback. For 59+ minutes, Michael Vick didn't turn the ball over. For the most part, he protected the ball while running better than he has in the past few games. He didn't throw many bad passes or dangerous passes that could have been intercepted. To that point in the game, he played very efficiently. His completion percentage wasn't the highest it's been all year (55.6%), but he made the most of the completion, as his 20 went for a combined 292 yards (14.6 p/) and his yards per attempt was even solid (8.1 p/). But, as we learn in psychology, the recency effect is rather strong, even stronger than the primacy effect. What people will remember about Vick's game is that last pass - the interception in the end zone. Some are questioning the decision not to spike the ball. Others are questioning the decision to throw the ball to Cooper in the end zone. Others are just questioning the quality of his throw. I think one of these three points is accurate. Vick could have spiked the ball, but with 33 seconds left in the game, at the opponent's 27-yard line, the last thing I'd want to do is waste a down. I'd also like to keep the defense on their heels. If Vick had spiked the ball, while this would have given Philly more time to regroup and run a play in a non-hurried manner, it also would have wasted first down and given the Packers' defense time to get settled and call a play to their liking. I also don't think the decision to throw the ball to Cooper in the end zone was a poor one. It was one-on-one coverage and Cooper had about a 5'' advantage on his defender. Vick's pass was a bad one, however. With Cooper's height advantage, Vick needed to, at worst, throw the ball out of the back of the end zone. If anything, overthrow Cooper. Do not underthrow him. But, for the game, that was Vick's lone mistake. But, of course, it'll be what many Eagles' fans remember.

Onto the next scapegoat, kicker David Akers. In the first half, Akers missed a 41-yard field goal into the wind which would have cut the Packers lead to four at 7-3. He then missed a 34-yard attempt with the wind at his back to start the 4th quarter, which would have trimmed the Packers' lead to 21-13. He did make one field goal toward the end of the first half, which got the Eagles to within eleven at 3-14. The fact is Akers should have made the 34-yard field goal with the wind at his back. His 41-yarder into the wind can be excused, but there's not much excuse for missing the 34-yard attempt. However, the loss can't be solely pinned on him. Even if he made the 34-yarder, the Eagles would still have needed to score a touchdown and a two-point conversion to tie. They scored a touchdown, but failed on the two-point conversion, the score would have been 19-21. The Eagles would then have had a chance to win the game with a field goal at game's end, but that's all moot at this point.

Tight end, Brent Celek, also didn't help matters, when he carelessly stepped out of the back of the end zone, before stepping back in to make the catch on a two-point conversion. That would have trimmed the Packers lead to three at 18-21 and a field goal would have tied it and sent the game to overtime. But, again, this was one play and Celek can't take all the blame for the loss.

The defense only allowed 21 points, which is better than average for the Eagles, yet they didn't make the stops they had to. Rookie tailback, James Starks, whom had just over 100 rushing yards in the 16-game regular season, eclipsed that mark in just this one game against the Eagles. In combination with Starks' fine performance, the Packers couldn't be stopped on 3rd down. This extended drives, took time off the clock, kept the Eagles' offense off the field, which limited their opportunities to score and on top of that, wore down the defense. In the 3rd quarter, right after Michael Vick threw a 24-yard touchdown pass to Jason Avant to cut the Green Bay lead to 10-14, the Eagles' defense allowed the Packers to drive the length of the field to score a touchdown, which put them ahead for good, at 21-10. But, once again, while the defense had a difficult time halting the Packers' long-scoring drives, they did only allow 21 points to Rodgers and company.

So, like the title of this blog suggests, the offense, defense and special teams have to share the blame for this loss. The same too goes for the coaching. The Eagles had a great opportunity early in the game to set a tone on offense. Michael Vick had been getting hit and sacked fairly regularly in recent games. The Eagles thought the Packers would blitz him heavily today. So, why not start the game by running the football with stand-out running back, LeSean McCoy, to go along with some screen passes? If successful, this would prevent the Packers from blitzing so much. It would then give Vick more time to throw the football and he'd be less apt to getting hit in the pocket. This didn't happen, though. On the first play from scrimmage at their own 14-yard line, Vick dropped back to pass and not even 3 seconds later, was hit in the back and sacked. This set up a 2nd and long from their own five, which allowed the Packers' defense to control the tone of the drive. The coaching neglected to utilize LeSean McCoy much in the game. There have been games this season when McCoy has gotten his share of touches, but other times when the coaches have forgotten he was a member of the team. For most of this game, it seemed as if the latter occurred. The play-calling on third and short was very questionable as well. It felt as if Philly's play-calling didn't have Green Bay guessing at all in the game, yet they tried to get cute or tricky on a few occasions and more times than not, this strategy backfired.

So, while it may make fans feel better to point to a single person and fault them for a loss, we can't do that in this game. Michael Vick made one awful pass. David Akers missed two very makeable field goals (one, in particular). Brent Celek was careless on a key play. The defense had issues on third down and in the red zone. Some coaching decisions were very questionable. The offensive line can even share in the blame, as they didn't protect Michael Vick as well as they should have, especially in the first half. This isn't bowling. It's a team game, where eleven players on one side match-up with eleven on the other. All twenty-two players have some responsibility on each given play and with each play, the entirety of the game. Unfortunately for the Eagles, many players and coaches didn't take responsibility for 60 minutes and in the end, it cost them the game.

Sal Paolantonio's Ridiculous Article

2011-01-09T19:20:00.002-06:00

I've noticed this trend all season long with regard to ESPN (and other) analysts when talking about Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback, Michael Vick. It has seemed as if many are waiting for him to fail or possibly even wanting him to fail. This continued with ESPN analyst, Sal Paolantonio's most recent article, titled, "Michael Vick can win, or lose plenty - Beat Packers, comeback continues, stock rises; lose, and questions arise about value" (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=paolantonio_sal&id=5995891).

In the article, Paolantonio writes the following,

"A loss Sunday means the Vick redemption story that captured the nation - and even got the official White House seal of approval - will end where it began, with more questions than answers about Vick's long-term viability as a championship-level franchise quarterback. A loss Sunday, and the dream season dies. And next season, Vick is just another 31-year-old quarterback..."

He adds,

"But Vick knows he and his team cannot get knocked out in the first round. He cannot be one and done -- not after the meltdown against the Vikings raised serious questions about whether he is regressing, beginning to look like he did when he played in Atlanta, failing to read the blitz, turning the ball over too much, taking too many sacks."

So, that's it, is it Sal? Vick, likely the runner-up in this year's MVP race, behind Tom Brady, is "just another 31-year-old quarterback," due to the Eagles' 16-21 loss to Green Bay on Sunday? There are now more questions than answers about the MVP-candidate, Vick? This loss proves Vick is not a championship-level franchise quarterback? He's regressing and looking like he did in Atlanta?

I'm around exaggeration quite frequently. My mother's side of the family should change their last name to "Stretch" or "Exaggerate" or "Divide What We Say By About 7". Your article reminds me of them. So, what, if Tom Brady doesn't lead the 14-2 and top-seeded New England Patriots to a Super Bowl this year, will people start questioning if he's suddenly losing it? I don't think so. Peyton Manning failed to lead the Indianapolis Colts to a first-round home victory over the New York Jets last night. Has Manning lost his winning ways? Is he no longer a championship quarterback? Enough with the exaggeration, Sal. This loss doesn't prove anything. Let's look back at the season, shall we?

What were the expectations for the Philadelphia Eagles this year? They had just traded their quarterback, Donovan McNabb, to inner-division rival, Washington and were going to start the Kevin Kolb-era. Kolb is a very inexperienced quarterback at the NFL-level and with both he and a rather young defense, it was very unlikely that the Eagles would make the playoffs. Fellow NFC East team, Dallas, was a pre-season favorite to represent the conference in the Super Bowl. The Giants were also expected to be competitive. Philly was picked by many to finish 3rd and sometimes even 4th, behind Washington, in the NFC East. So, let's not kid ourselves. Whether or not Michael Vick, whom wasn't expected to emerge as the starting quarterback this year, was the starter, the Eagles were not expected to be anything more than a mediocre 8-8-caliber team (if that). The fact that Vick led the Eagles to a 10-6 record, a NFC East title and a 3-seed in the playoffs, Vick helped the Eagles overachieve this season.

It's true, the Eagles have explosive players on offense: DeSean Jackson, LeSean McCoy, Michael Vick and Jeremy Maclin, among others. However, Philly's offensive line was anything but stellar. This is one reason head coach Andy Reid stuck by Michael Vick after Kevin Kolb recovered from his concussion. With Vick's speed, it gave the Eagles a better chance at making plays when things broke down in the offensive line, which happened pretty regularly. The Eagles' kick coverage team was atrocious for most of the year. Their defense was average, to be kind. They ranked dead last in the NFL in red zone defense, as opposing offenses scored touchdowns 77% of the time.

So, Sal, are you truly trying to state that even with a mediocre line, a defense that allows touchdowns in the red zone almost 4 of every 5 times and a kick coverage team that was notorious for giving the opponent an edge in the field position battle, the Eagles' disappointment in the playoffs is all on Vick's shoulders and with the loss, he may not be a valuable quarterback for the future? If you were a woman, I'd be asking how many children you've given birth to, because I don't believe I've ever seen stretch marks like the ones you presented.

More Vick-Bashing From Analysts

2011-01-06T10:17:00.002-06:00

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio was just the latest to lay claim that Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback, Michael Vick, has cooled off since his hot start and that he's even reverted back to some old habits he had while in Atlanta.

Statistically speaking, it's true that Vick hasn't played quite as well in his past 7 games as he did in his first 6. Over the first six games, Vick had a quarterback rating of 115.0, while it is 89.6 in the past six. That is a significant drop, but 115.0 is a gaudy rating that hardly anyone that doesn't have the name Tom Brady could maintain over the course of a season. If Vick maintained that 89.6 rating, that would still rank him 14th in the NFL out of 31 quarterbacks, still ahead of: Jon Kitna, Kyle Orton, Jay Cutler, Eli Manning, Jason Campbell, Carson Palmer, Kerry Collins, Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Shaun Hill, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford, Chad Henne, Mark Sanchez, Matt Hasselbeck, Brett Favre, Derek Anderson and Jimmy Clausen. He'd also be within a couple points of: David Garrard, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning and Matt Schaub (who leads this group with an overall rating of 92.0). So even if we exclude Vick's unbelievable start this season in his first six games, he'd be a couple points away from being in the top 10 in quarterback rating, among the likes of potential MVP-candidates Drew Brees, Matt Ryan and Peyton Manning. While numerically speaking, there has been a drop-off in Vick's passer efficiency, it's not as large a drop-off as Paolantonio and the like are making it out to be.

Also, let's keep in mind, that while Vick's numbers have been slightly down, this isn't solely on Vick's shoulders. The past six games include contests against: NY Giants, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, NY Giants and Minnesota. New York, Chicago and Minnesota post three of the four top defenses in the NFC, along with Green Bay. Vick fared admirably against the Giants the second go-round and Chicago. He was efficient, but didn't post gaudy numbers against the Giants the first time around and had his worst showing of the year against the Vikings, posting a rating of 74.1. But for the season, having 74.1 as your lowest rating for a game is pretty exceptional. Even the leader in that category, Tom Brady, has had two inferior games, posting rating of 72.5 and 69.5 against the NY Jets and Baltimore Ravens. So, let's not blow things out-of-proportion here. In those six games where Vick suddenly "lost it," according to some, he posted the following quarterback ratings: 83.0 (vs. NY Giants), 94.2 (at Chicago), 103.4 (vs. Houston), 90.2 (at Dallas), 97.6 (at NY Giants) and 74.1 (vs. Minnesota). If taken individually, these ratings would rank Vick: 19th (83.0), 7th (94.2), 2nd (103.4), 14th (90.2), 5th (97.6) and 28th (74.1). So, in these six games, he would have ranked in the top 10 in three of them, the top 5 once and the top half four times, with the only outlier being that 74.1 rating against Minnesota. Excluding that rating, Vick would have a rating of 93.7 in the other five games, which would rank him 7th among all quarterbacks, not far back from where he's ranked overall in the category, which is 4th (100.2).

Also, we have to look at other factors outside of Vick, the quarterback. For starters, the Philadelphia Eagles' offensive line is average, to be kind. One reason many analysts and Eagles' fans thought head coach Andy Reid should start Vick over Kevin Kolb earlier in the season was because of Vick's ability to elude the constant rush of the defense, because of the mediocre offensive line at their disposal. So, when the Eagles faced quick, stout defenses such as the ones the Bears, Giants and Vikings present, their line wasn't able to protect Vick nearly well enough and the Philly quarterback paid dearly for it, both in the game and after the game. Also, the play-calling was rather questionable on offense. Eagles' running back, LeSean McCoy, has been an extremely valuable asset to the Eagles' offense this year. In my opinion, he's the most underrated player on that team, as he's been highly effective in both the running and passing game. However, Andy Reid and company have not been consistent in handing the ball off to McCoy and against the solid defense they've faced in four of the last six games, that has cost the Eagles on the scoreboard and Vick physical well-being. Without the threat of a run, the Giants, Bears and Vikings were very aggressive on defense, blitzed Vick for 60 minutes and disrupted the offense's timing and rhythm. If the ball had gone to McCoy more frequently and he was able to do what he typically does and be productive running the football, the before-mentioned defenses likely would have not been so aggressive and that would have given Vick more time in the pocket to find an open receiver and in turn, keep the defenses off-balance. The Eagles have arguably the fastest offense in the NFL and the most explosive one at that, but I don't care how quick one's skill-position players are if a coach doesn't mix the play-calling enough to be even somewhat unpredictable. That predictability in play-calling has hindered the Eagles more than once this year and they'll need to alter that if they want to move beyond the first round of the playoffs. Like the Giants, Bears and Vikings, Philly's first-round opponent, the Green Bay Packers, have a very quick, aggressive defense, that doesn't shy away from putting pressure (and hits) on the quarterback. This will be their gameplan going into Sunday and unless Reid and company try to slow down that blitz with screens and hand-offs to LeSean McCoy, the Eagles may be one-and-done. However, if Reid is able to mix things up well enough, the Eagles could go as far as the Super Bowl. At this point, the play-calling has been so inconsistent, it's difficult for me to make a prediction on the matter.

But, enough with the bashing of the Eagles' quarterback. As I illustrated above, while his numbers in the past six games have not been as impressive as his first six, they're still very solid numbers and a vast improvement upon his numbers in Atlanta. Also, while the quarterback typically takes the blame when things aren't going well, more blame has to go around than to just be centered on Vick. One needs to look no further than the offensive line and the coaching staff's play-calling to see that. If I was Reid, I'd get the ball to McCoy early and often against Green Bay's defense, through both screens and rushes. If/When that succeeds, then open up the offense a little bit and allow Vick time to set up, go through his progressions and hit DeSean Jackson or Jeremy Maclin deep. If they're able to do this, Philly should win at home and move on to face the Chicago Bears at Solider Field.

Not Understanding Some Coaching Changes

2011-01-06T08:33:00.002-06:00

For the time being, I'm talking about two in particular - Maryland and Michigan.

Maryland fired their head coach, the 2010 ACC Coach of the Year, Ralph Friedgen and then hired Connecticut head coach, Randy Edsall. Randy Edsall is a fine coach, as he has brought what was a Division I-AA school in UConn to a Big East Championship and BCS berth in Division I-A in just 8 years. However, Friedgen was the 3rd winningest coach in Terrapins' history and brought what was a doormat of a program to an annually competitive team in the ACC, making bowl games in 7 of his 10 years there and finishing this season at 9-4 after their dominant bowl victory over East Carolina. They may finish the season ranked in the top 25, just a year after they finished 2-10. That's a 6.5 game improvement in one year. Yet, Friedgen was fired. The main reason for this I heard was because attendance is down and there needed to be a new spark to garner locals' interest. Former Texas Tech head coach, Mike Leach, was brought into the discussion and if the reason for Friedgen's firing was accurate, it'd make some sense, as Leach is known for a high-flying offense, creating excitement with the proficient passing game and gaudy point totals. But, instead of making the somewhat sensical move, the Terps hired Edsall. To me, this move contradicts the initial rationale for firing Friedgen. Again, Edsall is a very solid coach, but he's about fundamentals. He isn't one to bring an extra bit of excitement to the game like Mike Leach. His play-calling is actually quite a bit duller than Friedgen's. Friedgen has always been about a balanced approach offensively, as his Maryland clubs have illustrated. Have you seen UConn play in recent years? Their offensive strategy has been, more or less, not to lose. While they typically have fine running backs at the school, like Donald Brown and Jordan Toddman, the UConn passing game has been atrocious. They're typically ranked in the top 35 in rush offense, but in the bottom 20 in pass offense. This lack of balance has gotten them into trouble at times, as it's made it more difficult for them to come back from two or more scores down. They typically don't make a lot of mistakes, whether that be with regard to penalties, turnovers or the fundamentals of football, but still, if the heads at Maryland were truly wanting to draw a larger audience for their football games, this move makes little to no sense.

Another move that has me shaking my head is Michigan's firing of Rich Rodriguez. No, he has not turned heads with his success in his three years at Michigan, but again, the philosophy, the strategy of those in charge at the University has left me a bit befuddled. Remember why Michigan initially hired Rodriguez? Because their offense had become rather vanilla under Lloyd Carr and they wanted to change with the times, focus on obtaining more speed to coalesce with a spread/spread option offense. In order to do this, Rodriguez needed to recruit players to fit his kind of system, which was a 180 from what the team had run previously. This led to problems, especially in his first year with the school. In order to run this offense, you need a rather fleet-footed quarterback, which the Wolverines lacked in Rodriguez's first year. This led to a 3-9 season. He found a better quarterback to fit his system in year 2 with Tate Forcier, but with him still attempting to find the right guys for his system, the team was young, inexperienced and still a year or two away from genuinely illustrating what they could do under the coach's guidance. This led to a 5-7 campaign, a two-game improvement from the previous year, but still not matching Michigan standards. This most recent season, we saw the emergence of Sophomore quarterback sensation, Denard Robinson. The offense improved dramatically, especially when comparing it to the 3-9 squad from two years ago, but the defense, starting as many as 8 freshman at the time, struggled immensely. But, at the end of the season, Michigan finished with a winning record of 7-6 following their bowl loss to Mississippi State. In terms of victories, this was again an improvement of two over the previous year. Next year would be Rodriguez's first at Michigan when he'd be able to work with a quarterback for a second consecutive season and it'd be the first year where he'd have most of his recruits playing for him, rather than a majority or a heavy mixture of Lloyd Carr recruits. Next year would be the year where we would ultimately see what Rich Rodriguez could or couldn't do at Michigan. Instead, he gets fired and this will likely force the Wolverines to lose another 2-3 years before they can become competitive in the Big Ten. Like I said, Rodriguez's offense was a polar opposite from what the team had run under Lloyd Carr. Chances are U of M won't be hiring a coach with a similar offensive philosophy as Rodriguez, so he'll have to try and do what Rodriguez did in the first year or two, use Rodriguez's players to play in an offensive system that doesn't fit their strengths. Also, due to this probably change in offensive philosophy, like with what happened to Rodriguez in his first year, you're likely to see many Wolverines' players transfer to a team where they will likely be better utilized. This may also include Denard Robinson. Unless a coach comes to the team with the intent of running a similar-style offense, Robinson likely won't be his type of quarterback and with the amazing talent the sophomore phenom has, he could very well transfer. Nebraska isn't too fond of Taylor Martinez anymore. I have a feeling Huskers' fans and fans of many other teams would be thrilled at the prospect of attaining Robinson. Look, I know there's a sense of urgency to win in college football and this is especially true at a school like Michigan, which has a grand history of success at the sport. However, like with what has happened at Notre Dame in recent years with their many coaching changes, it's nearly impossible to build a consistently successful program when you're constantly undergoing such drastic changes ever 2-4 years. The heads at Michigan had to know it'd take some growing pains in order for Rodriguez to hopefully make things work at the University. They couldn't have felt otherwise. It's not like Mike Leach can go coach at one of the academies, transition them from a triple option attack to a west coast-type offense and expect it to be a smooth ride as of year 1 or 2. There's a fine line between optimism and naivete and I think Michigan may have confused the two.

Boredom Reigns Supreme, as this survey should illustrate...

2011-01-05T14:07:00.002-06:00

This is seriously going to get personal, you ready?

About as ready as George W. Bush making a speech.

If you were caught cheating, would you fess up?

If I was caught cheating? No, I would deny it and say, as I was cheating, "Honey, it's not what it looks like! I swear! Have I ever lied to you?"

The last time you felt honestly broken?

Back in 'Nam.

Are you craving something?

Why yes... Are you going to ask what or is this just a yes/no-type of question?

If you could have one thing right now what would it be?

Donald Trump's hair.

Would you rather have ten kids, or none?

Those are my only two options? Okay, I'll say 2.

What do you hear right now?

Voices. One is speaking to me in Spanish, with a gravely baritone voice and the other is speaking to me in sign language.

Is your bed against more than one of your walls?

Yes. It's against all four.

What’s on your mind right now?

Why am I filling out this survey?

Are you there for your friends?

I'm always there in spirit. Physically, that's another matter entirely. I am working on cloning myself though, so that should help.

Last person to see you cry?

John Boehner. Wait, no, I saw him cry.

What do you do when you get nervous?

I make like The Dude, put on my shades and robe, go to the grocery store, drink some milk and write a $0.69 check while listening to George H.W. Bush speak on the television.

Be honest, do you like people in general?

I like portions of people in general. I like most people to a certain extent. I... Yeah, sure, I generally like people.

How old do you think you will be when you finally have kids?

72ish.

Does anyone completely understand you?

Only Jesus.

Do you have a reason to smile right now?

Yes, to make people wonder, "What is that guy thinking about?" or "What drug(s) is he taking?"

Has anyone told you they don’t ever wanna lose you?

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, I may be able to play a quarter slot, but just to be safe, I'll stick with the penny slots.

Would you be happier if life had a rewind button?

If I could quickly fast-forward after the temporary rewind, then yes. Otherwise, no thanks.

Do you tell your mum or dad everything?

I tell them only what they need to know, which isn't a whole lot.

Does it matter to you if your boyfriend or girlfriend smokes?

If my girlfriend smokes? Yes. If my boyfriend smokes? Eh, not so much.

Are you going to get hurt anytime soon by someone?

I have that boxing match on Friday, so yeah, probably.

This time last year, can you remember who you liked?

What? As in a crush, a rock band, a random person I saw from across the room, a friend-in-the-making? I'll need some more specificity before answering that question.

Do you think more about the past, present, or future?

I think about the future, since it hasn't happened yet and I therefore have no idea why I'm pondering about what has yet to occur.

How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

Approximately 8 hours 3 minutes and 14 seconds with a margin of error at +/- 2 hours 47 minutes 13 seconds.

Are you easy to get along with?

When it's not that time of month, yes.

Do you hate the last girl you had a conversation with?

Hate is a pretty strong word...

What was the last drink that you put in your mouth?

In my mouth? I'm glad you added that prepositional phrase to the sentence. For a moment there, when being asked what my last drink was, I had to deeply contemplate the question and think back to the recent time when I took a drink with my elbow. But, for the record, H2O.

What size bed do you have?

A bed that can easily fit 3 or 4, not that I'd know or anything.

Do you start the water before you get in the shower or when you get in?

I leave it off and pretend to shower without it.

Do you like the rain?

So long as it's nice enough outside that I can skip, gallop and streak in it.

Do you think someone is thinking about you right now?

Right this second? No. After a person reads this survey, yes.

Have you ever done something you told yourself you wouldn’t do?

No, I'm a perfect little angel.

Would people refer to you as a goodie goodie, bad news, or neither?

Probably a bad news goodie goodie.

Who were you last in the car with, besides family?

Your girlfriend.

What’s the last movie you saw in theaters and with who?

"Porky's 3-D" with Paul Reubens.

Have you ever kissed someone who had a boyfriend/girlfriend?

Yes, both.

Have you ever been hurt by someone you never thought would hurt you?

Sister Mary. She has a wicked uppercut.

Your parents are out of town. Would you throw a massive party?

Out-of-town? In town? Downtown? A town by the name of Town? Doesn't matter. There will be a massive party.

Do you regret a past relationship?

No, but I regret a future one.

Would you rather spend a Friday night at a concert or a crazy party?

I'd prefer to go to the concert and then party, unless the concert was Nickelback or Limp Bizket. In that case, I'd just go to the party.

Do you tend to fall for the same type of person over and over?

I don't fall. I'm as graceful as Rush Limbaugh with brand new pink slippers in an ice skating rink.

Have you made a joke about somebody that made them cry?

Yeah, it was a pretty tasteless joke. I apologized profusely and then handed them some Prozac.

Do you care too much about your appearance?

I care as much about my appearance as the Chicago Cubs do about winning a World Series.

Are you a jealous person?

Besides being jealous of Dick Cheney's amiability, Screech Powers' way with women and David Hasselhoff's dancing, no, I'm not a jealous person.

Have you bought any clothing items in the last week?

Just that fuchsia spandex suit.

Do you miss anyone?

Yes. Will that answer do or do you want specifics?

Last person who made you cry?

Not sure yet, as I'm not dead. I just hope it's not Mike Tyson, because that would hurt, both my ear and other areas.

Does your ex piss you off?

Which one?

What are you doing tomorrow?

Giving a how-to speech to Ron Franklin on how to sweet talk a woman without being sexist.

Are you the type of person who has a new boyfriend/girlfriend every week?

Yeah. I switch off too. The first and third weeks of every month, I have a new boyfriend and the second and fourth weeks, I have a new girlfriend. That's how I roll.

Is there anyone you want to come see you?

Yes. That would be lovely. You didn't ask who though, so I will refrain from providing you that information.

Have you ever been cheated on?

I believe so, but I didn't see it occur, so I can't be 100% positive, unlike someone whom discovers that they have herpes. Valtrex, anyone?

Ever given your all to someone who walked away?

All is a pretty strong word. I'd say I gave about 97.23%, but not the full 100% or 110% as some coaches like to say.

Do you like cotton candy?

It's aiiight.

Who was the last person you had a serious conversation with?

Sacha Baron Cohen.

Are you planning to get knocked up or knock someone up by age 17?

Wow... Make me feel old, why don't you? But, yes, I plan on being knocked up 12 years ago.

Do you have siblings?

One that I'm cognizant of, but there may be others as my father has told me time and again.

Have you ever fallen asleep on someone?

Literally on them or while talking to them?

How has the past week been for you?

Moderately decent and for you?

Do you have a friend of the opposite sex you can talk to?

Umm.. yes. We are getting mighty personal, aren't we? Talking to a friend of the opposite sex? Don't go there!

What’s on your mind right now?

Will this survey ever end? That and the Muppets.

What were you doing at midnight last night?

Telling a pastor "That's what she said."

What is your current mood?

Fah-bu-lous.

Who was the first person you talked to today?

Myself.

Will this week be a good one?

After checking my Tarot cards, my horoscope and talking with Latoya Jackson and Cleo, I'd have to conclude that yes, it is going to be a good week for me.

Anything happen to you within the past month that made you really happy?

Nitrous oxide.

Who were you with last night?

Just my two four-legged, blue-eyed, white b**ches, Tara and Tasha.

Did you talk to someone until you fell asleep last night?

Your mom.

Next time you will kiss someone?

March 13th of 2011 at 9:42:19 pm Central Standard Time.

Who should start the kiss, the girl or the boy?

They should both feel the electricity and simultaneously converge toward one another until their lips meet.

Do you have any plans for the weekend?

Getting into a political debate at a bar, running with scissors down a highway, coming down with a case of Tourette's in a library and listening to The Weather Channel Soundtrack as I make my move on a date.

Swimming in Shallow Water, Aren't We?

2011-01-03T11:18:00.007-06:00

Over the holidays, my brother and sister-in-law flew into town to spend a few days with the family. At a pub in the afternoon, we sat down to eat and were approached with a question from my brother, as he asked, "Do you think God has a reason for making people ugly?"

I responded with, "Well, it's all rather subjective, don't you think?"

He fired back with, "Yeah, I guess so. But, I mean, people that most everyone would consider ugly, do you think God has a reason for making them so?"

I kind of stared in disbelief and said, "Well, you point to any one person you may find unattractive and while the vast majority may agree with you, I can guarantee you that someone will find them appealing."

My mother talked about Fred Astaire and how he wasn't kind to the eyes, but was extremely talented and his talent is what made him attractive.

I talked about Larry Bird and Kid Rock and how I know women who find them good looking and he responded with, "Well, that's because they're famous."

I kind of rolled my eyes and decided not to discuss the matter any further, but it got me to thinking, why are some people so obsessed with appearance? How shallow are we as a people?

Now, I, for one, am not a big believer in a higher power many refer to as God, but suppose for a moment that he/she/it does exist and let's presume he/she/it is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, as many believers suggest, what purpose would there be for him/her/it to intentionally create individuals whom are not appealing to the majority? What lessons would be learned from that? Also, if there is this higher power and the sacred books are accurate, what difference does one's physical appearance make in this life, as it would be irrelevant in the next? It befuddles me when extremely religious individuals are so hung up on appearance, that they resort to these shallow observations and judgments on people they don't know. To say that's hypocritical would be like saying Rush Limbaugh believes in pain pills.

I think what irked me the most about the question and the discussion was the fact my brother and so many other people, for that matter, think of the concept known as beauty as something that can instantly be seen with one's eyes, a first-impression of external beauty. But, how can one be so simplistic with their perception of beauty? Like I said initially, isn't beauty rather subjective? Just because the majority see a person as attractive, that does not mean everyone agrees on the matter. My brother brought up his theory that women find Kid Rock and Larry Bird attractive, because they're famous, but what about the reverse angle? If people find celebrities attractive, why then do many people not find celebrities attractive, even those that make the top 40 sexiest males/females' lists? I know some men whom don't find Angelina Jolie attractive and know some women (yes, I'm talking about heterosexuals here) whom don't think Brad Pitt is very good looking. So, I see that "They're-famous-so-people-find-they-attractive" theory to be rather moot.

What I think my brother and many others miss is that beauty is a complex creature, which can be seen from many different perspectives and which can be interpreted an infinite number of ways. Just like no two people may see a certain painting or read a particular poem in the same light, no two people will have the same idea of what constitutes a person as beautiful.

As I mentioned, it seems that many see beauty as that which can immediately be seen with the eyes. I agree, this is a type of beauty, but not the only and not the most genuine. It's a very artificial beauty. I mean, how do we consistently measure it, since we all have different sets of eyes and thoughts? Do we grade based on how the person looks when first waking in the morning? If they possess a natural beauty? Do we grade them before, during and after getting ready and applying make-up and such? Do we grade them before, during or after procedures such as liposuction, plastic surgery and botox? With all that humans do to cover their actual appearance, how then are we to judge based on what we initially see with our eyes, when what we see initially may be a far cry from what we see when waking in the morning?

It's human nature to find people attractive or perhaps unattractive, but there's no universality on physical attraction. We all have different tastes and it isn't a black-and-white issue. There are many shades of gray. But, while our eyes and other areas may be pleased when first seeing a person, or the artificial person they present themselves as, we won't have a genuine picture of their overall beauty until we speak to and get to know them. I can't count how many times I've seen someone whom I found to be attractive initially, but once they opened their mouth, that attraction faded faster than the New York Giants a couple weeks ago against the Philadelphia Eagles. There have also been times when I may not have found a person physically appealing at first, but over time, through getting to know them, I have found them to be beautiful.

The thing is there are different types of beauty, different avenues to which we find a person attractive. Kid Rock isn't found to be attractive because of his being famous. His music connects with some people. Fred Astaire was a great dancer. A person's talent, their communicating and relating to people, can often times be appealing to many.

There's someone right now that I find to be extremely beautiful, but this isn't because of her appearance. I find her to be physically appealing, sure, but the reason for her being so attractive to me is because I actually know and care about her. If I didn't, she wouldn't be nearly as beautiful to me. Beauty is a complex, subjective and many-layered concept and I wish more people would be able to see it as such, before rushing to judgments on people they know absolutely nothing about.

Happy New Year!

2011-01-03T11:07:00.002-06:00

I'm finally back in town and ready to blog again. I hope everyone (well, most everyone) had a pleasant Christmas/Hannakah/Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice/New Year's/Etc.

Mine went alright. I am glad that the holidays are over, though. That's for certain! To say the past week plus was exhausting would be like saying Michael Moore is a liberal.

New Year's Eve was a tad depressing, but I'm over it. It's quite something to watch all those people celebrating at Times Square in New York as the clock strikes midnight and to look to your side and just see your two dogs. They're great dogs, sure, but it'd be nice to have someone to share the New Year with. But, that depressing evening is over and it's onto 2011.

As I mentioned on my Facebook status on New Year's Eve, I have deeply contemplated about my resolutions for the new year and came up with the following: To start a new work-out routine called Snuggies and Shake Weights, to go pro with his mime stand-up comedy routine, to become a doctor without going back to school and to star in several beer commercials where he will be known as "The Most Well Hung Man in the World."

We'll see how all that works out. Best of luck to everyone in achieving their goals for the new year and hopefully 2011 is better than 2010! Cheers!

Enough With The Sexist Commentary Regarding The UConn Women's Basketball Team

2010-12-23T11:45:00.001-06:00

On multiple occasions since the UConn women's basketball team broke the all-time Division I-A record for consecutive wins at 89, breaking the UCLA men team's record of 88, I've heard/read several people compare the two streaks and contend that there is really nothing to compare. On television, that's usually where the commentary stops, but I read some posts in the ESPN message boards last night and as usual, it appears as if people don't fear reaction to the written word as much as they do the spoken word.

I read such comments as: "Come on. If my kid were to break Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak record, would I claim that my kid is as good or better than DiMaggio? Same thing with this. Just because the UConn women's team broke the streak, that doesn't mean they're as good or better than UCLA. If anyone says that, they don't know anything about basketball."

Someone else said, "UConn didn't break UCLA's streak. They're completely different sports. They own the women's record and UCLA owns the men's record. It's as simple as that."

Another said, "What, do you think UConn could beat UCLA? How about if we see the UConn women's team play the men's team and see what happens. Let's see the UConn women's team beat men's teams 89 straight times."

There was more, "The talent isn't even comparable. Women don't like basketball. They like tennis and volleyball, but not basketball. That's a man's game. So, if a coach can recruit well, they can dominate."

I read a few other rotten comments, but those are the ones that stood out for me.

Why? Why must we do this? I don't think many UConn fans are claiming that their women's team could beat UCLA's men's team from way back. But, that doesn't make the streak unimpressive or any less impressive. Back in Wooden's day, there were only a few juggernauts and a bunch of cupcakes, very similar to women's basketball today. How can we dismiss a team, regardless of gender, who won 89 consecutive games? 89? Not 19, not 29, not even 79, but 89 and counting? That's amazing! Think of the discipline and the focus necessary for a team to win 89 straight. Every team, regardless of the sport, has their off games. Nobody is on their game every single time out. Due to this, it's nearly impossible to do what the UConn women's team did (and the UCLA men's team). Let's not compare the two schools in terms of superiority in talent. Let's appreciate the streaks, both of them, for what they are, and cut it out with the sexist commentary. The more of these statements I hear/read, the more credence I have to lend UConn head coach, Geno Auriemma. Perhaps he was spot on with his comments preceding the record-breaking game, unfortunately.

Ralph Friedgen Should Not Have Been Fired

2010-12-21T16:43:00.003-06:00

In my opinion, Maryland's move to fire head coach Ralph Friedgen was beyond ridiculous. Let's get a few things straight here. From 1987-2000, Maryland was a combined 55-88 (.385), with two winning seasons and one bowl bid. That's it. In the 14 seasons leading up to the Friedgen-era, the Maryland Terrapins had only 2 winning seasons (14.3%) and 1 bowl bid (7.1%). Under Ralph Friedgen, the 2010 ACC Coach of the Year, the Terps are 74-49 (.602) with 6 winning seasons (60.0%) and 7 bowl berths (70.0%). So, yeah, it makes perfect sense to fire the 3rd winningest coach in school history, the 2010 ACC Coach of the Year and a guy whom improved his club by 6 games from 2009 to 2010 (from 2-10 to 8-4). Yeah, perfect sense indeed. Maryland better hope they have a good coach lined up, or else this move is going to look about as ridiculous as Eli Manning at a press conference without any reporters.

How I Love Those Whom Are Holier Than Thou

2010-12-21T14:30:00.003-06:00

Ever know a person whom likes to lecture you with regard to "morals"? You know the person... If you drink a bit too much one night, have a fling, wear something that may be seen as provocative, admit to enjoying a film or song which may be controversial, like to streak around churches on Sunday, etc. and you get that look in return. Yeah, you know what look I'm talking (writing) about. That look that says, "How could you?" or "I'm disappointed in you." or "You're really not who I thought you were." or "I would never do something like that."

The worst part is the lecture. Many of these people have made the same mistakes before, if one wants to refer to them as mistakes, yet they'll lecture as if they're el perfecto. If one is there as a friend, to have a civil discussion with a person they're perhaps worried about, okay, that's fine. But, I honestly don't think anyone has the right to lecture morals to someone else, because you know what? We've all screwed up a time or two or fifty-six, many of the mistakes being very similar to that of others. So, since I've been drunk before, honestly, why should I be lecturing a friend on why they shouldn't have gotten drunk on a certain night and act as if I've never done such a thing? I'm not perfect. You're not perfect. Some random person named Jill Alexandria Furlough is not perfect. No one is perfect. So, it's time we all get off our high horses, relax, accept people's flaws, take a shot and follow that up by streaking around a church. Cheers!