All Things and Everything

Weekend Video: NBC's The Marriage Ref

2010-03-05T15:21:00.000-08:00

Boy, I hope nobody loses any respect for me on this one, but I really like this show.

My wife and I watched this show last night, and the episode we saw wasn't exactly ha-ha funny, but it was interesting funny. We saw there was another episode on Sunday, so we watched that one, too (By the way, On-Demand is one of the best things ever), and this clip is from that one. It was the funniest part of either episode.

I hope this show gets an audience, because what I like about it isn't the sometimes-obvious jokes, and while I enjoy the exchanges between the celebrity panel, that is isn't what makes me like the show either.

I like the idea of small arguments being treated lightheartedly. Because, in reality, these things are not that big of a deal, but it is things like them that have led to the ever-increasing number of divorces. Couples in these kind of situations need to step back and realize how silly some of their arguments are, and I think "The Marriage Ref" does a great job of showing that.

When the host closes each episode with a pro-marriage statement like "it's worth fighting for," I feel like THIS kind of TV show is what marriage needs. Couples need to see other couples arguing about the same silly things, laugh about how ridiculous they must sound when they're arguing like that and see the greater good in staying together.

Yes Dear's prophetic joke

2010-03-02T18:50:00.000-08:00

It's amazing how what would have been an innocent joke at the time is all of sudden weirdly interesting. Check out this clip of "Yes, Dear" and its premonitory joke about Tiger Woods.

P.S. - Sorry for the lack of posting. I'll hopefully be better in the future.

Nancy Grace: Part of the Problem

2010-01-28T11:04:00.000-08:00

Nancy Grace is probably one of my least favorite TV news personalities. I don't know if anyone appears phonier on TV than she does in this clip with Elizabeth Smart (from several years ago). Smart, who was abducted from her home some years back, appeared on Nancy's show to support a bill for the National Sex Offender Registry.

However, Nancy wanted her to delve into her experience as a missing child. Smart was politely reluctant to do so until she flat-out refused. Watching stuff like this confirms to me the idea of no present or future TV news personality will ever be worthy of the late Walter Cronkite's title: the most trusted man in America.

Those days are long gone, with talking heads like Nancy feigning interest for the sake of "good" TV.

Shameless Bias, Thy Name is Stuart Scott

2010-01-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

Everybody knows it can be hard sometimes to be completely objective and unbiased as a journalist. Some reporters cover it up, some struggle with it and some have just given up trying altogether (Fox News).

In sports journalism, it can be even harder. Almost every person a sportswriter covers is a celebrity, and as a journalist, you want the confidence and trust of the uber-famous person you interview and write about. It takes real effort to keep the line between professionals and friends from getting blurred. And just like in regular news, some have just stopped trying altogether.

Take, for example, this excerpt of Stuart Scott from ESPN The Magazine on January 11, 2010. If you read it, you'll see how Stuart Scott responds to someone bashing his buddy Tiger Woods. Click on the picture for a bigger view.

To fully digest how terrible of a response this was, I would like to analyze each sentence from Stuart Scott's response:

Allan, I'm sure you know people who have been just as unfaithful as Tiger.
Really, Stuart? Really?! You're "sure" about that? Tiger Woods had affairs with nine different women. (At least nine. That's only the amount of women who have come forward...so far.) You're sure "Allan" knows someone who has a wife and two kids and has flown around the country having sex with club hostesses, porn stars and pancake waitresses? You don't think much of "Allan," do you, Stu?

He's made some bad mistakes, sure.
Right, at least nine confirmed ones, so far.

But it doesn't make him a creep.
If Mrs. Woods was your sister, I don't think you'd be singing the same tune, Stu.

It makes him human.
That's right, human. Do O.J.'s actions make him human and not a creep? I get that everybody puts sports figures on a pedestal - especially ones with a squeaky clean image like Tiger had. But what Tiger did makes him a creep, not the worst person in the world, but a creep. One affair, maybe human. At least nine? Welcome to Creepville.

I don't condone what Tiger has done, but calling him names for failings in his personal life is hypocritical.
Only if Allan is as big a "sexmonger" as Tiger. I don't cheat on my wife. If I were to call Tiger a sexual deviant, I don't think I am being hypocritical.

I don't get it.
THAT is for DANG sure.

Why are people so upset about something that doesn't concern them in the least?
Because people like YOU bring us the information that "doesn't concern (us) in the least." You can't report of the shortcomings of athletes for years and years on Sportcenter, and then take this sort of stand. THAT is being hypocritical.

Weekend Video: Jimmy Kimmel attacks Jay Leno

2010-01-15T18:21:00.000-08:00

Watch this clip of Jimmy Kimmel decimating Jay Leno on the Jay Leno Show. It's hilarious.

Haven't posted in about a week, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention anything the Leno-Conan Wars going on right now. I assume most are aware of the current situation: Leno named Conan as successor, decides he doesn't want to retire, gets a prime-time show, show tanks and apparently gets The Tonight Show back.

While rumors of a "Tonight Show" deal being finalized has not been confirmed, it appears as though NBC wants to support Leno, which I don't completely understand. Apparently, it is being reported NBC has even offered O'Brien $30 million to leave.

Sure, Leno was the #1 late-night guy when he left, and Conan's ratings a considerably lower, but it takes time to build an audience. Time it appears he is not going to get, despite the time Leno was given when replacing Johnny Carson.

Additionally, isn't it about time to build a new "Tonight Show" audience? I know Leno has this weird hold on the fixed-income crowd, but is that what NBC really wants? To own the viewing rights of the elderly? They're not telemarketers, for crying out loud. NBC has got to be the only major network (no, the History Channel is not considered a "major" network) actively pursuing the "Age 50 - Dead" demographic, which is a mistake.

Ages 18-49 is the key demo for advertising money, and Conan is popular within that group. People are getting married later, having fewer kids and, in many cases, both the husband and wife are working, thereby creating more discretionary income at a younger age. Leno does not compare with Conan in that group.

Proof of that lies within the reaction to this whole ordeal. Groups were created on Facebook to proclaim allegiances. Last time I checked, "Team Conan" and "I'm with Coco" have a combined total of over 225,000 supporters, while "Team Jay" and "Team Leno" combine for under 2,000 members. Doesn't that say something?

I think so.

Make the right and smarter choice, NBC. Keep Coco.

Weekend Video: ABC's Modern Family

2010-01-08T18:10:00.000-08:00

Gosh, since it is already January, I know I am pretty late on this one, but I keep meaning to rave about "Modern Family" on ABC. I haven't been the most consistent viewer of the show, but every time I see, I ask myself, "Self, why are you NOT the most consistent viewer of this show?"

One reason to like it is because ABC allows you to watch clips, as well as share them. I don't understand the purpose of companies preventing people from embedding video clips on different Web site. Don't you want more people to see it?

My favorite character is Phil Dunphy, a dad that sees himself as the "Cool Dad." Like Michael Scott (The Office) for bosses, I guess anytime you have a character who sees him/herself as something he or she isn't, it's going to be comedy gold. Here's Phil being Phil:

Then there's Jay, played by Ed O'Neil. His son is gay, and he is uncomfortable with it. In fact, he purposely announces himself before he enters a room to prevent the possibility of seeing his son and and his boyfriend kiss. In this scene, he seeks a "woman's opinion" from the couple:

And here's another scene I thought was very funny:

Anyway, it's a funny show. Find time to watch it.

BCS Title Game Preview

2010-01-07T08:56:00.000-08:00

If I am nothing else, I am persistent. And if the actual outcomes of the BCS games are any indication, I am nothing else.

I'll admit my predictions haven't exactly been on the ball (pun definitely intended), but I'd like to think a lot of people erred in their predictions. And if it saves even a drop of my credibility, I'd like to mention that I am 21-12 in my overall bowl predictions this year, so I'm not completely incompentent - at least at this.

BCS Championship Game
Texas (13-0) vs. Alabama (13-0)

Colt McCoy is a great quarterback. No one can legitimately argue to the contrary. He's done a lot of great things during his four-year career at Texas.

Texas is a great team. For any team to finish a regular season at a perfect 13-0, it is impressive. It involves managing the emotions of a bunch 19 and 20 year olds. That's not easy.

However, McCoy and the Texas Longhorns' offense have only struggle in two games (Oklahoma and Nebraska) this season. And both of those games shared one common ingredient in the opponent: a stellar defense.
This is not a game where Texas will be able to avoid that. Texas will have to overcome that, and I really don't think they'll be able to do it.

Alabama has a pretty good offense to go with its Berlin Wall-esque defense. Led by Heisman Trophy Winner Mark Ingram, the Crimson Tide has averaged 413.8 yards per game on offense. Good enough for 32nd in the country, which might not seem that impressive, but it's better than some notable offenses: Oregon, Oregon State, Missouri, Bowling Green.

I think Alabama's offense to go along with Texas' struggles against elite defenses will be the keys to Alabama's 2010 BCS title.

Alabama 27, Texas 14

Fed Ex Orange Bowl Preview

2010-01-05T11:28:00.000-08:00

Well, since it appears as though I am not accurate, my goal is to at least be interesting.

But I would like to say this about last night's game and Boise State in general:

I apologize for my obvious dislike and short-changing of Boise State. While I don't think either team played its best last night, Boise State convinced me it is much better than I thought - especially its defense.

Looking ahead to 2010 and with a possibility of 21 returning starters, Boise State - with a legitimate out of conference schedule (Va Tech, Oregon State) and preseason ranking - has to be a favorite to go to the BCS title game next year. While I am not a fan of Boise State, I will admit the team gained my respect, and if it makes it through the 2010 regular season schedule undefeated, I will be screaming on its behalf for a title shot.

Let's move on to other things...

Fed Ex Orange Bowl
Iowa (10-2) vs. Georgia Tech (11-2)

This is probably the BCS game in which I am least interested. ACC football hasn't really interested me in recent years, and I can only name one player on Tech's team (and I only know Dwyer's last name).

Big Ten football, on the other hand, does interest me - just not all of it. Ohio State? Yes. Penn State? Sure. Even Michigan? Why not? But there are Big Ten teams that don't interest me in the least bit. I'm not going out of my way to watch a Northwestern game. The same goes for Minnesota and sadly, Iowa.

Will I watch this game? From start to finish? No. Absolutely not. Frankly, the Orange Bowl should consider itself lucky if I happen to watch half a quarter.

That said, I think Georgia Tech is the clear winner here. Tech has the best player (whose first name escapes me), and I think that's all it will take to win this one.

Iowa is in trouble. It probably shouldn't have gone to a BCS game, but there really wasn't another team to reasonably give it to. It almost lost to Northern Iowa, an FCS team. Plus, the Hawkeyes have had to come from behind to win too many games against too weak opponents.

However, if Iowa does end up winning, it'd be huge for the Big Ten. Two BCS wins in one season for a conference that rarely gets one would go a long way in reestablishing itself as an elite conference.

While I don't think it will be a blowout, I don't think there will be a doubt as to who is the better team at the end.

Georgia Tech 28, Iowa 20

Fiesta Bowl Preview: How the BCS screwed over TCU and BSU

2010-01-03T23:08:00.000-08:00

Well, one out of two wasn't bad.

I was right about Cincinnati and Florida. I felt like Cincy actually came out fighting. And Florida's first touchdown drive, I was actually a bit concerned for Florida. The Bearcats seemed to be playing with a great deal of emotion, and I wasn't sure if Florida was going to be able to react.

It turns out Florida is just that much better than Cincinnati.

But I was wrong about the Rose Bowl. And what I was wrong about affects my prediction for the Fiesta Bowl. I was wrong about Oregon.

Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
Boise State (13-0) vs. TCU (12-0)

Boise State's signature win for the season was against Oregon, and that win looked pretty quality after Oregon finished the regular season ranked in the top ten in the country. However, I don't know if there was a team in the country playing less consistently than Oregon.

The Oregon that barely beat Purdue isn't the same team that trashed Cal 42-3. The Oregon that barely beat Utah isn't the same team that throttled USC 47-20.

Or are they?

Maybe the Pac-10 overall wasn't very good this year. Its teams certainly haven't fared to well in their bowl games. And if Oregon's close wins at the end of the regular season would have gone the other way (which they very easily could have done), the Ducks would have finished at no better than 4th place in the Pac-10. Then, how good would the Boise State Broncos' win look?

I'll admit I was pretty disappointed about the Broncos being matched up with TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. I, like many others, wanted to see how TCU or Boise St. would have played against Florida, Texas or Alabama - even Georgia Tech or Iowa would have been an upgrade.

This match-up creates no winners for either team. If it's a close game, there's no proof either team is any good. The game would have proven only that the two teams match up pretty well against each other. If it is a blowout, then what will people say about the losing team?

"They didn't belong in a BCS bowl."

Maybe the TCU or Boise St. is really that good and would have done that good against the likes of Florida or Alabama. We'll never know, which is why this game serves as little more than a way for the BCS committee to cover its butt.

Onto the preview...

Unfortunately for Boise State fans, this preview is not going to be very pro-them.

Yes, BSU has one of the top-ranked offenses in the country. It is my opinion they have gotten fat off weaker defenses in and out of their conference. Certainly, the Broncos have never face a team with a defense even comparable to TCU.

TCU is fast. TCU is physical. TCU is scary even from the spectator's point of view. TCU has the top defense in the country, holding opponents to an anemic 223 yards per game.

While BSU does have a prolific offense, a little-known fact is that TCU's is just as good. In fact, the Horned Frogs actually average more yards of total offense per game. QB Andy Daulton has made huge strides in each of the last couple seasons, and that is bad news for Boise State.

I didn't feel like Boise State had a chance from the get-go, and with the news that star wideout Austin Pettis is unlikely to play, this game could get ugly fast.

TCU 42, Boise St. 20

BCS Bowl Previews

2010-01-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Thus far, we've had a pretty crazy bowl season, and today, we'll finally start the bowls that don't feature teams like Bowling Green or Middle Tennessee State. The bowls I am describing don't have ".com" in their name. I am of course talking about the BCS Bowls.

Originally, I had intended on giving a preview of all 34 bowls, but uh....I didn't. So here is my last-ditch effort at getting in on the bowl season. Today, I will only be previewing the games happening today, so here goes hopefully something:

Rose Bowl presented by Citi
#8 Ohio State (10-2) vs. #7 Oregon (10-2)

The Pac-10 is bleeding somewhat, with a 2-3 bowl record that includes embarrassing losses like Oregon State's loss to BYU (44-20) and Arizona's offensive impotence against Nebraska (33-0). The Pac-10, normally known for its prolific offenses, hopes to get some Viagra for its offenses in the form of the University of Oregon.

My gut feeling is in favor of Oregon. The Ducks' offense is just going to be too much, and after watching Ohio St. lose at home to USC and USC get trounced by Oregon, it seems like a lay-up prognostication.

Yeah, I know. The OSU-USC game was a long time ago (frankly, the regular season was a long time ago). Teams (hopefully) get better throughout the season.

Maybe.

But the way I figure it, that game was a huge game for OSU, as it was trying to redeem itself from last year's 35-3 debacle. The Buckeyes had every reason to play big in that game, and USC, with a true-freshman QB, went into the Buckeyes' house and beat them.

Conversely, when USC was playing Oregon on Halloween, it had every reason to play its best. Oregon was at the top of the conference standings, and USC only trailed by one game. It needed a big game, and Oregon gave the Trojans a shellacking.

While this might sound like I am previewing USC, common opponents is a good way to compare teams. It's not always the best way (and sometimes it makes absolutely no sense), but USC played both of these teams. In both of the games, both teams needed to play their best. The only difference is Ohio State's best was not enough, and Oregon's best was superfluous.

Oregon 31, Ohio State 20

Allstate Sugar Bowl
#3 Cincinnati (12-0) vs. #5 Florida (11-1)

This game has certainly accumulated its share of story lines. First, you have the Bearcats playing without the head coach who helped get them their undefeated regular season. Then, you have the Gators playing for the sick little boy in the hospital, who is now back on the sidelines (with the head coach's headset on) in the last game before his leave of absence (however long it may or may not be).

Another thing going for Florida is it got blown out by Alabama. The Gators have more to prove now, than if it would have been a close game. The devastation would have been too much for them to overcome. (ex. Utah 31, Alabama 17) Now, Florida will get its head on straight and win this game.

The Bearcats could go one of two ways. 1) They could pout about their coach leaving and end up playing like a team without a head coach, or 2) they could go out and play their best to show Brian Kelly what he left behind.

After reading some of the players' reactions to him leaving, I'm thinking #2 is a lot more likely. Some of those players might actually hate their ex-coach. They'd love nothing more than to go out and punch Florida right in the mouth.

The only problem is Florida's mouth is made out of steel.

Florida 34, Cincinnati 27

Reactions to Brittany Murphy's Death

2009-12-21T12:50:00.000-08:00

I'm sure most - if not all - have heard about Brittany Murphy's untimely passing over the weekend. I'm also sure you've heard many people talk about how tired they are of hearing about her death.

I'm not.

What I am tired of is hearing about how other people are tired of hearing about Murphy's death.

The fact is she had many fans. People are interested in hearing news about her. She died. Many want to know all of the details surrounding her death. If you don't like it, change the friggin' channel.

I literally have only heard about it from Facebook - nothing else. Nothing on the channels I watch on TV, nothing from the radio stations I listen to and nothing from the Web sites I frequent (except for Facebook). If you don't want to hear about it, don't.

People also said they were tired of hearing about Brett Favre, but ESPN and ESPNRadio's ratings were noticeably higher during their in-depth coverage of all his retirements/comebacks.

And every time a celebrity dies a young death, I always hear people complain about the news coverage, saying things like, "Young people die every day. How come they don't devote this much coverage to them?"

The answer to that question is those young people weren't in Clueless OR 8 Mile.

Sure, it's sad when people die, but in reality, you don't care all that much if a kid dies from malaria, AIDS or whatever. If someone tells you Tom Hanks was dead, you'd race to the remote control to find out more. If a kid in Nicaragua passes, you say "Oh. That's sad," and then you go back to what you were doing.

I know Brittany Murphy was no Tom Hanks, but the comparison is still valid. You don't know anything about those other kids dying, but you do know quite a bit about Brittany Murphy. It's the news' job to bring noteworthy information to the masses. And a celebrity's death is noteworthy.

The fact is celebrities are a figurative part of our families. We pay to see them in theaters, we pay to watch them at home. They might be in our homes more often than some literal members of the family.

When a family member dies, nobody expects the family Christmas card to give equal coverage to deaths across the country. Why do you then expect CNN to give a 20-something from Mobile, Alabama, the same play as somebody you've actually heard of?

It doesn't make sense, and neither does the "what about all the others?" argument.

In conclusion, the news can only repeatedly give you the information you let it. Change the channel or go to a different Web site. If you don't, then you're to blame for the constant coverage.

Dancing: The Double Standard

2009-12-07T09:38:00.000-08:00

This last weekend my wife and I attended a couple of work-related Christmas parties. We enjoy going to these kind of parties: music, great food, great conversation and an open bar (not for everyone, but my wife and I had all the Sprite we wanted).

These Christmas parties also revealed something to me about my wife that I wish I'd known before.

She loves to dance.

This creates a problem, because I like dancing about as much as Bush likes Bin Laden, Obama likes Hannity or anyone likes attending Florida Marlin games.

However, I've also discovered I'm not alone in this. I've found most guys at these events share my opinion of dancing being the lowest form of communication. But the only problem is women have NO idea why guys feel this way.

Let me give you some insight:

1. Why dance? We are so much more comfortable sitting and talking about sports and the like.

2. Dancing puts ourselves out there while everyone is watching what we do.

3. In regards to #2, please don't tell us nobody is watching us or nobody cares. We know both of those are not true, because we also talk about how stupid the one or two guys on the dance floor look dancing to "Billie Jean." If we're doing it, other people will are doing it, too.

But the title of this entry is Dancing: The Double Standard, so why is it a double standard?

Getting away with dancing is not about talent. It's about gender.

If a girl wants to dance, it's fine. Even if she looks bad dancing--as long as she doesn't look like Elaine Benes--she's just one of the gals havin' fun!

If it's a guy, even he's good (unless he "Michael Jackson" good), other guys still think he's a dork.

Thoughts on college football for this weekend

2009-12-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

Photo from www.cornnation.com

This is a pretty big weekend for college football.

After this weekend's games, we'll have the match-up for our national championship game. It could be Florida-Texas, Alabama-Texas or one of many other options. Nothing has been decided yet, which is one of the reasons college football is awesome, but I digress...

The only game that matters to this little piggy is the one taking place at 8 p.m. EST: Texas-Nebraska.

While it's not completely out of the question (Texas beat a 6-5 Texas A&M team by the skin of its teeth), chances are still slim, as Texas is heavily favored in this one. If you have read this blog before you are probably quite aware of my fanship of the Mountain West Conference. And any MWC fan should be pulling with all of his/her might for Nebraska to make an upset.

But can you imagine the ramifications of a Texas loss in this game?

TCU - a Mountain West Conference team - would have a very good chance of playing in the championship game. Remember when no team from the MWC or WAC even had the chance of playing in a BCS game? That seems so long ago now, as some talking heads on ESPN are comparing TCU and Texas, saying TCU is more deserving.

TCU beat Utah at home and went out and beat Clemson and BYU on the road, while Texas has only a win at Oklahoma State to its credit. Sure, it's not Texas' fault it has been a down year for the Big 12. But it's also not TCU's fault it's not Texas' fault.

Obviously, I feel TCU is more deserving of shot at the title than Texas, but it doesn't matter. Without a loss against Nebraska, TCU has absolutely no chance at getting that shot. It's a shame TCU had this amazing season the same year five other teams did the same.

----------------------------

The only drawback to a Nebraska win is the effect it would have on another non-automatic-qualifying team: Boise State.

Nebraska winning would almost surely eliminate Boise State's chance at a BCS bowl. There are only 10 slots for BCS bowls, and seven teams automatically qualify this year, leaving only three spots open for at-large teams.

Certainly, the loser of the 'Bama-Florida game will be one of those. If Nebraska wins, Texas will be one of them, too. With only one slot remaining, you are asking organizations run near-exclusively by money to go with Boise State over the likes of Penn State, Iowa, Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech or Cincinnati (if they lose their title games).

Unfortunately, the BCS isn't about putting the best teams together. It's about ensuring sellouts, both tickets and merchandise, so Boise State might be on the outside looking in for the second straight season.

-----------------------------------

Predictions

Florida 28, Alabama 24 Alabama is considerably improved this year, but Florida's defense and Tim Tebow will make the necessary plays to get to another championship game.

Nebraska 20, Texas 17 I'll be honest. This one is obviously more about wishful thinking, but with the Cornhuskers' defense allowing only 11.1 points/game, it's not impossible.

Cincinnati 41, Pittsburgh 30 How a team like the Bearcats ended up with two quarterbacks like Tony Pike and Zach Collaros is beyond me, but unless the Panthers can force Cincinnati to go to its third-string QB, this one goes to the Bearcats.

Georgia Tech 24, Clemson 21 Clemson's defense is very good, but any pressure thought to be on Georgia Tech is removed when it remembers most people will be watching the Texas-Nebraska game instead.

Weekend Video: The Onion

2009-11-15T18:01:00.001-08:00

Things have been pretty busy lately, so I haven't posted in awhile. However, my sister shared this video clip from "The Onion," and I thought it would make for a good belated "Weekend Video." Hilarious.

Weekend Video: Daily Show with Jon Stewart

2009-11-07T10:08:00.000-08:00

Here is a funny clip of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (I think all of the language is bleeped out):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

For Fox Sake!

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

People who know me know how much distaste I have for Fox News. I find it reprehensible some believe it to be "fair and balanced." They talk of the liberal bias in the news media - which I think is a bit overblown - and say "the reason Fox News looks so conservatively biased is because everything else is so far to the liberal side, it makes Fox News look biased. In reality, Fox News is just the middle of the road."

Bull.

You can say all you want that outlets like MSNBC and CNN are liberally biased, but please, oh please, don't say it to try and make Fox News look like it is "fair and balanced." If you are going to say it, just say they are all biased. (However, in my opinion, a rational human being couldn't actually believe MSNBC or CNN is more biased than Fox News. But that's my opinion.)

2009 World Series: It's amazing what the truth does for you

2009-11-05T11:00:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to the New Yankees on winning their 27th World Series.

Never mind it took $1.4 billion to get from 26 to 27. It was a proud accomplishment and should be regarded as such.

Two Yankees stuck out to me amidst all of the celebration: third-baseman Alex Rodriguez and pitcher Andy Pettite.

Within the last couple of years, links to steroids and/or other performance-enhancing drugs marred both of these players' careers. Nicknames like "A-Roid" started popping up, and you wondered if we would ever remember them for anything else.

Both players have gone on to make wonderful contributions to this championship team, and we have more-or-less forgotten about their infamous past.

My is question is "Why?"

Why have we forgotten about the disgrace these players brought to themselves, their team and Major League Baseball?

We certainly have not forgotten about Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire. Roger Clemens hasn't slipped our minds. As much as we try, we can't get Jose Canseco out of our minds.

Why A-Rod? Why Pettite?

I always hear people say things like "winning solves everything" or "by nature, people are very forgiving."

While I do actually believe both of those statements, I think there is a missing ingredient to both.

The truth.

Like them or not, both players did eventually come clean and admit their mistakes. That's not something you can say for Bonds, Sosa or McGwire.

Whether it's sports or politics or TV, the truth still goes a long way.

I'm glad we have put it all behind us, because this can be a lesson to those who get exposed in the future.

Just admit it. Don't insult our intelligence. Come clean with your wrongdoing, and be done with it. Don't tell us "it must have been something in these supplements I'm taking" or "I just take whatever my trainer gives me. I don't ask him what's in it."

Even during the whole Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, I remember people saying if he'd have just told the truth, they'd have forgiven him. Whether that's actually true or not, I don't know, but it shows how high honesty is still valued by society. We don't like being lied to.
Sure, we'll be completely dishonest when it comes to selling things, making business deals, filling our tax forms and the like, but we just don't want anyone to lie to us.

It may not make much logical sense (few things people do/say do), but I think it gives us a lot more insight to society's moral thermometer.

When people stop caring if others are lying to them, then we're really in trouble.

Post-Halloween Activity Never Changes

2009-11-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

Every year, Halloween comes and goes, and within a week, I am left with the same feeling.

Regret.

I keep thinking I will be moderate in eating my candy. ("Maybe I'll have three or four pieces of candy.") Then I come home from work and head to the bucket of candy, and when I come to, I see a copious amount of Milky Way, Crunch and Snickers wrappers lying beside me.

I wish I had the willpower to stop after a couple of pieces.

I also wish I had $1 million.

Between you, me and the computer screen, I'd say the latter is more likely.

Weekend Video: AFV Halloween Pranks

2009-10-30T17:25:00.000-07:00

Many of you may or may not know how big of fan of America's Funniest Videos my wife is. Basically, it comes down to this in our house: If my wife is home and wants to watch TV and AFV is on - no matter what I am watching - we watch AFV.

While I used to think the show was just "crotch shot" after "crotch shot" (maybe it used to be), I have really come around on it. Though I like to pretend like I don't like watching it, many times I find myself laughing out loud at some of the videos.

Of course, that's still nothing close to the paralyzing laughter my wife endures.

Enjoy this special Halloween edition of Weekend Video:

An open letter to TCU coach Gary Patterson

2009-10-28T00:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Coach Patterson,

As a BYU fan, it would be very easy to let the recent results of the BYU-TCU rivalry get the best of me and rationalize and make excuses for the outcome of the Saturday's game (trust me, I did last year). It would be very easy to both figuratively and literally hate you and all associated with the TCU football program. It would be very easy to be blinded by that hatred, causing me to try to come up with reason why TCU is overrated.

Only...I'm not.

What you have done at TCU is outstandingly impressive. Last year I sat in my living room - nearly 4,000 miles away from Forth Worth, TX - and was semi-literally scared for my own safety as I watched your players dismantle my BYU Cougars. This year, the outcome was even worse. I won't minimize your team's accomplishment. I still think my team is very good - and the Horned Frogs trashed us. You guys could play with any team in the country, and I look forward to the opportunity you'll have in to do so in a BCS Bowl.
Anger and pure dislike consume me with any other rivalry (ex. BYU-Utah), but respect is all that comes to mind with BYU-TCU. You beat us ... and badly. As a Mountain West Conference fan, I am proud at the prospect of TCU carrying the non-BCS torch into a BCS game, but I would like to issue some warnings:

Please do not take any of the games remaining on your schedule lightly. Don't look past any team.
Keep your team humble and hungry.
Don't let your players read/believe the press clippings.

I don't want anything to happen that would derail your team's chances. The team representing the non-BCS schools should be tested beforehand. Your team has earned the right to be there over other non-BCS schools by beating more than one ranked team and going on the road out of conference, proving yourselves to NOT be 2007 Hawaii.

Signed,

All Things and Everything

Weekend Video: Arrested Development Chicken Dance

2009-10-23T18:51:00.000-07:00

A few years ago I started watching the sitcom Arrested Development when a neighbor at college had the first season on DVD. I had flipped past it on TV before, stopping only to notice it starred Jason Bateman, of Teen Wolf Too and The Hogan Family fame. It seemed somewhat confusing until I started watching it from the beginning.

I don't know if I have ever seen a TV show funnier than Arrested Development. The writing and dialogue is so clever, the filming style so unique. It's a shame it only lasted for about 2 1/2 years, but a movie is supposedly in the works.

So enjoy these clips of this messed-up family's imitation of a chicken:

Boise State puts the BS in BCS

2009-10-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

I'm a BYU fan, but more importantly for this entry, I'm a Mountain West Conference fan. If you're an MWC fan - even if you are a Utah fan - I know we can agree on at least one thing: We don't care much for Boise State.

The reason? Its cupcake schedule.

This is an important season for the non-BCS teams. As fans, we don't want just any team representing us in a BCS bowl. We want a proven team like Utah was last year. The Utes beat Oregon State, TCU and BYU on their way to an impressive Sugar Bowl win over Alabama.

We don't want a team that got fat off a debilitated schedule.

Is Boise State's record impressive? Absolutely. The Broncos very rarely lose games. The only problem is they rarely schedule actual games.

BSU's only legitimate competition came from a home game against the Oregon Ducks in the first game of the season. Both teams played like garbage (which is one of the reasons week one is typically an upset-fertile day on the schedule), and a lot has changed since then. Simply put, Oregon would crush BSU if the teams played again.

Obviously, that's speculation, but I feel as Boise State is simply the beneficiary of the top teams losing. Has there really been a game that's warranted its position in the polls?

Score - Team - Current Record
48-0 Miami (OH) 0-7
51-34 @ Fresno St. 3-3
49-14 @ Bowling Green 3-4
34-16 UC Davis FCS team
28-21 Tulsa 4-3

None of those games really "wow" anyone, yet BSU has continuously been voted up to the #4 spot, causing some Bronco fans to clamor for a shot at the national championship game. But with BSU's schedule bereft of even semi-difficult games, any team in the top 10 that wins the rest of its game would deserve that spot over Boise State. The schedules simply do not compare.

Some might suggest MWC fans are simply jealous of Boise State.

That's true. We are jealous. Jealous of BSU's cakewalk schedule. Jealous that BSU doesn't have to play against legitimate competition to gain national acclaim. Jealous that the toughest game the Broncos have on their way to a BCS game is Tulsa, a team Oklahoma beat 45-0.

If Boise State does win out (and since the WAC has no other decent teams, it's a very good possibility), The MWC has one hope remaining: TCU.

As a BYU fan, it's impossible for me to cheer against the Cougars. However, if TCU does beat BYU, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I would much rather have TCU in a BCS game than Boise St., and with wins over BYU, Utah and some out of conference road games against BCS-conference schools, TCU would likely leapfrog the Broncos.

Weekend Video: The Effect of Evian Water on Babies

2009-10-16T11:29:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama: The Nobel Peace Prize Debate

2009-10-13T10:03:00.000-07:00

Good question: Does President Barack Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

I don't know. I wasn't the person who nominated him, and, more importantly, I wasn't part of the committee spending several months evaluating the nominees.

When I first heard the news, I'll admit I was a bit surprised. But then again, so was Obama. He didn't campaign for this. He even said he "[does] not feel that [he] deserve[s] to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

Some people feel if he doesn't think he deserves it, then he could always decline it. I feel that's a ridiculous idea. It's one of the most prestigious awards in the world! If a group spent months and months deciding to give the award to him, it would be offensive to NOT accept it. The funny thing about Obama is that he CARES whether or not he offends international figures. I know in the previous eight years that might not have been the case, and maybe we've grown accustomed to that mentality.

Let me use an analogy to better illustrate why declining the award would have greater repercussions than we think:

Imagine being in high school again, and Sadie Hawkin's Dance has girls starting to ask boys out. Now, imagine the girl every guy wants to ask him out. She gets on the intercom for the morning announcements and asks out a guy. She could have had any guy, and she picked him. And he's says no - on the morning announcements, as well.

Is she offended or at least embarrassed? Of course. Does life go on? Of course. She goes ahead and asks someone else out. However, how excited is the next guy? He's very publicly the second choice. Sure, he goes, but he knows darn well she didn't want to come with him.It's the same thing with the award. If we feel he hasn't done enough to deserve the award, how is the second-choice recipient going to feel about the committee thinking his accomplishments weren't as impressive as Obama's?

"I nursed 3,000 soldiers back to health, and Obama was picked over me?!?!"
I mean, maybe it was because of Obama's diplomacy efforts and attempts to open talks to leaders with whom we don't have a good relationship.

Maybe it was because he has shown no signs of starting another war as president (that bar is pretty low) .

Maybe it was a weak year for peace.

I don't know. There are a lot of people who spend a lot more time considering it than I do, which brings me to my main point:

Better question: Who cares?
Is it October already? I can't believe it has already been a year since the last Nobel Prizes were awarded.

Remember all of the articles we read leading up to the decisions?

Remember turning on the TV and all of the talk show hosts were listing their predictions for the Nobel Prizes?

Remember how the whole world was abuzz about who was going to win?

Remember talking about whether or not the winners deserved it or who really deserved it for hours and hours after the decisions were made?

Me neither.

My point is we almost NEVER care about the Nobel Prize winners. Why do so many people spend so much time whining about Obama winning it? I don't remember Martti Ahtisaari or Shirin Ebadi going through this same skepticism.

The reason is hatred. Many people hate Obama for his politics, and they feel everyone else should hate him (see Opinionators).

Well, guess what? The Norwegian Nobel Committee doesn't hate him. Get over it.

Here's what they said:

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Is that impossible to believe? It shouldn't be. Maybe you don't agree with his policies on the economy or health care, but can you say he doesn't make more peaceful efforts to resolve conflicts?

Maybe he's not the most deserving of the award, but you didn't care when Wangari Maathai or Mohamed El Baradei won it, why do you care so much now?

Levi Johnston: Making the Most of Fatherhood

2009-10-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

Levi Johnston has kept himself busy (he doesn't even have time to put a shirt on). Levi (Johnston, that is. In case you forget, he's tattooed it on his arm. Or maybe that's in case HE forgets.), most known for getting Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant before the 2008 presidential campaign, has managed to stay in the limelight an entire year later. Most recently, he appeared taking his new-found fatherhood lightly in this commercial:

He's definitely been a spectacle. Early on, after he and Bristol Palin broke up, the Johnston family appeared on a variety of talk shows, embarrassing themselves somewhat:
On Larry King...

On Tyra...

However, after a while, Levi seemed to be more comfortable doing these interviews. In this one, Levi also shares his thoughts on why Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska:

Now, Levi has agreed to pose nude in Playgirl, an online magazine read by women and gay men. This comes after he posed shirtless with his infant son in GQ, as pictured above.

Frankly, one of the things I dislike about society is that a guy like this can "sleep" his way into thousands upon thousands of dollars and NOT be called a prostitute. Now, I know it's not the same thing, but thousands - even millions - of people bust their butts to make ends meet and, even then, some can't even put food on their table. Meanwhile, this guy knocks up someone semi-famous, and now he's even more famous than her. I don't blame the magazines. I blame people all over the world that eat this brand of garbage up. Shame on them for giving this guy a medium.

I hope he's saving his money. That's the other thing about people: they forget about you.

Weekend Video: Jim Gaffigan

2009-09-26T08:38:00.000-07:00

This Weekend Video is a clip from the stand-up comedy of Jim Gaffigan from his TV special King Baby. A few years back somebody recommended his other special Beyond the Pale, and I had never laughed so hard. He is actually from NW Indiana, which is an obvious plus. He does bits on a bunch of different random subjects like Hot Pockets, laziness, bacon, and other things. Here is a bit he did on Waffle House:

...and on bacon:

...and here's a conversation he had with then-Senator Barack Obama:

Third-person Sports - BYU: Why the BCS bubble may not have burst just yet

2009-09-23T23:30:00.000-07:00

Photo credit: AP

Admittedly, last Saturday was a very disappointing day in Cougar Nation. I, like any other fan of a non-automatic-qualifying team, loved having my team be the center of attention, even if it was only for a couple of weeks.

With the image of a game-winning touchdown catch by McKay Jacobson still only two weeks old, BYU got outplayed by Florida State at home, the first home loss since 2005. And that's the nicest way to describe a 54-28 drubbing.

Frankly, the Cougars were the ones who looked like they hadn't played at that altitude before. The defense that had all the ESPN talking heads paying so much attention to Provo couldn't stop a team Jacksonville State nearly beat.

That said, can BYU salvage the season? While I don't want to underestimate the rest of BYU's schedule, I don't believe a BCS Bowl is completely out of the question for these three reasons:

1. Florida State is not a bad team. Has anybody been following the team Florida State barely lost to? Miami has proven to not be a bad team. In fact, they are now in the top 10 after beating FSU and Georgia Tech, both of which were ranked. And after the way the Seminoles played against the Cougars, I think Miami's ranking, along with continued success from FSU, can only help BYU chances.

2. The Oklahoma game still happened. Yes, BYU has lost a game, and no non-BCS team has ever gone to a BCS Bowl with a loss on its record. But if someone was going to do it, don't you think a team with a win over Oklahoma (who is not playing poorly, by the way), as well as possible wins against TCU and Utah (who could both be ranked at that point), is in the best position to do it? Frankly, even with one loss, BYU's resume would still be a lot more impressive than an undefeated Boise State (one win at home against Oregon).

3. The polls were actually pretty kind to us. OK, a 12-spot drop is never good news. However, nine games are still left on the schedule. Don't think it's impossible to slowly climb the rankings, especially with the TCU and Utah games still left. Especially, since the four or five undefeated SEC teams ahead of BYU have been feasting on a schedule Boise State would call weak. I would expect most of those teams to lose two games. BYU could very easily find itself in the top 10 once again.

Obviously, there are a lot of assumptions:

This is assuming Max Hall and the Cougars can shake off the loss and win the rest of their games.

This is assuming Boise State loses a game - even though the Cougars would be far more deserving than the Broncos.

This is assuming Florida State really is a good team.

This is assuming TCU and Utah will win every other game possible.

A lot of assumptions? Yes. But I am not - and no BYU fan should be - ready to give up on the 2009 Cougars.

Things in Hell: Bad Neighbors

2009-09-22T20:11:00.000-07:00

As far as habitats go, renting is not a terrible way to go. There's a lower commitment level. You have a lower monthly cost for housing. If something breaks (accidentally), you don't have to fix it (if your landlord is adequately competent). And considering the things that have taken place over the last year or so, it's a relief to not have to worry about resale value. If you are not looking to stay in place for more than three or four years, renting an apartment is a very convenient thing to do.

Unless, of course, you have to deal with bad neighbors.

I should probably explain my definition of what a bad neighbor is or isn't.

A bad neighbor IS one who is up outside your window late night yelling, hooting, hollering, fighting, emitting all sorts of profanities, etc. It is amazing to me people can be so socially retarded that they would be standing outside your apartment past midnight swearing up a hurricane. We even had our landlord and his girlfriend arguing at 1 a.m., literally outside our bedroom window. If you own an apartment complex, that is a business. Why would take your relationship problem outside your tenants' window? That would be like the manager at Wendys' taking a employee out to the dining area and firing them during the lunch rush. Under no circumstances are your tenants better off hearing your vulgarity-laced anger than your own walls.

A bad neighbor ISN'T one who makes a batch of brownies now and then. We've had some really good neighbors.

A bad neighbor IS one who makes a batch of SPECIAL brownies now then. We've had some really bad neighbors.

A bad neighbor ISN'T one who doesn't look after you at all. Not trying to encourage stalking, so I'll explain what I mean. While we were living in the aforementioned apartment, we had a neighbor tell us he heard some people try to break into our car one night, so he let his dog out, and it scared the feces out of them. I don't want a neighbor who is in my business all of the time, but if one wants to be a night watchman, I just allow it.

A bad neighbor IS one who brings with him or her frequent police visits. One of our family's first apartments, we lived in a four-plex, and we loved it. We knew everyone in the complex, and better, we trusted everyone in the complex. Then, our landlords sold. We got a landlord who filled empty apartments with his brother's friends, and ABRACADABRA!!! Before you didn't see policemen, now you do! Four visits in four months.

It's a little nerve-racking to see a dozen police officers surrounding your home with their guns drawn and several police dogs by their side. It's also a little nerve-racking to see it twice. And it's also a little nerve-racking to find out your neighbors had been harboring a fugitive of sorts. I've gone my entire life without being responsible for a handful of police cars in my driveway. Why is it so hard for other people?

So little is really being asked by me. Luckily, I am currently blessed with adequate neighbors. We don't bother them, they don't bother us.

It's not the perfect living situation, but things could be a lot worse:

Things in Hell posts are periodic observations of what Hell might have. I am not saying this person/persons is/are actually going to spend eternity there. When I think of the what the worst possible place would have, these kind of people come to mind.

Weekend Video: Louis CK - Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

2009-09-19T08:23:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd start a recurring blog entry called Weekend Video. This Weekend Video features stand-up comedian Louis CK's visit to the then-Late Night with Conan O'Brien. I don't know too much about him, but this video is hilarious, and he is in a movie coming out soon called The Invention of Lying with Jason Bateman, Jennifer Garner, Ricky Gervais (The Office, BBC), Rob Lowe, and many others. Enjoy this Weekend Video:

Mountain Dew, Where Are You?

2009-09-15T06:58:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to Mountain Dew?

I was never a fan of the drink itself, but I remember when Mountain Dew ruled the '90s with commercials like this:

Now you don't really hear much from "The Dew." (Maybe that's also because people started called Donald Trump "The Donald")

What I think has happened is - through no fault of M.D. itself - the demographic for the soda vanished.

Think about it.

Mountain Dew was the X-treme soda of the 1990s. Commercials featuring skydivers and BASE jumpers told consumers that Dew was it for energy-boosting beverages, and consumers listened intently and acted on it. Anytime a group of kids were staying up late playing video games or whatever, you could be sure a pack of Mountain Dew would accompany them. Nobody could deny the impact Mountain Dew's high-sugar/caffeine content had on people, and nobody could compete with it either.

Then came along drinks like Rockstar, Monster, and Red Bull, with enough caffeine to make a Starbuck's patron puke.

According to energyfiend.com, the Mountain Dew with highest caffeine to product ratio (mg/oz) is Mountain Dew Game Fuel with 6 mg/oz. Most of the other Mountain Dew products are around 4.5 mg/oz.

Rockstar has a variety of products, with the highest being 80 mg/oz (Rockstar Energy Shot) and the lowest listed being about 10 mg/oz (Rockstar Juiced). Most of Rockstar's drinks are listed at about 15 mg/oz.

Monster also has a drink with 80 mg/oz (Monster Hitman Sniper), but most of its other products are at about 10 mg/oz. Red Bull is listed at 9.64, but its "energy shot" product has 40 mg/oz. So Red Bull and these other drinks may give you wings, but it also has a chance of giving you nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, insomnia, and heart palpitations if you drink it, or any of these other drinks, too much.

Outside of incredibly ironic names, these drinks carry with them another kind of danger. I am in high schools all the time, and I see way more kids with these kinds of "energy drinks" in their hands than how many used to carry Mountain Dew when I was their age. So my fear is that, outside of the aforementioned side effects (which should instill enough fear by themselves), this kind of erratic behavior will increase among the youth as well as adults:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h6iCn0301M (wish I could have embedded it on the page)

Long story short, many kids all across America are drinking these kinds of sodas at an alarming rate, and when you consider a can of it carries more than twice the levels of caffeine than a regular cup of coffee, the health consequences could be horrifying.

These drinks put the kibosh on Mountain Dew's clever marketing campaign, imagine what they could do to you and your family.

Who's In This Guy's Ear?

2009-09-14T18:50:00.000-07:00

How many times have you watched somebody do a job and think to yourself, "I could that"?

Add sports adviser to that list.

Former Texas Tech standout, Michael Crabtree, has been the only remaining unsigned rookie for a while now, and it looks like that isn't changing anytime soon. According to ESPN.com, Crabtree, the 10th pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, has said he is prepared to sit out this season and enter the 2010 NFL Draft.

Why?

Because a five-year, $20-million contract ($16 million guaranteed) is not enough - and that's just the base number. With incentives, the 49ers are reportedly willing to go up to a dollar less than what the ninth pick (B.J. Raji) got, which is about $28 million.

Not bad, right?

Not good enough, however, because Crabtree feels he should have gone higher than #10 in the draft. Thus, he wants to be paid accordingly.

Numbers are just that, and I could on and on about how selfish this makes him look, but I want to focus on how dumb it makes him look. (Plus, who enjoys reading about normal folk complaining about how much athletes make. That subject is played.)

My problem is with his "adviser" advising him to sit out the 2009 season and re-enter the draft next year. Worst idea ever.

It should be mentioned his "adviser" is his cousin, David Wells, who was banned for life from USA Boxing because of allegations of misuse of funds.

It should also be known that Wells, who once started a security company with a court bailiff (illegal: conflict-of-interest), is not Crabtree's agent, so why does he have any say as to what kind of contract Crabtree signs?

Wells, who was once arrested for stealing boxing gloves from the Dallas Police Athletic League, is really just another piece of evidence as to how athletes can go broke after making tens of millions of dollars. Paying out money to cousins and their hair-brained schemes has got to take a toll on a bank account.

Getting back to why sitting out a year is such a bad idea, Crabtree was picked 10th in the 2009 draft. With what precedent is he expecting to move up in the draft by getting one year older, not playing organized football for a year, coming off an ankle injury, and being known around the league as a holdout?

Anyone with brains about the draft should know this is the more likely scenario: Crabtree sits out an entire season, re-enters the draft, and, with all of the aforementioned baggage, is drafted late in the first round.

His "adviser" should look at this little nugget of info before giving anymore advice: None of the the last 15 players drafted in the first round signed contracts worth as much as Crabtree was guaranteed with his.

It doesn't matter if he thinks 49ers are low-balling him. Nothing positive will come from sitting out a year.

Too Funny to Pass Up

2009-09-08T22:16:00.000-07:00

It is amazing something like this can get on the air on Fox News Channel without someone in his production staff meetings saying, "Gee, Glenn. For some reason it just doesn't look right. Are we sure we spelled it right?" Beck looked right the word several times. He spelled it out. The way he spelled it wouldn't have even made the right sound. Leave the "H" out instead, and you would have been much better off!

In my very first journalism class, we were warned "in the real world" we could be fired for misspelling a name. What about a common and easily spelled word? I'm not suggesting Beck be fired for this (frankly, the sheer embarrassment of the gaffe is probably enough), but it just amazes me a guy (along with the handful of people working on his show) who sure seems to think he's very smart could make that kind of an error.

The Prez Wants to Talk to the Youth? What's the Big Deal?

2009-09-04T01:48:00.000-07:00

When did the President of the United States become an enemy?

Barack Obama's speech to the youth of America on Tuesday, Sept. 8, has been met with a cornucopia of complaints from parents planning on keeping their kids home if their schools plan to show the president's talk. According to White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, Obama's speech will be about challenging students "to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate."

That no good S.O.G!

How dare he challenge our children to do something with their lives?! If they want to live in our basements playing video games and eating Little Debbies until they're 37, that's their business. We don't need the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong!!!

Give me a friggin' break!

When did the president of the United States speaking to the youth of America become such a open-hand slap to the face from Big Brother? I would think Obama's life story could inspire kids to dream big and work for it.

Enter demagogue Glenn Beck:

Fresh off his "Obama is a racist" tirade, Beck pulled his head out of his butt long enough to take a quick breath and say the White House's goal is "indoctrination" of children. He is appalled at handouts sent out to schools that have students list ways they can help the president.

How terrible! If teachers talk about politics in the slightest bit, it should be about how we can kick and drag our feet against the efforts of the president, right?

This whole thing just makes me so disgusted, because this wasn't just one or two parents calling in to voice their displeasure, even though the speech was always said to be a non-policy speech. This is hundreds or even thousands of parents who rely on radio/TV personalities whose income relies on them being pot-stirrers. It's this kind of crap that makes people like Bill Mahr say "America is stupid."

Why shouldn't our kids think of way they can help the president? Didn't JFK say "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? Doesn't that make sense?

I guess what really bothers me is the hypocrisy of it all. President W. Bush spent eight years putting us in way more debt (i.e. Iraq) than Obama could dream of doing and robbing us blind of our civil liberties (i.e. the Patriot Act), but we were unpatriotic if we didn't support everything he did because he was the president.

Boy, is the shoe on the other foot now.

The difference is even as Bush was enslaving us in a war without a foreseeable conclusion, I would have had no problem with him talking to my children in this sort of format, because he was the president. It's a privilege to have our leaders address the nation. I know he's not going to talk policy. He'd have talked about doing something great with our lives. About working hard. About studying and getting as much education as possible. That is what the country was built on, and Bush AND Obama know that.

This comes on heel of an incident in Utah where an elementary school principal showed an Obama video on service called "I Pledge," which many parents considered "leftist propaganda."

Overall, it was a video intended to encourage people to go to usaservice.org and give a helping hand to issues they're interested in, and while it did contain a few "Obama issues" like stem-cell research and going "green," I think people overreacted to it.

I spend a lot of time with kids of that age, and I'll tell you 99% of them wouldn't have remembered the "leftist" ones five minutes after. They'd be more interested in repeating these ones:

"I pledge allegiance to the funk to the United Funk of Funkadellica," said Anthony Kiedis of the band Red Hot Chili Peppers. He went on to kiss his biceps, while saying, "I pledge to be of service [kiss] to Barack Obama [kiss]."
"[I pledge] to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving...again." (I didn't recognize the celebrity saying it)
Teen Wolf Too star Jason Bateman said, "For the environment, I pledge to flush only after a deuce, never after a single."

Even though it had some political aspects, it wasn't a video made to "indoctrinate" children. Most of the things said in the video were good advice. Obama ran the presidential race on change, and the video encourages citizens of the United States to help be the change they voted for.

I just wish the worst wasn't automatically assumed every time Obama does anything.

Norman: The Greatest Character in Any Movie

2009-09-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

If I ever recommended a movie to someone based solely on one character, it would be "Yes Man." This character is hilarious, and, in my opinion, kind of saves an otherwise mediocre movie. And for those of you who have yet to see it, I'm not talking about Jim Carey's character (Carl). I'm talking about "Norman," Carl's fearless leader on the front line of finance.

I think the great thing about Norman is that he embodies characteristics of every poser you've ever known - in addition to other nerdy qualities.

He tries to be his employees' best friend
He throws theme parties
He talks big
And many, many more!

Here's a clip of him answering his door at one of those theme parties:

The clip I wanted to use is, unfortunately, unavailable to embedded, but you can check it out by clicking here. (FYI: There are just a couple swears)

Anyway, he's hilarious, and I recommend the movie on because of his performance.

McDonald's, Why?

2009-08-25T00:30:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one who is somewhat surprised McDonald's stays at the top of the fast food industry?

I think it has been around 10 years since I have had a somewhat-pleasant experience at a McDonald's. One time, while at the airport in Boise, Idaho, my wife and I stopped there, and as we were eating our "food," we both kind of looked at each other. We both knew exactly what the other was thinking: the fries and the burgers had almost identical flavors to them.

I'm not saying all of McDonald's food tastes alike. That distinction is reserved for Taco Bell, who seems to prefer selling different shapes instead of varying tastes (however, the taste Taco Bell does sell is fantastic!).

All I am saying is on that particular day, at that particular location, all of the food did have the same taste: cruddy.

In college, I remember meeting some girls whose favorite place to eat was McDonald's. I didn't understand then, and I certainly don't now. Why? What is so good at McDonald that can't be found with a better taste at Burger King or Wendy's?

Even the McFlurry, with the easy equation of "ice cream + candy," is done better as a a Blizzard at Dairy Queen.

Who actually has McDonald's cravings? And if you do, why? Why do you prefer inferior food? I mean, I'm not a foodie or some sort of gourmet snob. Burger King and Wendy's aren't exactly purveyors of excellence themselves, but their food is tons better, so why would a normal person prefer McDonald's over the aforementioned chains?

And I don't know if I am crazy, but I seem to recall McDonald's commercial having an element of humor to them. It seems like about eight years ago they traded that in for a bunch of Starbuck's-sipping, three-days-beard-growth-wearing, "Friends"-hair-having yuppies.

Meanwhile, Burger King has passed and then lapped them in commercials. Here is one spot from the time I first though BK's commercials made them cooler:

Then, they introduce "The King," and, while some find him to be a tad on the creepy side, I can't get enough of him:

Then this one where he replaces Steve Young in his most memorable touchdown run:

Now they have these commercials with the "Tiny Hands Guy," and they scratch me right where I itch. The first time I saw these, I almost fell out of my seat.They're just too funny:

So what I am basically saying is there is no reason to go to McDonald's. Their food sucks, their commercials suck, and thus, they suck. Do yourselves a favor and never go their again.

The System Works? Yes, Just Not Logically

2009-08-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

Lately, there have been a lot of NFL players' names and the word "prison" in the news. Donte' Stallworth, Michael Vick, and Plaxico Burress have been the most recent and notable ones with jail sentences.

Vick - interstate dogfighting ring
Stallworth - DUI/Manslaughter
Burress - unlawful carrying of a handgun

I think if we put the actions in order of least to most offensive, it would go Burress, Vick, and Stallworth, and, frankly, I don't even think it is debatable, but here are the crimes with the penalty the athlete received.

Vick - interstate dogfighting ring - 23 months
Stallworth - DUI/Manslaughter - 30 days
Burress - unlawful carrying of a handgun - 2 years

In reality, all Burress did was accidentally shoot himself in the leg, and he gets two years on a plea bargin?! His crime is the worst of all of these?

If a judge hears these three crimes - killing a man while driving drunk, bankrolling an interstate dogfighting ring, and unlawful carrying of a handgun - does he really think the last one is the worst? The only reason the cops even knew about it was because they saw it reported on TV.

He shot himself in the leg! Hasn't he suffered enough? I didn't realize the penalty for being stupid was so stiff. If that's the case, I've met a lot of people in my life you could be locked up for life.

It also seems as though many people are the most outraged by Vick's actions, and it makes no sense to me. What Vick did was despicable and disgusting, but when it comes down to it, he did it to animals not humans. Stallworth's blood alcohol content was 0.12, and Florida's legal limit is 0.08. Nevertheless, he got behind the wheel of car and drove, and he ended up killing a person - a human being.

What do these very different sentences say about the crimes? DUI manslaughter isn't all that bad? Stallworth's original action was so much worse than Vick's, and all he got was 30 days in the can? That's outrageous.

What's worse is that this sets a terrible example. Not to other rich people or NFL players or even other athletes, but to regular joes all across the country who are drunk each and every night. What is to stop them from getting in their car and driving home? Not a 30-day prison sentence for the worst possible consequence of drunk driving.

Where are all of the protesters and activists from organizations like M.A.D.D. and S.A.D.D.? Shouldn't they be up in arms about all of this? Shouldn't they be organizing boycotts of NFL sponsors? Shouldn't they have been outside the courthouse yelling and screaming?

I don't know if more people are against what Vick did than what Stallworth did, but I am 100 percent sure the people against Vick are a whole lot louder than the others.

It's high time the judicial system start treating celebrities like everyone else. Vick got an expected sentence, but Stallworth's stature helped him skate and Burress' stardom made an example out of him.

If a drunk kills a member of his family, what kind of a penalty would Stallworth want for that person?

Weather Prognosticator: the zero-accountability career

2009-08-17T07:42:00.000-07:00

Does anyone really like weathermen?

I'm not referring to the one in Pocatello, Idaho, who, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, said the Japanese Mafia had a weather machine and were exacting revenge from WWII. But is there any other career field in which you're allowed to be so wrong so often?

I'm sure the only time I've ever seen "100 percent chance of rain" on weather.com is when it is already raining. A great part of me can't stand that.

And if they're wrong - which frequently happens - they're like, "It's the weather! Who can predict that? Nobody's perfect!" That's a cop out, their way to avoid responsibility.

Can you imagine if other occupations were given this kind of leeway? How many planes would crash if air traffic controllers could fall back on "nobody's perfect"?

What about S.W.A.T. teams? "Gee, we're sorry we crashed through all of your windows and used the battering ram to knock down your door. It turned out it was the house next door with the covered windows and sporadic chemical burns in the front yard."

And hit men? Don't get me started on the amount of needless murders in which that would result.

Some days I look on the aforementioned Web site to find the current day's forecast, and I see the storm clouds icon. In my mind, I immediately change my plans for the day. "I can't go running in the rain" or "I don't want to play soccer in the rain" or "My day is ruined! Who wants to picnic in the rain?"

If I were to further investigate the day by clicking on "more details," I would find there was really only a 30 percent chance of rain. Meaning, there was actually a 70 percent chance we would see NO rain. That's actually more than TWICE as likely we'll get no rain at all. Twice as likely!

Frankly, I feel we've gone far too long with life like this. We need to band together and demand accountability from our meteorologists. Don't you let another picnic get canceled without a fight.

Vick to the Eagles Potentially Makes them a Super Bowl Favorite

2009-08-13T19:16:00.000-07:00

Kudos to the Philadelphia Eagles for signing Michael Vick to a two-year contract. Vick has made a lot of mistakes in the past, and based on the opinion of Tony Dungy - a man who makes A.C. Green look immoral - I believe he deserves a second chance.

Even before the signing, I had Philly pretty high based on the way they finished last year and the drafting of the playmaking Missouri wide receiver Jeremy Maclin. Donovan McNabb has gone through the majority of his career without a #1 receiver, and if Maclin lives up to the hype - with DeSean Jackson coming off a solid rookie year - Eagles will be the NFC favorites to go to the Super Bowl.

Even Rush Limbaugh would have to like McNabb's chances this year.

Now, with Michael Vick aboard, things haven't been this interesting in the City of Brotherly Love since Wilt Chamberlain was actively "dating."

We have no idea how well Vick will be able to play being away from football for the last two seasons. We do know he was a tremendous athlete - not a tremendous quarterback, but an exciting athlete. He's not being brought in to take over at QB. McNabb has that position locked up, and Kevin Kolb is the future at that slot.

The question is where will coach Andy Reid place Vick? How will Michael Vick contribute on the football field?

Based on the impact of the Miami Dolphins' usage of the Wildcat formation, it would be pretty difficult to look past that option. There's a minute chance he could line up as a receiver, but that system would be perfect for Vick. Not putting him there would be like buying a toothbrush to clean your fingernails. Sure a toothbrush would work, but that's not what it was designed for and other things do it better.

Things in Hell: Opionators: Not only is your opinion different, it is wrong

2009-08-13T09:30:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had an firmly held opinion? An opinion you were rather passionate about, perhaps dealing with ethical, economical or political topics?

Me too.

Have you ever had someone disagree with your strong opinion? For reasons known or unknown to you, he or she just could not come to any common ground?

Me too.

Is it wrong to disagree with someone's opinion? I don't think so. In a country which grants us the freedoms required to express ourselves the way we see fit (with obvious exceptions), we should welcome the arrival of others at the marketplace of ideas. Numerous minds working together is the basis of a country's strength and ability to progress through good times and bad.

Now to get to the point of this entry, have you had someone disagree with your strong opinion, but not just disagree? To them it is not even a matter of opinion as much as it is a fact? Watching these kind of people respond to your opinion is like watching a teacher grade your test?

Me too.

However, the latter is a lot less acceptable than the former.

There are legal rights, and there are social rights. It is well within the social rights of someone to not have the same opinion as you, but when that person takes the step to the next level - the step towards mockery, verbal humiliation, or even blatant condescension - they become an opinionator.

It isn't enough for an opinionator to simply express their opinion or even express the differences between his/her opinion and yours. They must "teach" you. The curriculum would include phone calls (early morning or late night), text messages, emails, YouTube clips, and articles all with a "See! I told you so!" flavor to them.

Have you expressed a desire to receive this education? Probably not, but an opinionator will only be happy once he has successfully changed your mind. Or will he?

My "informal studies" show his thirst won't be quenched then. At that point, you would simply become one of his cronies. You'll still get the phone calls, text messages, emails, YouTube clips, and articles, only they will now be full of an "I can't believe other people don't think like us" flavor.

I suppose the worst part of an opinionator is that he or she truly believes there is a right and wrong answer. No "that's your opinion" attitude for them. It is fact. And there is no getting around it.

They talk of the economy with certainty of what will happen -- without any formal training as an economist that you know of. They disregard the religious beliefs of any outside their own. They don't tell you what the weather is supposed to be like, but they tell you it will rain. It will be partly cloudy. The wind will blow at 18 miles per hour.

It's frustrating, discouraging, maddening, and almost any other negative adjective all rolled into one. Surely, Hell would have to be like that.

The fact is there really isn't any winning with these people, so stay true to your own self. Have an open mind, but don't let these punks bully you around. In spite of what they might say, you are entitled to your own opinion.

---
Things in Hell posts are periodic observations of what Hell might have. I am not saying this person/persons are actually going to spend eternity there. When I think of the what the worst possible place would have, these kind of people come to mind.

What are the White Sox doing?

2009-08-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been driving and you get stuck behind someone who looks like they are supposed to be turning soon onto another street, but for some reason, they just don't know which one?

That's what it has been like following the 2009 Chicago White Sox.

They have gone through this season in a pretty mediocre way, hovering somewhere around .500. Periodically, they go on a tear and win a few games in a row. Jose Contreras has a dominating outing. Mark Buerhle throws a perfect game. Old timers like Scott Podsednik resurrect their careers. Newcomers like Gordon Beckham string together some breakout games.

All of this happens and you start to think they turning a corner, and then they don't.

They slow down, they put on their blinker, and then they turn it off and keep going straight until the next turn. Then they do it all over and over again.

Now they've made some deals like bringing San Diego ace Jake Peavy and Toronto all-star Alex Rios in to push them over the top.

A lot of people are very optimistic for these moves, and I, too, would love to be the same way about it. But I just can't. Too many question marks surround these recent moves.

There is always a caveat when signing or trading for National League pitchers to an American League team. The NL is not as good as the AL. The quality of players Peavy was pitching to is lower than those he will face. He won't be pitching to pitchers anymore. His stats might be inflated.

A pitcher making that kind of switch will typically increase his ERA a run or so and lose 2-3 strikeouts per game, leaving the Sox with a mediocre to good pitcher. I'm not saying Peavy can't succeed in the AL. I'm just saying NL pitchers rarely do.

And Alex Rios? He's still young and has had a pretty stalwart career. However, ever since he signed the huge $70 million contract, his stats have gone down. If I was a GM, I would be worried about the lack of motivation. Maybe Rios isn't one who plays for the love of the game. Maybe he is someone who played for the big contract. Now that he has it, will he step up? So far, he hasn't.

I have been a White Sox fan for years. I don't wish these things to come true. And even if they do come true, the White Sox are still a better team than before. They'll just have over $20 million a year locked up in manure. Even farmers will tell you that's a lot.

Third-person Sports: Eli Manning makes what?!?!

2009-08-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

Eli Manning reportedly signed a six-year contract extension worth about $97 million, with $35 million of that to be guaranteed. When I first saw this, I wasn't exactly sure what to think. But the more I think of it, the more I think I would hate to be a NY Giants fan right about now.

"What?" you might say. "Wasn't Eli Manning the 2008 Super Bowl MVP? What could possibly be wrong with the Giants locking up their leader?"

First off, I'm betting NY probably could have had him for a bit less. It almost seems as though the $97 million was the Giants' idea. I have nothing to back that up, but think about it: how could an agent go into the GM's office and - with a straight face and everything - demand the third highest salary in the league.

Don't get me wrong, Eli Manning has made some humongous strides over the course of his five-year career, but not enough to warrant such a price tag. In 2008, he had his best regular season (QB rating-wise) yet, but it still wasn't even good enough to put him in the 60th percentile. That means that in his best season, the 49ers' Shaun Hill and the Seahawks' Seneca Wallace still had better stats.

Imagine if those two guys signed such a lucrative contract. Imagine if they signed a 6-year/$60 million contract. Imagine if they signed 6-year/$40 million contracts. Any of those scenarios would be deemed ridiculous, so why is Eli getting the scratch?

I'm not actually suggesting Wallace and Hill are worth as much as Eli, but I would like to suggest the reason behind his inflated contract can be found in many different places. On his birth certificate, on his driver's license, and even on all of his elementary school assignment. It's the latter half of the words "Eli Manning."

His last name has been helping him since college. He was quickly slated as the number one draft pick, while Phillip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger have statistically had much better careers (Big Ben also trumps him in the Super Bowl category), and they were drafted AFTER him. If his name was Eli Gower, he probably wouldn't have cracked the top five.

Now he's even getting even more money than his brother, who is a far-superior talent. Imagine being Peyton, breaking records and being on pace to break many more, and your little brother, who hasn't come close to your numbers on the field, passes up your bank account - and people already thought your contract was too high!

I'm all for athletes getting paid (especially in football, a sport in which your future quality of life can be greatly altered in any play), but a rational mind cannot think Eli deserves every penny of this contract. Being the Super Bowl MVP hasn't had this great of an effect on a salary since Larry Brown signed a lucrative contract after his Super Bowl XXX performance.

A Super Bowl win should not mean THAT much, not to mention the fact that the defense really won the game for him.

The biggest reason to hate this move as a Giants fan is because it handcuffs you from going after big names in free agency. I realize a lot of the Giants' recent success came through the draft, but if you put that much into one player, how much will you have left over to re-sign those players?

If you take a look at the list of the highest paid players in the NFL, you'll notice something's (or someone people are) missing: many elite players. Tom Brady, for example, had one of the most prolific seasons in NFL history in 2007. He's nowhere close to the top of the list, but that gives the Pats a lot of flexibility to add or re-sign players to keep New England competitive.

I'm not saying the Giants won't be good down the road, but it will definitely be harder and the margin error will be a whole lot more narrow.

For Eli, this is all fantastic. But for NY and its fans, not so much.

Things in Hell: Story Topper

2009-08-05T09:00:00.000-07:00

*Things in Hell posts are periodic observations of what Hell might have. I am not saying this person/persons are actually going to spend eternity there. When I think of the what the worst possible place would have, these kind of people come to mind. Enjoy!
----

Everyone has had an experience that has made a difference in his or her life. Maybe it's funny, maybe it's sad or maybe it's one of those anything-that-could-possibly-go-wrong-does stories.

Whatever the story is, it is your story. You experienced it, and naturally, you feel that as you tell it to a group of people, the spotlight should be on you – and rightly so.

Enter Story Topper. I am certain Hell will have one of these.

Have you two met? He or she is usually the first one to speak after the conclusion of your story – without an invitation. The first words out of the mouths of Story Topper usually begin with “That's nothing...” or “Oh yeah? Listen to this...”

Story Topper will then proceed to attempt to trump your story by switching the topic/focus onto them, and thus, stealing your thunder. The very same thunder you rightfully earned through experiencing your experience.

Sometimes you know their story is a pile consisting of pure, unadulterated bull crap. For instance, if someone is talking about a love triangle, and Story Topper (who happens to be morbidly obese) chimes in about how the same thing happened to him – but with eight girls!

In spite of the sheer asininity of a “love nonagon,” Story Topper will still swear to it. Even if this portly fellow did have these eight girls after him, it still doesn't matter. That's not important, because you are the storyteller, and your story deserves the adequate amount of attention. The amount of attention that can NOT be given if rudely interrupted by Story Topper.

Can you think of a better way of punishing evildoers than to have every one of their stories topped for the rest of eternity? Me neither.

***Have you ever had an experience with Story Topper? Feel free to share in the comments, and don't be afraid to top my story.

Really, Marbury? Really?!

2009-07-01T09:30:00.000-07:00

FEUDS: Marbury says Knicks not good for stars

Stephon Marbury | Celtics

Stephon Marbury believes star players should be cautious about signing with the Knicks because of Mike D'Antoni's offensive scheme and the way the organization treats people.

"I wouldn't want to play in that system," Marbury told The Post. "That system can't win championships. You can't win championships if you don't talk about defense. In Boston, the coaches even play defense."- Source: ESPN.com

Interesting.

Marbury, the guy who gave himself the nickname of "Starbury," says Mike D'Antoni's offensive scheme should cause some concern for star players.

You know something? Marbury, the guy who even tatooed a star on the side of his head to further convince you his nickname is and should be "Starbury," is right.

Marbury, the guy who also released a line of shoewear called "Starbury Shoes," is right, because it was in that system people like Shawn Marion, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, and Joe Johnson just disintegrated as players.

It was in that system that players like Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, and Leandro Barbosa had their worst seasons and were almost completely ruined by that awful King D'Antoni.

Wait a minute, that's not right!

Steve Nash, a star, had two straight (and almost a third) MVP seasons in that system. Amare and Joe Johnson became stars under that system. Shawn Marion played a lot better under that system than he has since - just ask Raptor and Heat fans.

Before Diaw got to the Suns, he was a no-name throw-in for the Joe Johnson trade, and he then became a bit of a go-to guy for the Suns, flling in for the injured Amare. Take his stats with Atlanta and compare them with the rest of his career.

Richardson led the league in three-pointers in his first season under D'Antoni and saw a bump and his stats when he was reunited with D'Antoni in NY. Bell and Barbosa have flourished with D'Antoni.

That coach's system, directly and indirectly, has resulted in a lot of players making a lot of cash.

It's not surprising Marbury would say all of this. It is quite clear Mike D'Antoni does not prefer the company of Marbury - and few coaches do (Isiah Thomas, your thoughts?). One of the first things he did in Phoenix was have Marbury shipped to NY. And when D'Antoni went to NY, one of the first things he did was alienate Marbury and pretty much say he has no plans for the PG to play for him.

Maybe this is part of the reason Marbury spoke so poorly of Mike and his system? So is he really a reliable source on the subject? He hasn't really even played under the system - D'Antoni won't let him.

The fact is D'Antoni's system is capable of winning a championship, but so far it hasn't. Time will tell. Considering how close some of those Suns teams got, I wouldn't blame it all on the system.

D'Antoni is lucky a well-or-somewhat-respected player didn't talk trash about him. That could have done some damage.

Some Thoughts on the Simmons-Dunleavy Feud

2009-06-29T15:36:00.000-07:00

I know I am a little late on this one, but I have been out of town for the last little bit, so I wanted to comment on something that is nothing short of begging to be commented on:

The coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, Mike Dunleavy, recently appeared on Colin Cowherd's radio show and called ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons a "joker" and a "joke-writer" and said he had no credibility.

Before I say anything else, it is only fair that I mention I am a fan and a reader of Bill Simmons' work. That said, let's take a look at Mike Dunleavy's time with the Clippers:

2003-2004: 28-54
2004-2005: 37-45
2005-2006: 47-35*
2006-2007: 40-42
2007-2008: 23-59
2008-2009: 19-63
* - made playoffs

Call me crazy, but making the playoffs once in the last six years and getting progressively worse each year after doesn't exactly scream "credible" in the coaching profession. How a coach can go 23-59 in his fifth season with the team and keep his job is confusing. But to come back the next year and do worse? Keeping your job after that is just beyond the realm of comprehension.

cred⋅i⋅ble [kred-uh-buhl]

–adjective

1.	capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.

2.	worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

Bill Simmons has many years experience as a sportswriter and many more as a sports observer. He had season tickets to the Clippers last season and a front row seat to the players' relationship with and/or body language toward their coach. He wrote a 700-page book about the history of the NBA. Someone solely talking out of his rear could probably only make it to about two or three hundred pages. He's not even a Clippers fan, so it's not like he is just some unwashed mouthbreather in the cheap seats talking about how the Clippers should trade for LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Tim Duncan. He's a professional and his thoughts on Dunleavy and the Clippers franchise is as valid as anyone else's.

During his radio appearance, Dunleavy also talked about all of the great draft picks he has made over the past few seasons. The next logical question is then why do the Clippers suck? If "all but one" of your draft selections have been great, why was last season your worst one yet?

What I am saying is it's quite clear Dunleavy is in no place to criticize Simmons. Someone who obviously sucks at his job can't say another person sucks at his or her job without one logical piece of evidence to back it up.

Obviously, Bill Simmons had a few comebacks to Dunleavy, and he posted them on his Twitter account. I loved almost all of them, and here they are:

On Cowherd's show, Dunleavy just called me a "joke writer" & said I had "no credibility." Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle!8:11 AM Jun 25th
Here's a joke: "What do you call an NBA coach who's 194-298 with the Clips?" A: "Still employed!!!" Now that's a funny joke.8:13 AM Jun 25th
1 more joke: Q: "What do you call a coach who decimated 40% of his team's season ticket holders base?" A: "Mike Dunleavy."8:15 AM Jun 25th
Ok, 1 more: Q: "What do you get when you cross cheap suits, booing, 35-point losses + players mailing it in?" A: The Mike Dunleavy Era.8:19 AM Jun 25th
Mike Dunleavy saying someone has no credibility is like Michael Richards calling someone a racist.8:35 AM Jun 25th
I'm so on fire with Dunleavy jokes that Dunleavy just brought in an ice-cold Daniel Ewing off the bench to slow me down.8:38 AM Jun 25th
And now, a few excerpts from Mike Dunleavy's upcoming coffee table photo book, "How The Hell Do I Still Have a Job?"9:20 AM Jun 25th
"I look like this a lot. I'll be honest: It freaks out the players." http://tinyurl.com/nrmtq79:20 AM Jun 25th
"After bad calls, I look like I'm trying to pass out a kidney stone. Again, it's important to scare your players." http://tinyurl.com/n6ga879:22 AM Jun 25th
"The end of a typical exchange between me & Baron Davis." Jon & Kate have better body language than us. http://tinyurl.com/lkr6vt9:23 AM Jun 25th
"Here's me waiting for Elgin to turn around so I could plunge a knife into his back." http://tinyurl.com/km3elm9:23 AM Jun 25th
"My players were disappointed when this collision didn't put me in the hospital." http://tinyurl.com/mm5jr79:24 AM Jun 25th
"Even the refs can't believe I still have a job." http://tinyurl.com/m4e7ym9:24 AM Jun 25th
"A typical scene from last season: One of my players passing me without making eye contact." http://tinyurl.com/mbu6mb9:25 AM Jun 25th
"Here's my doing my thing in the huddle. Notice that nobody is looking at me. Hey, I'm only the coach." http://tinyurl.com/msfy9r9:26 AM Jun 25th
"I bought this suit online for 75% off from a website based in Hungary. Good purchase." http://tinyurl.com/luy9w99:26 AM Jun 25th
"One of my favorite sports coats. I bought it from Vanilla Ice during an estate sale." http://tinyurl.com/mnsmbs9:27 AM Jun 25th
"If you wondered how I can be 194-298 with the Clippers and still have a job, here's your answer." http://tinyurl.com/lsz23u9:28 AM Jun 25th

Make Room for Daddy!

2009-06-19T19:48:00.000-07:00

Here is something you don't see everyday:

"Dallas Mavericks forward Dirk Nowitzki has filed for sole custody of his ex-girlfriend's unborn baby, if it's proved he is the father, according to a petition filed last week in a Dallas County courthouse." - ESPN.com

Obviously, the "something you don't see everyday" isn't in reference to a basketball player getting someone pregnant, since NBA players' licentious road-trip behavior brings new meaning to the phrase "Hands Across America."

The real news is an NBA player taking swift responsibility for his actions. And he's not just setting up a scholarship/trust and coming to birthdays, but he's actually filing for SOLE custody.

Granted, his ex-girlfriend is about a couple Planters past a nut job and the child would be better off in the hands of a grizzly than in that train wreck's care, but it's still impressive to see Dirk, who would rather be a defensive-minded player than see his ex again, step up and do the right thing.

All things considered, I really hope he is successful in his efforts, and maybe his actions will help future daddies to be more responsible than those than the those that infamously inspired the 1998 Sport Illustrated article.

Reasons I'd Rather Be a Sox Fan

2009-06-16T09:30:00.000-07:00

Starting with the most obvious...

In the last 100 years, White Sox have two World Series wins, and the Cubs have zero. Nevertheless, Cub fans try to lead White Sox fans into believing they're the dumb ones. Meanwhile, idiot after idiot lines up for tickets to Wrigley Field every year, because Cub fans don't expect anything from their team's management. Each year a pile of crap they call a baseball team trots out onto the field destined for mediocrity or worse. Albert Einstein, who's smarter than anyone or anything ever associated with the Cubs, said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Instead of not going to games and showing management you want a winning team, year after year fans pile into the stadium, lining the pockets of team owners with cold, hard cash. In fact, this year the Cubs are spending the third (NY Yankees, Red Sox) most money in the league, and it has amount to a .500 record. Well done! I suppose spending $40 million more than the White Sox for the same amount of wins by June 15 is a good idea. So the dopiness doesn't merely reside in the bleachers - good to know. The White Sox also had a streak of undistinguished baseball, but at least the White Sox and their fans never blamed their championship drought on a curse. And why "The Curse of the Billy Goat"? Couldn't it just be "The Curse of Being a Walking Punchline" or "The Curse of Not Being as Good as the Majority of Baseball Teams"? It makes more sense to me. Cub fans aren't there to watch baseball, they're there to A) party, B) get drunk, or C) party and get drunk. I'm reminded of a wonderful quote by then-Senator Barack Obama regarding Cub fans: “I’m not one of these fair weather fans. You go to Wrigley Field, you have a beer, beautiful people up there. People aren’t watching the game. It’s not serious. White Sox, that’s baseball.”

I just don't understand how people could live like that, pretty much knowing your team will never win a World Series. I dare say there are no Cub fans alive that have seen the Cubs win a World Series. One would have to be over 100 years old or own a time machine to have accomplished such a feat, so it's probably not likely. While people over 100 years old do exist, common sense would tell you that, over the course of 100 years, they'd have smartened up a bit. Sadly, many Cub fans are merely victims of generational stupidity, and their fanhood has been passed down from generation to generation. It's a lot like racism in that way, and it's sad. The present-day fans are blind to the illogistics of their passion. So starting on Tuesday, when the White Sox start wiping the dirt and grass with the likes of Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, and Derek Lee, I just hope something will click in the minds of Cub fans, and they'll see a World Series isn't likely for the next 100 years either.

Thoughts on the 2009 NBA Finals

2009-06-15T10:35:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to the Lakers and their fans on L.A.'s 2009 NBA Championship! It was quite an impressive accomplishment. During these Finals, however, an even greater feat of endurance occurred: actually watching the NBA Finals.

Despite a couple of close finishes, the 2009 NBA Finals left a lot to be desired, and it started with Game 1.

Lakers dominated that game from beginning to end, winning 100-75 and possibly saying good-bye to the casual fan. At that point, the Finals storylines went from "Kobe vs. Superman" to "Does Kobe need another ring to solidify his legacy?" and "Phil Jackson to pass up Red Auerbach."

After the thrashing the Lakers gave to the Magic in Game 1, the NBA Finals focused around when, instead of "if," the Lakers were going to win the championship. It became a foregone conclusion the Lakers would win, so the series became a great deal less interesting.

Another component to the lack of interest were the huge breaks in between the games. It is a momentum killer. I've already mentioned how much I hated the 5-day layoff in between the last two rounds of the playoffs, but my fury was only compounded upon hearing about the 3-day break between Game 1 & 2 and 4 & 5.

I understand the league wants to get games on certain days of week when they will more likely produce ratings and this isn't the first year they've done it, but it just makes me lose interest in the games. It seems like that idea would work better with more interesting matchups. But if your team isn't involved in the Finals, do you really have any reason to watch when it looks like it's over after Game 1?

The NBA Finals used to be "appointment TV." Each year the Finals would be full of stars: Michael/Scottie vs. Magic/Worthy, Drexler, Barkley, Payton/Kemp, and Stockton/Malone. This year's Finals lacked real star power.

Don't get me wrong, the Finals had a star in Kobe Bryant, averaging over 32 points and 7 assists per game. Stars rise to the occasion on the biggest stage. Not necessarily winning, but at least playing like an all star.

After the Magic knocked off the Cavs, thanks in part to a big series from Dwight Howard, I think a lot of people - and count me among them - thought Magic-Lakers was going to be a very interesting series.

It turned out the NBA Finals actually did need LeBron, because Superman did not show up against L.A. (15 ppg, 15 rpg, 3 orpg, 4 bpg, 48.8 FG%, 60.3 FT% 4 topg) the way he did with Cleveland (25 ppg, 13rpg, 4 orpg, 1.2 bpg, 65 FG%, 70.1 FT%, 2.5 topg).

Sure, he might have been better defensively in the Finals, blocking more shots and grabbing more rebounds. But solid defense doesn't do it for the general basketball fan, maybe an Orlando Magic fan, but not the every-day fan.

Solid defense never drew viewers for series with the Detroit Pistons. It never drew viewers for the San Antonio Spurs. And it most certainly didn't draw viewers when the Pistons played the Spurs in the 2005 finals.

Still, the TV ratings from the 2009 Finals are comparable to last year's matchup, which included a team from a bigger market and with a richer team history: the Boston Celtics. One might conclude that my theory goes out the window, since fans were still tuning in the same as they did for last year's championship, a very good NBA Finals.

Maybe.

Or maybe since the TV ratings for NBA Playoffs this year had been a 20% improvement over last year's, the 2009 Finals should have reaped the benefits of that success. Was it the 5-day break from the Conference Finals to the NBA Finals? Was it the 3-day breaks in between Games 1 & 2 and 4 & 5, when there was no traveling involved for teams? Was it the lack of star power?

The TV ratings for the NBA finals took a nosedive in 1999 after the lockout, and it really has never recovered. And in the 1990s, the ratings were only high when Michael Jordan was playing. This year the NBA really needed LeBron vs. Kobe. The two best, most exciting, most fun-to-watch players going against each other. A matchup of the two players most compared to Michael Jordan would have drawn a big audience.

Here's hoping future NBA Finals produce more intriguing matchups - and soon.

We're going streaking!

2009-06-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

Streak for the Cash

It's not what you think...or at least it's not what I thought.

It's an entertaining, as well as addictive, game on ESPN.com.

The basic idea is ESPN and Progressive insurance company, are giving sports fans (and I guess non-sports fans would be eligible as well) an opportunity to win $1 million. Every day ESPN provides you with a set of sports scenarios, and you just have to predict the outcome. If you build one of the top seven streaks by December 31, 2009, you win $10,000 and a trip to the ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn. There, you will compete with the other six for the $1 million. Click here for complete details on how to play.

When I first saw this game, I thought, "Pfff! I could do this." However, it is harder than it seems. In fact, my streak has never been longer than 10, and right now, the top seven streaks range from 20-24.

I've got a ways to go.

After one of my streaks is broken, I'll just pick whatever game is next - just to get back in the game. And I lose again. Actually, there are times when I lose so many in a row, I wonder if a losing streak would still qualify for the $1 million. The way I figure it, losing 25 in a row, is just as hard as winning 25 in a row. After looking a the official rules, I now see ESPN and Progressive insurance company don't necessarily agree with me.

My wife and I are playing, and currently, we have a combined streak of one. Not our finest hour, or more accurately not my finest hour, since I am with one with zero. Not too long ago, each of us had streaks of nine at the same time. We thought, "This is our chance!"

The next picks we made were made very carefully, but since we both lost and went back down to zero, one could argue those picks weren't made carefully enough.

Anyway, play Streak for the Cash. It's a load of fun, and maybe, just maybe you'll end up like this guy.

In case you were wondering, the NBA Playoffs are not over yet

2009-06-04T11:56:00.000-07:00

Life gets busy, so at times, we need to forgive ourselves for not staying completely current on the happenings outside our own bubble.

One piece of news that might catch a few off guard is that the NBA playoffs are not over yet, but not staying up-to-date on this warrants no self-pardon. The one needing forgiveness is the NBA, not the fans.

If you are not a Lakers or Magic fan, forgetting the playoffs are still going on is absolutely acceptable (and I wouldn't be that surprised if fans from L.A. and Orlando have forgotten, too) for the sole reason that the Conference Finals ended five days ago.

Five days! If a best-of-five series started immediately after the Magic clinched their trip to the Finals, there would have been enough time to finish it before Game 1 of the NBA Finals started (if it was a 3-0 sweep).

Five days! That was long enough for LeBron to leave the court without shaking any hands, stand up the media, come up with an excuse and talk to the media the next day about it, have David Stern want to talk to you about it, maybe talk to him about it, have a benign growth removed, and be back at home resting comfortably by tip-off.

Five days! That was long enough for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins to travel from Florida to the friggin' moon - a total of about 240,000 miles!

Five days! That's long enough for wives to make their husbands watch everything from Steel Magnolias to The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood to make up for the months of neglect sports brought to their lives.

And it is long enough for the NBA to lose all of the momentum earned through two hard-fought, could-have-easily-gone-the-other way conference championships - not mention all of the great series that came before those.

Why would they do this? Three days would have been fine, but five days is poor marketing. We have experienced one of the best playoffs in recent history. And it's not just the drama of nail-biting finishes, but the drama itself has brought more and more viewers back to watching NBA action. Compared to last year's playoffs, TV ratings were up over 30 percent for Eastern and Western Conference Championships.

But a lot of that momentum is gone now, and barring outstanding game-winning shots or even a brawl in Game 1 or 2, the NBA Finals - TV ratings-wise - will fall considerably short of what they could have been.

LeBron's Postgame Behavior

2009-06-01T11:13:00.000-07:00

I don't blame LeBron James for not shaking hands with any Magic player after losing the Eastern Conference Finals last Saturday.

I don't blame LeBron James for not making himself available to the media.

I don't blame LeBron James for not wanting to talk to anyone after playing his heart out and still losing.

He is still only 24 years old, and he showed it. Plus, throughout his entire career, I don't believe he has ever lost a series he was expected to win. It was a first and it stung. I can't blame him for that.

I can't blame him, but I do have some problems with his post-series behavior.

First, let's say Kobe Bryant had done the same thing. Any Kobe-hater would have been rounding up all of the friends, pitchforks, and torches he or she could find, and they would not rest until the mob was satisfied. There is no denying an act like that would have caused irreparable harm to Kobe.

Second, since he was a junior in high school, LeBron has had to deal with the media. His poise and composure while interacting with the media has drawn all sorts of praise. How do you all of a sudden not realize how your actions will look? How not shaking any of your opponents' hands will look? How not talking to the media that built you up will look? It just doesn't make sense. He should and does know better.

Third, it makes him look like a sore loser.

He recently said, "It's hard for me to congratulate somebody after you just lose to them. I'm a winner. It's not being a poor sport or anything like that. If somebody beats you up, you're not going to congratulate them. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm a competitor. That's what I do. It doesn't make sense for me to go over and shake somebody's hand."

Just because he says "it's not being a poor sport," it doesn't mean it's true. As it turns out, this isn't the first group of handshakes he has managed to dodge. Last year, he skipped out on the Celts, and the year before that, he left the court after a quick hug/butt-slap from the Spurs' Bruce Bowen.

It actually looks like it is "being a poor sport." I'm surprised he didn't take the ball with him.

Finally, he can't choose when and when not to be the NBA's "Golden Boy." He can't choose when and when not to be the face of the Cavaliers. He has to take the good with the bad. An NBA career is not going to be all Nike and Powerade commercials. It's not going to be all ESPYs and MVPs. It's not even going to be all puppets in your likeness.

You have to be able to answer questions after losing, as well as you do when you sweep the first two opponents. Nobody really cares all that much about what Mo Williams thinks of the loss. They (not just the media, but all of the fans, too) want to hear the MVP's thoughts.

You can't be the man, without being a man.

LeBron's Playoffs to be Overshadowed by Conspiracy Theorists

2009-05-28T15:17:00.000-07:00

Everybody loves a conspiracy theory.

NBA has long had to quell ideas and rumors of the playoffs being fixed, and it became even more of a problem after the whole Tim Donaghy thing. People love to look at plays and results as something more than coincidence, as something "the league wanted to happen."

Does the league want certain teams or players to be playing on TV as much as possible? Of course. The NBA is a business, and it wants to see its most marketable players with as much face time as possible. However, Daniel Stern had more power over the result of a game in Celtic Pride than David Stern currently does.

What LeBron has done in these playoffs is nothing short of remarkable, and I don't think he's done. If his teammates break out of their shooting slumps, then the Cavs could quite possibly become the ninth team to come back from a 3-1 defecit.

The games have been too close to say the Magic have dominated and the series could very easily have been over by now. By that same token, with a couple of different plays, the Magic could very easily have been down 3-1 in the series.

But if the Cavs end up coming back and winning the series, this will all add more fuel to the fire of NBA Conspiracy Theorists. It can't just be that LeBron is the MVP and could will his team back from the brink of elimination. It has to be "what the league wanted."

If the NBA truly does "make things happen," it has done a horrible job at giving itself the best possible results:

The Cavs' first two rounds were done as quickly as possible this year. Wouldn't the league have an interest in prolonging those series? Wouldn't it be good for the league to make the games closer?

Game 7 of Atlanta-Miami would have been a perfect chance to give us LeBron vs. D-Wade. Wouldn't that have been a better matchup for the league than LeBron vs. Joe Johnson? (By the way, if you are an all-star and you're not known by your first name or a nickname, you need to talk to your agent ASAP.)

The San Antonio Spurs have almost no marketability (except for ABC being able to pimp "Desperate Housewives" with Eva Longoria in the crowd), yet they won over and over again. Why would the league - if it rigs the playoffs - allow the Spurs to win so many titles? In 2006, in suspending Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, the NBA basically chose the boring Spurs to advance over the much more exciting and marketable Suns. What would the league have to gain from that? Lower ratings?

The 2005 Finals put the Spurs against the defense-driven Detroit Pistons. The result was a seven-game borefest. If the league controls the results, why would it do this?

The answer to all of my questions is there is no answer, because the league may have a rooting business interest, but it doesn't change the outcome, and it doesn't choose the matchups. If it does, then the league is comprised of the worst businessmen on the face of the earth.

It's a shame, because it is possible we will see some great things in the next week from LeBron and the Cavs, but some people might be too suspicious to appreciate it.

How many mistakes can one person make?

2009-05-27T16:46:00.000-07:00

When Lane Kiffin got fired as coach of the Al-kland Raiders, I chalked it up to the Steinbrenner of football, the way-too-old-to-pull-off-that-look Al Davis (Just remember to breathe, baby) up to his ol' antics again. The alien-autopsy that is left of him continues to make mistakes that has put and kept the Raiders in their current state.

I assumed Kiffin would be given another chance elsewhere, probably in college. On November 30, 2008, Lane signed a six-year deal with SEC's University of Tennessee. A big-time program. Millions of dollars. Not a bad life. However, in the short span of less than six months later, any UT fan without some doubts about the hire is either the more optimistic than Tony Robbins or in a coma.

I don't have a rooting interest either way (although I like to see teams that did well when I was growing up get back on the right track - One day, Nebraska!), but a small part of me wouldn't be surprised UT were to take a $7.5 million mulligan within the next couple of years. Let's look at his gaffes thus far:

1. On February 5, 2009, Kiffin accused Urban Meyer the head coach of the Florida Gators of violating NCAA recruiting rules at Tennessee Booster breakfast at the Knoxville Convention Center.

"I'm going to turn Florida in right here in front of you," Kiffin told the crowd. "As Nu'Keese was here on campus, his phone keeps ringing. And so one of our coaches is sitting in the meeting with him and says, 'Who is that?' And he looks at the phone and says, 'Urban Meyer.'

"Just so you know, you can't call a recruit on another campus. But I love the fact that Urban had to cheat and still didn't get him."

While Kiffin was accusing Meyer of violating NCAA rules, he was actually violating Southeastern Conference rules himself and his accusations of Meyer's conduct being against NCAA rules was incorrect. Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive issued a public reprimand to Kiffin over the comments. In addition to the public reprimand by Slive, Florida Athletic Director Jeremy Foley issued a statement demanding an public apology from Kiffin.

Kiffin issued a public apology a day after the remarks. In a statement released by the University of Tennessee, Kiffin said, "In my enthusiasm for our recruiting class, I made some statements that were meant solely to excite those at the breakfast. If I offended anyone at the University of Florida, including Mr. Foley and Urban Meyer, I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention." - Wikipedia

So he called Meyer a cheater, and Meyer wasn't, and Kiffin made himself a cheater by saying Meyer was a cheater, and then says "IF I offended...Urban Meyer, I sincerely apologize." It's not like Kiffin said he didn't like the way Meyer combs his hair or dresses. He called him a cheater. No need to wonder if offense was taken.

2. He "intimated that Nu'Keese Richardson's high school in Pahokee, Fla., couldn't be trusted to fax the national letter of intent to Tennessee." - Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN

and

3. According to ESPN’s Chris Low, “Kiffin told Jeffrey that if he chose the Gamecocks, he would end up pumping gas for the rest of his life like all the other players from that state who had gone to South Carolina.” - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Comments like that ought to hurt his future recruiting efforts in Florida and Georgia. It's a good thing Florida and Georgia don't have a rich pool of high school football talent. Wait a minute...

4. Tennessee plans to self-report a secondary violation, the third one involving Kiffin in the last month, after he mentioned unsigned prospect Bryce Brown by name during a radio show in Knoxville on Friday morning.

NCAA rules prohibit coaches from commenting about unsigned prospects, specifically their ability. The other two secondary violations involving Kiffin had to do with simulating game-day experiences while prospects were on campus.- ESPN

and

5. Tennessee plans to self-report another NCAA secondary violation after a high school recruit was mentioned by name Tuesday on Lane Kiffin's Twitter page.

Tennessee athletic director Mike Hamilton said it wasn't actually Kiffin who penned the post in question but an employee in the football office who was updating Kiffin's Twitter page for him.

The post was up for about an hour during the afternoon before being removed by Tennessee officials. It read: "It's a beautiful day in Knoxville, Tennessee today. I was so exited to hear that J.C. Copeland committed to play for the Vols today!" - ESPN

Whether he or an employee posted it, they had already got in trouble once for mentioning a recruit by name. It just seems like if you are going to coach NCAA football, you really should be aware of what you can and can't do. It just makes career sense.

And several more things he's done:

guaranteed a victory at Florida next season
angered South Carolina's Steve Spurrier
angered Alabama's Nick Saban
threw out that maybe heralded recruit Marlon Brown was "a grandmama's boy"

I think it's great he has gone into Tennessee and re-energized the players and fan base, but at what cost? When I think of the name "Lane Kiffin," the first thing that comes to mind is a crazy man who's finally getting all of the attention he could ever want or need. It should also be mentioned 11 Vols have left the team since he arrived in Knoxville, so doesn't seem like his approach is completely winning over the players. And he doesn't appear to become apologetic to players, fans, or coaches anytime soon.

Still, UT has gained a lot in the process: national attention for a "ghost" program and what "experts" deem to be a top-10 recruiting class (however, I am still waiting for all of Notre Dame's "#1 recruiting classes" to dominate).

The bottom line is winning. If he wins - which means compete for the SEC and National Championship soon - he will be loved and his style will be praised. If he doesn't, he and his style will wear out their welcome faster than Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequels - and maybe Al Davis wasn't so far off on this one.

LeBron vs. Kobe: A Little Premature?

2009-05-24T22:45:00.000-07:00

I was flipping through the channels the other day when I came across this documentary on ESPN: Nike Dream Season: 23 & 24 (LeBron James and Kobe Bryant).

Now I like a sports documentary probably a considerable amount more than the next guy (Sports movies, too - I'll even watch "Love & Basketball" when it periodically comes on cable). Especially when the documentary centers around athletes I know and have watched play. I probably wouldn't get as sucked into a Babe Didrikson documentary.

Anyway, as I was watching it, I couldn't help but hear the same question in my head over and over again: Isn't this a movie better suited to be aired during an NBA Finals in which LeBron and Kobe are both playing?

I know marketing is marketing, and if they both don't make it to the Finals, then this would have been the best time to air it. Still, at the time this aired, the consensus pick for the Finals was still Cavs-Lakers. So the ideal time to run this kind of program would have been during that matchup, not during the Conference Finals.

But I can't help but think that this, along with the Vitamin Water ads, is too much too soon. This will all look a bit silly if we get a Nuggets-Magic series. Carmelo Anthony was on the Olympic team. Dwight Howard, too. Where are the 'Melo-Superman documentaries? Where are the 'Melo-Superman ads?

I feel it would be better to wait until real life shows us LeBron vs. Kobe and then piggy-back onto it, instead of creating a rivalry out of two players with an age difference of seven years. I guess the Lebron James-Darko Milicic (the #2 pick in the 2003 draft; LeBron was #1) rivalry never had the requisite steam to stand the test of time.

-SG

P.S. - Yes, that is Justin Timberlake narrating the movie. Finally!

Does Michael Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

2009-05-22T21:13:00.000-07:00

When Michael Vick was first convicted of bankrolling a dog-fighting business, I was working at an animal control center. Obviously, all of my coworkers were outraged by the acts committed by Vick and his cronies. I feel pretty secure in saying all rational (and some semi-rational) people would consider Vick's conduct to be disgusting. There is no argument here.

To me, the argument in respect to Vick lies within his removal from prison, which has fueled a lot of talk about his possible return to the NFL. One of my former coworkers had said (upon his conviction) his "career was over." No way would any team sign him after this. This is the point where emotions cloud thinking and rational (and some semi-rational) become irrational.

The problem, as I see it, is that crimes against animals are groundlessly viewed as worse than crimes against people - especially by fanatical animal lovers. A relative of mine, who worked in a newsroom, told me of the different reactions of reporters assigned stories that involved animal abuse and stories involving people abuse. When it's people, "Same ol', same ol'. Another day, another dollar." When it's animals, they have to muster up the strength to keep living in a world in which that could happen. They're about as sad as Milwaukee butchers after hearing Prince Fielder went vegan.

How many plumbers, roofers, accountants or journalists, having served time for something like domestic abuse (a crime I would consider to be much worse), would not be allowed to work in their trained vocational upon being released from prison? Sure, they might not be allowed to return to the position they once held (and I don't think there is a team willing to sign Vick to another $130 million contract anytime soon), but they would be able to work in their field again. Why shouldn't Vick be able to do the same?

But all of this talk avoids the biggest reason you will see Vick in an NFL uniform in the fall of 2009: If a player can play, an owner can pay.

Ray Lewis was given a one-year probation sentence for obstruction of justice in the stabbing deaths of two men after a Super Bowl party in Atlanta. Question: If he was innocent, what justice did he feel the need to obstruct?

Adam "Pacman" Jones has been arrested around 10 times since he was drafted in 2005.

Jamal Lewis tried to set up a drug deal in 2004 and spent four months in prison for it.

Michael Irvin was arrested for cocaine possession and assault.

Chris Henry, Lawrence Phillips, Leonard Little, etc. The list goes on. All of these guys had complete laspses in moral (and legal) judgment, but they deserved and were given a second chance.

Some people don't learn from their mistakes (Pacman). Others go on to be model citizens (Lewis).

Doesn't Michael Vick deserve the opportunity to show us which one he'll be?

-SG