So I'm not sure if you noticed, but I haven't written anything in the last few days. This is because I've been taking a break. Not because I'm lazy, honestly no. If I wanted to, I could be churning out posts every day like the last few weeks. But you know what? I didn't major in English or writing or something along those lines. I majored in Math, Physics, and (currently) Mechanical Engineering. And because I'm currently working in grad school, I'm trying to finish a thesis in ME.
After hearing about a friend (and I'm being charitable with this description) flush her life down the toilet this past weekend, I realized that I need to finish this thesis. So the blog focus is going to change from here on out. First, no more daily posts. Too much time when I should be working. Second, more of a focus on how my thesis and research is going, though I will have occasional posts about other aspects of my life. Basically, this blog will be an outlet for ranting and raving about the thesis and baseball, the two main focuses of my life. So if you want to read about those, and maybe a few posts about the weight loss plan, or a few about TV occasionally, keep reading. But the asinine posts from Mondays, the Music posts, and the That Guy Sucks posts are leaving. Baseball posts (after I finish the division previews which I know you all CARE SO MUCH ABOUT) will be generally limited to how the teams I like are doing, ie, Cubs and Twins news. Deal.
So sorry the blog is changing, I just have more important things right now.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday That Guy Sucks
So I tried to wait on insulting players that technically haven't played any games for the White Sox. I TRIED. But when I realized that I needed to hate on a sox player this week, one guy jumped to mind. And yes, he's new, and yes, you didn't pay for him, and yes, the production you could feasibly get from him with regards to how much you paid....But you know what? Screw him, he sucks.
Andruw Jones (yes, with a u because his parents are awful) was once good. Then he turned 30, steroid testing was increased, and he went downhill faster than I did before I learned how to brake on skis. Now, I'm not saying his stats were steroid related, but a history of injuries suddenly appearing, and the fact that right after his FIRST worst season ever he showed up 20 pounds overweight and had an even worse season, well, that doesn't speak well of him.
He had several productive years, yes, back when he was Atlanta, and he earned several Gold Gloves playing there. I'm not going to deny that he used to be good, as is a common theme in these posts (not in two weeks though! i'm gonna hate the crap out of Juan Pierre) but the last 3 years he has been awful. In a contract year, 2007, he put up terrible numbers combined with a .222 batting average. He was never a great swinger, but .222? I could probably get a .222! The next year, after the Dodgers still gave him a contract, he showed up, as previously mentioned 20 pounds overweight. Now, if you were playing professional sports for a living, wouldn't you think that you'd want to show up healthy? (Geovany Soto, I'm looking right at you, here) That year he somehow hit a .158 and then ended the season on the DL again, for being too fat or some other crappy reason. Too much pie, that's his problem.
Last year, he somehow got playing time with the Rangers, for about half the season. He hit 17 home runs and had a .214 batting average. The Mendoza line is still at .200 people. He hit only 14 points better than the standard "crappy player" argument. And if we look at his monthly splits? April .344, May .245, June .170, July .209, August .167, September .179. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 3 of the 6 months out of the year he was abysmal. The Rangers probably had a better option if they had their pitchers bat for them. Those 17 home runs also stopped in July, too. Let's also add in the 72 strikeouts in 82 games, and only 3 sacrifice hits. Weeeeee. And if we want to play "Fun with split stats," which you know I do, let's consider his career against the Twins, the White Sox's main rival for the division crown. Do you want, career, or last year? Career, .143, and last year, .154. Hmm, how do I make that plane crash sound again? But hey, he hit .375 against the Tigers last year! Why, I'll bet he crushes.....what's that you say? .205 lifetime? Greaaaaaaaaat.
All I can say about him is that thank goodness you signed him to play DH. I'd be afraid of more Illinois earthquakes if he was running to catch a ball. Enjoy your 25 home runs and your DH's inability to do anything else. Heck, even 37 year old Jim Thome was able to hit .245 last year. But let the Twins sign him, it's not like they can do anything with another dangerous member in their lineup, noooooooooo.
At least I got to use all my fat joke tags for this.
Andruw Jones (yes, with a u because his parents are awful) was once good. Then he turned 30, steroid testing was increased, and he went downhill faster than I did before I learned how to brake on skis. Now, I'm not saying his stats were steroid related, but a history of injuries suddenly appearing, and the fact that right after his FIRST worst season ever he showed up 20 pounds overweight and had an even worse season, well, that doesn't speak well of him.
He had several productive years, yes, back when he was Atlanta, and he earned several Gold Gloves playing there. I'm not going to deny that he used to be good, as is a common theme in these posts (not in two weeks though! i'm gonna hate the crap out of Juan Pierre) but the last 3 years he has been awful. In a contract year, 2007, he put up terrible numbers combined with a .222 batting average. He was never a great swinger, but .222? I could probably get a .222! The next year, after the Dodgers still gave him a contract, he showed up, as previously mentioned 20 pounds overweight. Now, if you were playing professional sports for a living, wouldn't you think that you'd want to show up healthy? (Geovany Soto, I'm looking right at you, here) That year he somehow hit a .158 and then ended the season on the DL again, for being too fat or some other crappy reason. Too much pie, that's his problem.
Last year, he somehow got playing time with the Rangers, for about half the season. He hit 17 home runs and had a .214 batting average. The Mendoza line is still at .200 people. He hit only 14 points better than the standard "crappy player" argument. And if we look at his monthly splits? April .344, May .245, June .170, July .209, August .167, September .179. Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 3 of the 6 months out of the year he was abysmal. The Rangers probably had a better option if they had their pitchers bat for them. Those 17 home runs also stopped in July, too. Let's also add in the 72 strikeouts in 82 games, and only 3 sacrifice hits. Weeeeee. And if we want to play "Fun with split stats," which you know I do, let's consider his career against the Twins, the White Sox's main rival for the division crown. Do you want, career, or last year? Career, .143, and last year, .154. Hmm, how do I make that plane crash sound again? But hey, he hit .375 against the Tigers last year! Why, I'll bet he crushes.....what's that you say? .205 lifetime? Greaaaaaaaaat.
All I can say about him is that thank goodness you signed him to play DH. I'd be afraid of more Illinois earthquakes if he was running to catch a ball. Enjoy your 25 home runs and your DH's inability to do anything else. Heck, even 37 year old Jim Thome was able to hit .245 last year. But let the Twins sign him, it's not like they can do anything with another dangerous member in their lineup, noooooooooo.
At least I got to use all my fat joke tags for this.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Style Preview
Article coming tomorrow about style and such. Hopefully it won't be too sexist. See you then.
TV Amuses Me
So for some weird reason, I'm not getting internet access in my apartment. I blame Indianblah, because I can and I hate it and it sucks forever and everything. Yes. Anyways, I need a little break at work from writing a script about nanotechnology (when it gets filmed, I'll post it, trust me) and I figured I'd throw up something here about some of the TV I watch and why I like some of the new shows I've started watching and what have you. Pretend I was waving my hands during that last sentence.
Anyways, I got season 3 of Doctor Who (the new one, with David Tennant) yesterday and I watched the first episode. I remembered why I liked the show, and it wasn't because of the crazy sci-fi (though that helps) or the sheer Britishness of it all (that also helps). The reason I like it is because it's got that "Spark of Crazy" I like. The spark of crazy is what I'm terming a character or situation that if it happened in real life to me, I would find it insane and scary. But because it's on TV, happening to someone else, it's awesome. It's why I enjoy Burn Notice, How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, all that. All the shows I've really enjoyed have had one character that is just insane and that makes them awesome. Even the ones you don't think have it really do. For example, let's take a relatively mundane show like The West Wing. If our government actually worked where John Larroquete or a John Larroquete stand-in fired two people for leaving dead flowers on the desk of someone else? That would be nuts. Especially if it was John Larroquete. But because it's on TV? Awesome!
And so let's go back to Doctor Who. If I was accompanying the Doctor all around the galaxy stopping alien civilizations from destroying Earth, I'm relatively sure I'd go nuts pretty fast. But because it's TV? Awesome! Blow those Daleks up! Wooo!
How I Met Your Mother has also been good this season, as has Community and The Office. Unfortunately, those are more sitcommy, so it's hard to find that spark of crazy. However, Barney and Marshall, Troy and Abed, and most of the non-Jim-and-Pam cast help make it a lot easier to find. But I've been enjoying those shows for what seems like forever (technically not with Community, but meh, sitcommy. It gets lumped in because I say so.)
I've also been watching a lot of Supernatural lately, and I just got into that relatively recently. That's a show about two brothers who go around killing monsters and (recently) trying to stop the Apocalypse. Nothing cooler than killing vampires or shapeshifters or genies or demons. So much killing of demons. Plus, it has classic rock, which according to law makes everything better (btw, totally writing that post sometime this weekend. John's laws of awesomeness. I'm looking forward to that, expect it maybe this weekend or worst case by the end of the month)
But my newest favorite TV show is Leverage. It's a show about a group of con men conning evil people out of money to help others. It's Robin Hood with trickery instead of robbery! I want to be in on a con helping people someday! (Let's not form a list of all the things I want to do in the future at some point, that'll be far too insane of a post even for me, and I don't want to ruin Future John's life too much) Heck, I'd settle for even being in on a con just to make me richer a la Ocean's 11! Or 13, for that matter. 12 was pretty meh, I don't want to be in on that con. But what makes Leverage so great? Well, it's got a fighter who beats people up, a chick with a hot British accent (specifically, the crazy girl from Coupling, the brunette), and a crazy girl thief who hits that right level of spark of crazy and adorable that's just freaking awesome and makes me wish she had more parts in things. Plus, cons! Every episode! People get hit, others get things stolen from them, craziness abounds, I love it. Oh, Leverage, keep making more of you.
So basically I want to have a crazy life at some point, provided I live through the experience. That would be great. Later today, maybe something about nanotechnology. And by later today, assuming my internet is still not working at the apartment, probably actually means tomorrow. We'll see what happens.
Anyways, I got season 3 of Doctor Who (the new one, with David Tennant) yesterday and I watched the first episode. I remembered why I liked the show, and it wasn't because of the crazy sci-fi (though that helps) or the sheer Britishness of it all (that also helps). The reason I like it is because it's got that "Spark of Crazy" I like. The spark of crazy is what I'm terming a character or situation that if it happened in real life to me, I would find it insane and scary. But because it's on TV, happening to someone else, it's awesome. It's why I enjoy Burn Notice, How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, all that. All the shows I've really enjoyed have had one character that is just insane and that makes them awesome. Even the ones you don't think have it really do. For example, let's take a relatively mundane show like The West Wing. If our government actually worked where John Larroquete or a John Larroquete stand-in fired two people for leaving dead flowers on the desk of someone else? That would be nuts. Especially if it was John Larroquete. But because it's on TV? Awesome!
And so let's go back to Doctor Who. If I was accompanying the Doctor all around the galaxy stopping alien civilizations from destroying Earth, I'm relatively sure I'd go nuts pretty fast. But because it's TV? Awesome! Blow those Daleks up! Wooo!
How I Met Your Mother has also been good this season, as has Community and The Office. Unfortunately, those are more sitcommy, so it's hard to find that spark of crazy. However, Barney and Marshall, Troy and Abed, and most of the non-Jim-and-Pam cast help make it a lot easier to find. But I've been enjoying those shows for what seems like forever (technically not with Community, but meh, sitcommy. It gets lumped in because I say so.)
I've also been watching a lot of Supernatural lately, and I just got into that relatively recently. That's a show about two brothers who go around killing monsters and (recently) trying to stop the Apocalypse. Nothing cooler than killing vampires or shapeshifters or genies or demons. So much killing of demons. Plus, it has classic rock, which according to law makes everything better (btw, totally writing that post sometime this weekend. John's laws of awesomeness. I'm looking forward to that, expect it maybe this weekend or worst case by the end of the month)
But my newest favorite TV show is Leverage. It's a show about a group of con men conning evil people out of money to help others. It's Robin Hood with trickery instead of robbery! I want to be in on a con helping people someday! (Let's not form a list of all the things I want to do in the future at some point, that'll be far too insane of a post even for me, and I don't want to ruin Future John's life too much) Heck, I'd settle for even being in on a con just to make me richer a la Ocean's 11! Or 13, for that matter. 12 was pretty meh, I don't want to be in on that con. But what makes Leverage so great? Well, it's got a fighter who beats people up, a chick with a hot British accent (specifically, the crazy girl from Coupling, the brunette), and a crazy girl thief who hits that right level of spark of crazy and adorable that's just freaking awesome and makes me wish she had more parts in things. Plus, cons! Every episode! People get hit, others get things stolen from them, craziness abounds, I love it. Oh, Leverage, keep making more of you.
So basically I want to have a crazy life at some point, provided I live through the experience. That would be great. Later today, maybe something about nanotechnology. And by later today, assuming my internet is still not working at the apartment, probably actually means tomorrow. We'll see what happens.
I'm late, I'm late!
Sorry I didn't get this written Wednesday, but you did have two posts to enjoy there, one about family, the other about....whatever I wrote before that. Yeesh, my memory is going. But I figured I'd talk about what I'm planning on doing for Lent, as that is nice and simple. I'm giving up swearing and alcohol. Yes, I'm almost going Mormon, but I enjoy coffee too much to fully go the whole hock. Why am I doing this? Good question. I've been meaning to give up cursing, or curse less for a little while now, but I base that on the fact that a lot of my cursing has lost some meaning to it. That is, I'll throw a swear out there not only when it's appropriate, but at other moments that don't really call for cursing. So not only am I trying to clean up my mouth a little, but I also want to be able to mean it when I curse loudly.
As for why I'm giving up alcohol and beer? Well, we all need to make sacrifices in Lent, and I figure that I should sacrifice something I actually do like and enjoy (that is, beer) in that whole "getting closer to God" thing. Yay Catholicism!
As for giving up meat or something that I love more than beer, first off I don't want to become a vegetarian by accident. Second, I can barely cook for myself as it is, why would I give up the few things I can? And really, it's a lot more chicken and turkey sandwiches than red meat, so I don't have a problem or anything. As they all say...
As for weight loss, I'm down to 193.2 pounds, or I was earlier today. So yay me! Just gotta keep at it and soon 190, then 180 after that, and then eventually onwards to 175. Who knows, I may even be able to get down to 150 or something, assuming I at some point start like crazy dieting and then go running like 4 hours a day or something. 170 or 160 might be more doable, but I promise nothing. Sorry this isn't as awesome of a post as you were expecting, but tomorrow I'll throw something up here while I'm working on anodizations, either about my new favorite TV show or what I actually do here at work.
As for why I'm giving up alcohol and beer? Well, we all need to make sacrifices in Lent, and I figure that I should sacrifice something I actually do like and enjoy (that is, beer) in that whole "getting closer to God" thing. Yay Catholicism!
As for giving up meat or something that I love more than beer, first off I don't want to become a vegetarian by accident. Second, I can barely cook for myself as it is, why would I give up the few things I can? And really, it's a lot more chicken and turkey sandwiches than red meat, so I don't have a problem or anything. As they all say...
As for weight loss, I'm down to 193.2 pounds, or I was earlier today. So yay me! Just gotta keep at it and soon 190, then 180 after that, and then eventually onwards to 175. Who knows, I may even be able to get down to 150 or something, assuming I at some point start like crazy dieting and then go running like 4 hours a day or something. 170 or 160 might be more doable, but I promise nothing. Sorry this isn't as awesome of a post as you were expecting, but tomorrow I'll throw something up here while I'm working on anodizations, either about my new favorite TV show or what I actually do here at work.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Family Ties
So I was talking to my sister Mary the other day about the blog, and she suggested I write about my family. Now, as she never said what to write about or what I could or could not say.....No, wait, I'm not evil. I figured I'd talk a little bit about who she is, what our wacky relationship is like, and maybe a few more things. We'll see what happens with this, and as I only have 3 immediate family members (Mary being the only one who to my knowledge reads this), I may eventually start talking about any of you who actually wants to. I'll try to spare the punches (ie, I won't talk about your crippling gambling addiction or that time you sent a busload of kids over a cliff...wait, that was Veronica Mars) but if any of you actually want me to analyze you, feel free to either comment on the post with a name or send me an email. I can't promise WHEN my analysis will come, but I'll let you know in an email. I will of course be writing about family first, so there's another two posts after this one before I even think to talking about you.
But anyway, Mary. Basic description is that she's my sister. She's the one who loves pandas, acting, singing, Spanish, reading, and music, not necessarily in that order. She's the one who's either helping me start my latest scheme or coming up with a new one for me to implement. Let's start with the reminiscing!
We used to fight a lot, for some reason. She just wouldn't admit that I was right (side note: I was) and that I deserved more of the couch, food, TV programming, and movie choices (another side note: I did). So we fought, I hit, she wouldn't, I "won," she cried to Mom, I got yelled at, we both ended up unhappy. This cycle repeated itself until we got into high school for some reason. I blame her, because I was clearly cooler (side note: I wasn't) and knew more about the world (side note: I still don't, but that's because she went to Europe)
We stopped fighting when I got to high school, mainly because we were both busier and had our own friends. We became good friends whose humor plays well with each other. I understand her style and how to make it work. My Mom and I were picking her up from college a year or two ago and we stopped at a Perkins for lunch, because Perkins is delicious. And so Mary and I started fake fighting about something stupid, and our mother started laughing while trying to tell us to stop. I said "You can't be mad if you're laughing," Mary instantly repeated it, and then we both started chanting it at the same time. We also have mastered a good summary/version of the chicken cluck from Arrested Development. Like I said, we know how to make comedy work. As some of you may know, my sister is in a comedy group over the summers when she is back in Chicago. She is criminally underused, but always hilarious when she gets up there. I and her have written several skits that are based around our childhood, and if I can ever find video of them, I'll upload them here. My sister plays me because she knows what I am like, while Mary's best friend plays Mary because she knows what Mary is like. Mary also factors into some other skits, but she doesn't receive as much show time as she should have (ideally, it would be two hours of Mary up there entertaining me, with a few other people thrown in every now and then, but I'm not in charge of the show)
Mary loves pandas. I mean loves them. As previously mentioned, she's the one with the pandas covering her room, pictures of which I will take when I go home this weekend. It's easy to see anything that isn't panda-colored in that room, but if it is black and white, you're outta luck. I don't think I've ever mentioned that she's a Spanish major. Technically, she's now a Spanish grad student, which I'm not sure what exactly that entails. I imagine teaching whiny undergrads Spanish 1, but that's only a guess.
She's also a good singer, in that she pulled our collective butts out of the fire whenever we played rock band at home. She did choir back in grade school, so I imagine all that artsy-fartsy helped. She also is really good at painting and such. Basically, she somehow tapped into the heretofore undeveloped Zuidema artistic talent gene. I haven't touched mine, but I have to think that before my life is up I'll try to harness it, fail badly, and then give up to go look at fantasy baseball scores (I know my limits, and hey, baseball).
As for when she gets out of grad school, I think she's going to go into teaching kids, either in high school or college. She'll end up in a panda wedding dress someday with panda tuxes and panda bridesmaid dresses (don't ask me WHERE she'll get them, she'll find a place). Actually, I kinda want to see that. Because I know it will keep me entertained, which, as far as I can figure out, is what family is for.
Mary, since I know you're reading this, thanks for being my sister. Also, this was your birthday present. I hope you enjoyed it, read it again in like 2 months and pretend it's new.
Divison Preview: AL Central
We continue my previews of the AL divisons with the AL Central this week, and tonight I'll have another post, most likely about my family. But for now, baseball.
The AL Central for the past 2 years has needed 163 games to find a division winner. In both those final games, the Twins were involved. If things come down to the wire again, I have to believe that the Twins will be back in there. The Central, as a divison, is not filled with a lot of hope, though, mainly because whoever wins is playing either the Rays or the Yankees (if my rankings are to be believed, the Red Sox if they are not) and I really don't see that matchup working out well for any of these teams. Still, someone has to win this division, let's break it down.
We'll start with the bottom this time to make things interesting. The Kansas City Royals went 65-97 last year, and I really don't see them making great strides forward, especially not as they're paying Jason Kendall, Rick Ankiel, Jose Guillen.... heck, I could just name the entire Royals lineup as pretty disappointing. They just traded away Mark Teahen to the White Sox for two players, neither of whom looks to greatly improve the team. Wee, another sad year for Kansas City baseball fans. At least they can look forward to the Chiefs who....Oh. Right. Man, am I glad I don't live in Missouri.
In fourth place (last year, technically tied with the Royals, but moving into their own fourth place this year) the Cleveland Indians. The main reason that Cleveland is ranked higher is because Cleveland has some players that could do well. Grady Sizemore, Shin-Soo Choo, Matt LaPorta, "this team has one or two all-stars on it!" But then the rest of the team, you just look at and wonder if they'll ever be anything more than decent. Their pitching ain't much to look at and the rest of the hitters are stunningly "meh." I don't see them making the strides to get into 1st place, but at least they have some decent fantasy players?
In third again, I'm putting the White Sox. Last year they finished under .500, and they just lost their designated hitter. Yes, I suppose you may be able to recreate some magic and get a few productive DH sessions with Andruw Jones, but Omar Vizquel? Really? He's at best a defensive replacement. And Juan Pierre? Congratulations, Sox fans, you got a better Scott Podsednik. Oh wait, except Podsednik got 7 home runs last year, and was caught stealing the same amount of times as Juan Pierre in 100 more games. What that means is that Juan Pierre is probably going to be caught stealing about 15-20 times by my guess, hit no home runs, substantially fewer RBIs, and frustrate the hell out of you every day. Hooray! Meanwhile, you're hoping for a healthy Carlos Quentin, a serviceable Alex Rios, and a passable Mark Teahen. Your pitching staff is good, but I don't think the offense can hold up as well as it needs to, especially as Peavy is no longer pitching in San Diego (which, having been there, has a very nice ballpark) Maybe second if you're lucky, but I doubt it. And as this is the Central, second place is still first loser.
My thoughts on second place turn to Detroit. After losing Granderson, they did not fill in enough gaps to get over the hump of second place. There's a lot to possibly like on this team; Miguel Cabrera is still dominant, Brandon Inge plays a decent 3rd base, Austin Jackson could provide some spark as the rookie center fielder, the pitching staff still has that ace in verlander. But. Carlos Guillen and Magglio Ordonez are old. But after Verlander there's no other "great" pitchers on staff. But while their middle infield may be decent at defense, they're mediocre at hitting. But the steps to Jose Valverde are slippery and filled with home runs. Second place again, and maybe even third depending on how fat and useless Andruw Jones is or isn't.
So first place again falls to the Twins. Slowey and Baker should be better than they were last year, and their crappy first halves cover up their better second halves. Morneau, Mauer, Cuddyer, Thome/Kubel (depending on who is DHing) are all relatively dangerous, the bullpen is nice and strong, and who knows, JJ Hardy might bounce back to being a serviceable everyday player. If not, those four hitters (heck, they might even get 5 in there if they throw Kubel in left) are dangerous enough that they should be able to handle whatever is thrown at them. So Twins take it down. Next week, some AL West predictions along with my predictions for the AL playoffs. Tonight, a post about my wacky family.
The AL Central for the past 2 years has needed 163 games to find a division winner. In both those final games, the Twins were involved. If things come down to the wire again, I have to believe that the Twins will be back in there. The Central, as a divison, is not filled with a lot of hope, though, mainly because whoever wins is playing either the Rays or the Yankees (if my rankings are to be believed, the Red Sox if they are not) and I really don't see that matchup working out well for any of these teams. Still, someone has to win this division, let's break it down.
We'll start with the bottom this time to make things interesting. The Kansas City Royals went 65-97 last year, and I really don't see them making great strides forward, especially not as they're paying Jason Kendall, Rick Ankiel, Jose Guillen.... heck, I could just name the entire Royals lineup as pretty disappointing. They just traded away Mark Teahen to the White Sox for two players, neither of whom looks to greatly improve the team. Wee, another sad year for Kansas City baseball fans. At least they can look forward to the Chiefs who....Oh. Right. Man, am I glad I don't live in Missouri.
In fourth place (last year, technically tied with the Royals, but moving into their own fourth place this year) the Cleveland Indians. The main reason that Cleveland is ranked higher is because Cleveland has some players that could do well. Grady Sizemore, Shin-Soo Choo, Matt LaPorta, "this team has one or two all-stars on it!" But then the rest of the team, you just look at and wonder if they'll ever be anything more than decent. Their pitching ain't much to look at and the rest of the hitters are stunningly "meh." I don't see them making the strides to get into 1st place, but at least they have some decent fantasy players?
In third again, I'm putting the White Sox. Last year they finished under .500, and they just lost their designated hitter. Yes, I suppose you may be able to recreate some magic and get a few productive DH sessions with Andruw Jones, but Omar Vizquel? Really? He's at best a defensive replacement. And Juan Pierre? Congratulations, Sox fans, you got a better Scott Podsednik. Oh wait, except Podsednik got 7 home runs last year, and was caught stealing the same amount of times as Juan Pierre in 100 more games. What that means is that Juan Pierre is probably going to be caught stealing about 15-20 times by my guess, hit no home runs, substantially fewer RBIs, and frustrate the hell out of you every day. Hooray! Meanwhile, you're hoping for a healthy Carlos Quentin, a serviceable Alex Rios, and a passable Mark Teahen. Your pitching staff is good, but I don't think the offense can hold up as well as it needs to, especially as Peavy is no longer pitching in San Diego (which, having been there, has a very nice ballpark) Maybe second if you're lucky, but I doubt it. And as this is the Central, second place is still first loser.
My thoughts on second place turn to Detroit. After losing Granderson, they did not fill in enough gaps to get over the hump of second place. There's a lot to possibly like on this team; Miguel Cabrera is still dominant, Brandon Inge plays a decent 3rd base, Austin Jackson could provide some spark as the rookie center fielder, the pitching staff still has that ace in verlander. But. Carlos Guillen and Magglio Ordonez are old. But after Verlander there's no other "great" pitchers on staff. But while their middle infield may be decent at defense, they're mediocre at hitting. But the steps to Jose Valverde are slippery and filled with home runs. Second place again, and maybe even third depending on how fat and useless Andruw Jones is or isn't.
So first place again falls to the Twins. Slowey and Baker should be better than they were last year, and their crappy first halves cover up their better second halves. Morneau, Mauer, Cuddyer, Thome/Kubel (depending on who is DHing) are all relatively dangerous, the bullpen is nice and strong, and who knows, JJ Hardy might bounce back to being a serviceable everyday player. If not, those four hitters (heck, they might even get 5 in there if they throw Kubel in left) are dangerous enough that they should be able to handle whatever is thrown at them. So Twins take it down. Next week, some AL West predictions along with my predictions for the AL playoffs. Tonight, a post about my wacky family.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Serious Monday is Serious
So I've entered into a semi-slump here, which is both my fault and yours. OK, it's really pretty much all my fault, but I like to spread the blame around. I want comments on this thing, and when I'm basing a lot of my writing around sports, it's not the easiest thing to get, especially as a lot of you just don't have that same baseball obsession I do. Maybe later this week I'll start trying to explore why I give so much of a crap about baseball. But today, as opposed to the usual Monday inanity we're gonna try to go serious. Sorry to ruin the days of all of you looking for something wacky like my vegetable rankings or ideal superhero team or (I swear I have these next two posts written but they suck) grammatical error bitching or who will play the super bowl in 15 years, but my blog, my rules.
And as the last time a lot of people commented on this was about politics, we're going to go back to that well. Specifically, teh gays! oh noes! homersexual agendas!
So as I've mentioned before, I grew up fake Republican. In that, my parents were Republican so I thought I was too. Then I entered college, realized what I actually did believe in, and left Republicanism behind. I basically realized (to sum up all my growth, I think) that my Catholic principles were strongly at odds with most conservative ones. Helping the poor, caring for others, not discriminating, throwing that first stone, etc etc. Yay Jesus. And as we're entering Lent, I'm supposed to care more about my Catholicism and the such, focus more on how God is in my life and all that (I'm sure Alfredo can correct me on what I'm supposed to be doing during Lent). But to make a long story short (too late) I didn't hate gay people. Yes, as a Catholic I'm supposed to be against homosexual sex and marriage. But as a sensible person who realizes that church and state are supposed to be separate and a person who knows gay people, you can't hate gay people. There was never a point in the Bible where Jesus said "Love your neighbor. Except if he's queer, then you can hit him with a shovel for all I care." I mean, hell, Mr. Rogers used to tell gay people that God loved them for who they are. If you can't get Mr. Rogers to believe your cause, then you've lost.
But yet we have gays being hated everywhere by modern conservative pundits. Peter Sprigg wants to make homosexuality illegal and so do I imagine a lot of conservative pundits; mostly the ones who haven't been caught in the embarassing sex scandals. But I have to assume that several of these people know at least someone who's gay. Heck, I just had a friend come out to me 2 months ago. And I'm not sure if it was weird to me because he actually trusted me enough to tell me (which is weird when people are treating me like a responsible adult. For heaven's sakes, I barely think of myself as an adult, and you mean to tell me other people think I am? gah!) or if it was because, huh, I wonder if he was thinking about me. Because you know when some guy comes out to you, you wonder if he was ever thinking about you. That's the guy response, because we're all self-centered idiots. Hell, every now and then I wonder if (random girl) is thinking about me. Because I'm an ass! "Hey, I am pretty attractive. Maybe she is thinking about me." That's why all these pundits are afraid of gay people, because they don't want other dudes to think about them like that. They only want hot 18 year old blond chicks to do that. And you know I'm right about that.
But when my friend came out, I didn't start trying to convert him or shove him in some "pray the gay away" camp with an accountabillibuddy, I didn't tell him he was ruining his life by being gay, I didn't start praying for his soul myself. And you know why? Because a) I don't think he's done anything wrong, b) it's his life, c) I'm not an asshole, and d) I want my friend to be happy. I have to believe that God didn't look down and say, "Hmm, let's make him gay just so I can send him to hell. That'll be sweet." And as David Cross once ranted, it's not a choice. No one who's suffering through the hell that is high school is going to want to make his life an even bigger hell by choosing to be gay; that idea is just dumb. So it's something he was born with, and is now acknowledging. But while I can understand the generic American may not know someone gay (not bloody likely, as it's about 1 in 50 or 1 in 10, depending on the source. Even that conservative 1 in 50 is still pretty huge), why do politicians pretend they don't know anyone gay? Cheney's daughter, Barney Frank, the one guy with the wide stance, they've all had gay encounters and they all know other politicians. And yet they go on tv and treat gays equivalent to terrorists for some reason.
John McCain is now supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) or whatever it is that allows him to be re-elected. As he's facing a tea-bagger in his senate race, I really cannot wait to see McCain sell out all of his beliefs for yet another few years in the senate, even though he's like a million years old and rich as hell. Just retire, dude. The idea that allowing gays to serve openly is going to result in....well, whatever crazy-ass crimes (or is that crazy ass-crimes?) people think will happen is laughable. And I have no idea how to go about fixing those ideas. Well, I can't. But when DADT is repealed and all, I have to think it's going to have the same effect that allowing blacks to serve with whites did: no effect at all. Because our soldiers aren't idiots. Doesn't mean people aren't still gonna bitch though.
I guess the whole point of this long and pointless rant is quite simply, why do gays freak people out so much? Is it the fact that they don't feel the same way about the same and opposite sex as (the metaphorical) you do? Yes, I know that whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, but eating shellfish or pork is also evil according to the Bible. Why do so-called Christians ignore that whole "treat others as you want to be treated" thing? Why is it the bad Christians who get press for essentially being assholes and ignoring the whole point of Jesus, the love your neighbor part?
And as the last time a lot of people commented on this was about politics, we're going to go back to that well. Specifically, teh gays! oh noes! homersexual agendas!
So as I've mentioned before, I grew up fake Republican. In that, my parents were Republican so I thought I was too. Then I entered college, realized what I actually did believe in, and left Republicanism behind. I basically realized (to sum up all my growth, I think) that my Catholic principles were strongly at odds with most conservative ones. Helping the poor, caring for others, not discriminating, throwing that first stone, etc etc. Yay Jesus. And as we're entering Lent, I'm supposed to care more about my Catholicism and the such, focus more on how God is in my life and all that (I'm sure Alfredo can correct me on what I'm supposed to be doing during Lent). But to make a long story short (too late) I didn't hate gay people. Yes, as a Catholic I'm supposed to be against homosexual sex and marriage. But as a sensible person who realizes that church and state are supposed to be separate and a person who knows gay people, you can't hate gay people. There was never a point in the Bible where Jesus said "Love your neighbor. Except if he's queer, then you can hit him with a shovel for all I care." I mean, hell, Mr. Rogers used to tell gay people that God loved them for who they are. If you can't get Mr. Rogers to believe your cause, then you've lost.
But yet we have gays being hated everywhere by modern conservative pundits. Peter Sprigg wants to make homosexuality illegal and so do I imagine a lot of conservative pundits; mostly the ones who haven't been caught in the embarassing sex scandals. But I have to assume that several of these people know at least someone who's gay. Heck, I just had a friend come out to me 2 months ago. And I'm not sure if it was weird to me because he actually trusted me enough to tell me (which is weird when people are treating me like a responsible adult. For heaven's sakes, I barely think of myself as an adult, and you mean to tell me other people think I am? gah!) or if it was because, huh, I wonder if he was thinking about me. Because you know when some guy comes out to you, you wonder if he was ever thinking about you. That's the guy response, because we're all self-centered idiots. Hell, every now and then I wonder if (random girl) is thinking about me. Because I'm an ass! "Hey, I am pretty attractive. Maybe she is thinking about me." That's why all these pundits are afraid of gay people, because they don't want other dudes to think about them like that. They only want hot 18 year old blond chicks to do that. And you know I'm right about that.
But when my friend came out, I didn't start trying to convert him or shove him in some "pray the gay away" camp with an accountabillibuddy, I didn't tell him he was ruining his life by being gay, I didn't start praying for his soul myself. And you know why? Because a) I don't think he's done anything wrong, b) it's his life, c) I'm not an asshole, and d) I want my friend to be happy. I have to believe that God didn't look down and say, "Hmm, let's make him gay just so I can send him to hell. That'll be sweet." And as David Cross once ranted, it's not a choice. No one who's suffering through the hell that is high school is going to want to make his life an even bigger hell by choosing to be gay; that idea is just dumb. So it's something he was born with, and is now acknowledging. But while I can understand the generic American may not know someone gay (not bloody likely, as it's about 1 in 50 or 1 in 10, depending on the source. Even that conservative 1 in 50 is still pretty huge), why do politicians pretend they don't know anyone gay? Cheney's daughter, Barney Frank, the one guy with the wide stance, they've all had gay encounters and they all know other politicians. And yet they go on tv and treat gays equivalent to terrorists for some reason.
John McCain is now supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) or whatever it is that allows him to be re-elected. As he's facing a tea-bagger in his senate race, I really cannot wait to see McCain sell out all of his beliefs for yet another few years in the senate, even though he's like a million years old and rich as hell. Just retire, dude. The idea that allowing gays to serve openly is going to result in....well, whatever crazy-ass crimes (or is that crazy ass-crimes?) people think will happen is laughable. And I have no idea how to go about fixing those ideas. Well, I can't. But when DADT is repealed and all, I have to think it's going to have the same effect that allowing blacks to serve with whites did: no effect at all. Because our soldiers aren't idiots. Doesn't mean people aren't still gonna bitch though.
I guess the whole point of this long and pointless rant is quite simply, why do gays freak people out so much? Is it the fact that they don't feel the same way about the same and opposite sex as (the metaphorical) you do? Yes, I know that whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, but eating shellfish or pork is also evil according to the Bible. Why do so-called Christians ignore that whole "treat others as you want to be treated" thing? Why is it the bad Christians who get press for essentially being assholes and ignoring the whole point of Jesus, the love your neighbor part?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Musicians of Note
So I knew I forgot to do something today....
These music posts are not the easiest to write, as I gotta try to figure out why I feel the way I do about something. When I start these off, I get a decent idea of who I could write about, but then ideas change and new bands are chosen. When I opened up this post, I was going to write about Queen. Then I realized I already did Elvis last week, and if I go down this road, it's going to be two weeks and then I have to start figuring out why I like the Beatles. So I'm going to go back to the roots of this, and try to find slightly unknownish bands and see if I can re-introduce them to people.
Huey Lewis The Jam were an English band from the 70s and 80s who largely focused on Mod revival music. Mod revival was a style where past songs were used as a backbeat to new, punk-style lyrics. For example, in the Jam's song "Town Called Malice" you can hear the bassline from "You Can't Hurry Love," and you can hear the bass from the Beatles "Taxman" in the song "Start!"
So it's fast music with 60s sounds included in. What's not to like there? The other interesting thing about The Jam was that as opposed to their punk peers, wearing ripped shirts and scuzzy jeans thanks to Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten, The Jam wore nice suits and looked presentable. With my love of debonair style, you gotta admire that. Plus they were willing to critique other bands and styles they didn't like. Their song "A Bomb In Wardour Street" is about how typical punk music is just about fighting with the rest of the members of the punk scene. And they also were willing to attack those who prey on the weak as well. The song "Down In The Tube Station At Midnight" calls out those who smell of "too many right-wing meetings" who end up beating the narrator of the song to death.
Their song "Strange Town" to me speaks of the loneliness you get when you try to go back to someplace you once knew, but it's been cleaned up and all the heart, character, and dirtiness is gone from it. It's now a tourist trap for people to visit and admire. Combine that with "When You're Young" about how you can take the world on when you're young, but the world comes back and smashes you to bits in the end, and you've got a nice melancholy style going on. But you've also got "Beat Surrender" about how you have to care about living your life and being as happy as you can be. There's also the previously mentioned "Start!" about finding love wherever you can, even if it's only for 2 minutes.
I guess I like them because they give me the beats and sounds I want while still having meaningful lyrics behind them. They can get political, with "That's Entertainment" deriding the use of the poor commoner lifestyle as subject for TV shows, or "Going Underground" about how nukes and fighting aren't the answer.
I like them, feel free to take a listen and check them out.
We'll start with "Start!" because I'm cool like that.
"When You're Young" because I like rebelling against negativity, and the fact that I can be awesome now and all, as I'm young. The world still hasn't beaten me down yet.
"Beat Surrender" doesn't have a music video I can find, as it was one of the last songs they recorded.
And we end with "Going Underground," and as it's still 11:56 here on the east coast, I got this done. Woo, go me. See people tomorrow for the usual Monday zaniness.
These music posts are not the easiest to write, as I gotta try to figure out why I feel the way I do about something. When I start these off, I get a decent idea of who I could write about, but then ideas change and new bands are chosen. When I opened up this post, I was going to write about Queen. Then I realized I already did Elvis last week, and if I go down this road, it's going to be two weeks and then I have to start figuring out why I like the Beatles. So I'm going to go back to the roots of this, and try to find slightly unknownish bands and see if I can re-introduce them to people.
So it's fast music with 60s sounds included in. What's not to like there? The other interesting thing about The Jam was that as opposed to their punk peers, wearing ripped shirts and scuzzy jeans thanks to Sid Vicious and Johnny Rotten, The Jam wore nice suits and looked presentable. With my love of debonair style, you gotta admire that. Plus they were willing to critique other bands and styles they didn't like. Their song "A Bomb In Wardour Street" is about how typical punk music is just about fighting with the rest of the members of the punk scene. And they also were willing to attack those who prey on the weak as well. The song "Down In The Tube Station At Midnight" calls out those who smell of "too many right-wing meetings" who end up beating the narrator of the song to death.
Their song "Strange Town" to me speaks of the loneliness you get when you try to go back to someplace you once knew, but it's been cleaned up and all the heart, character, and dirtiness is gone from it. It's now a tourist trap for people to visit and admire. Combine that with "When You're Young" about how you can take the world on when you're young, but the world comes back and smashes you to bits in the end, and you've got a nice melancholy style going on. But you've also got "Beat Surrender" about how you have to care about living your life and being as happy as you can be. There's also the previously mentioned "Start!" about finding love wherever you can, even if it's only for 2 minutes.
I guess I like them because they give me the beats and sounds I want while still having meaningful lyrics behind them. They can get political, with "That's Entertainment" deriding the use of the poor commoner lifestyle as subject for TV shows, or "Going Underground" about how nukes and fighting aren't the answer.
I like them, feel free to take a listen and check them out.
We'll start with "Start!" because I'm cool like that.
"When You're Young" because I like rebelling against negativity, and the fact that I can be awesome now and all, as I'm young. The world still hasn't beaten me down yet.
"Beat Surrender" doesn't have a music video I can find, as it was one of the last songs they recorded.
And we end with "Going Underground," and as it's still 11:56 here on the east coast, I got this done. Woo, go me. See people tomorrow for the usual Monday zaniness.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Friday That Guy Sucks
So I thought before I was going to write this that I was going to have a lot of trouble with this. Two weeks in and I'm already out of Cubs players to hate on? Crud, this is difficult.
Then I remembered our pitching staff. Oh, our illustrious pitching staff. So much hatred for our pitching staff. The last few years we've gotten a lot better on offense and our starting pitching has gotten...sorta better, Carlos Silva withstanding. But our relievers? Oh, there's material there for freaking weeks. And it's why I'll definitely be continuing this feature. And the benefit to bitching about today's specific player, EVERYONE can enjoy hating on him. Because there is no doubt that he is freaking terrible.
If I ever have a kid, I'm going to tie his right arm behind his back for the first four years of his life. Because if I can raise me a left-handed kid, he can earn almost 3 million dollars in 7 of the worst seasons I have ever seen. Even if he's terrible. And the thing is, when you hear the guy's name, you too will say, "Oh, that guy. Aaagh." Whenever the guy comes into the game you throw your hands up in the air and you pray that the damage is minimal.
Neal Freaking Cotts (See, you all yelled there, didn't you! He ruins your day!) was the worst left handed specialist I've ever seen. And yes, he does require the Freaking for a middle name. Every time he came into a game, I yelled expletives and angry sayings. "What are you doing, Lou? Why are you ruining my freaking life?" And then after he gave up the inevitable hit? "(Expletive deleted)! Oh, son of a bitch! Why is that (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) (maternal expletive deleted) in the game! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Let's look at his ERA in his career. 2003-8.10, 2004-5.65, 2005-1.94, 2006-5.17, 2007-4.86, 2008-4.29, 2009-7.36. As Sesame Street told us, "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong." 2005 was unreal. As a Cub (because he's on our team now, so that's what I'm bitching about) he is 0-5 and has an ERA near 5, specifically 4.97. The man is atrocious. He has 67 hits in 63 and a third innings pitched. I shouldn't have to expect a hit and more than half an earned run when a player enters a game! And a walk every other appearance! That means that, even as a lefty specialist, he would go into a game and 1 out of 2 times either walk the guy or give up a hit to him. Son of a bitch I hate Neal Cotts.
35 earned runs, 11 home runs, a 1.55 WHIP, the man ruins it all. The man has 9.5 hits per 9 innings, and 4.4 walks in 9 innings. And let's go back to when he was a White Sock. Sock? Sox? What's the singular version of that? Anyone know? In any case, he was atrocious there too! 178 hits in 193 and a third innings. 4.52 ERA over his 4 years there, 97 earned runs in those innings, 100 walks and 27 home runs in that time. I repeat again, son of a bitch I hate Neal Cotts. Heck, let's quote wikipedia for his 2004 season. "Cotts finished April with a 0.90 ERA, but from May-July had an ERA of 8.28." That's freaking awful!
And he got 2.9 million dollars to do this! To suck this hard! He was, as Homer described someone once, "the suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked." He's a minor league Pirate now, so once again, someone is paying a left handed reliever good money to try to get batters out. It's the Pirates, so maybe "good money" isn't the right word. But the one plus side to this all is that Theriot and Ramirez hit lefties better than righties last year, and Lee had a better OBP against them. Granted, I assume some of that data was against good lefties, and as I do root for the Cubs I know that if Cotts ever faces us, he's definitely going to strike out all our guys. But I know that I'm gonna hate the crap out of him forever. Screw that guy, he freaking sucks.
Then I remembered our pitching staff. Oh, our illustrious pitching staff. So much hatred for our pitching staff. The last few years we've gotten a lot better on offense and our starting pitching has gotten...sorta better, Carlos Silva withstanding. But our relievers? Oh, there's material there for freaking weeks. And it's why I'll definitely be continuing this feature. And the benefit to bitching about today's specific player, EVERYONE can enjoy hating on him. Because there is no doubt that he is freaking terrible.
If I ever have a kid, I'm going to tie his right arm behind his back for the first four years of his life. Because if I can raise me a left-handed kid, he can earn almost 3 million dollars in 7 of the worst seasons I have ever seen. Even if he's terrible. And the thing is, when you hear the guy's name, you too will say, "Oh, that guy. Aaagh." Whenever the guy comes into the game you throw your hands up in the air and you pray that the damage is minimal.
Neal Freaking Cotts (See, you all yelled there, didn't you! He ruins your day!) was the worst left handed specialist I've ever seen. And yes, he does require the Freaking for a middle name. Every time he came into a game, I yelled expletives and angry sayings. "What are you doing, Lou? Why are you ruining my freaking life?" And then after he gave up the inevitable hit? "(Expletive deleted)! Oh, son of a bitch! Why is that (expletive deleted) (expletive deleted) (maternal expletive deleted) in the game! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Let's look at his ERA in his career. 2003-8.10, 2004-5.65, 2005-1.94, 2006-5.17, 2007-4.86, 2008-4.29, 2009-7.36. As Sesame Street told us, "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong." 2005 was unreal. As a Cub (because he's on our team now, so that's what I'm bitching about) he is 0-5 and has an ERA near 5, specifically 4.97. The man is atrocious. He has 67 hits in 63 and a third innings pitched. I shouldn't have to expect a hit and more than half an earned run when a player enters a game! And a walk every other appearance! That means that, even as a lefty specialist, he would go into a game and 1 out of 2 times either walk the guy or give up a hit to him. Son of a bitch I hate Neal Cotts.
35 earned runs, 11 home runs, a 1.55 WHIP, the man ruins it all. The man has 9.5 hits per 9 innings, and 4.4 walks in 9 innings. And let's go back to when he was a White Sock. Sock? Sox? What's the singular version of that? Anyone know? In any case, he was atrocious there too! 178 hits in 193 and a third innings. 4.52 ERA over his 4 years there, 97 earned runs in those innings, 100 walks and 27 home runs in that time. I repeat again, son of a bitch I hate Neal Cotts. Heck, let's quote wikipedia for his 2004 season. "Cotts finished April with a 0.90 ERA, but from May-July had an ERA of 8.28." That's freaking awful!
And he got 2.9 million dollars to do this! To suck this hard! He was, as Homer described someone once, "the suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked." He's a minor league Pirate now, so once again, someone is paying a left handed reliever good money to try to get batters out. It's the Pirates, so maybe "good money" isn't the right word. But the one plus side to this all is that Theriot and Ramirez hit lefties better than righties last year, and Lee had a better OBP against them. Granted, I assume some of that data was against good lefties, and as I do root for the Cubs I know that if Cotts ever faces us, he's definitely going to strike out all our guys. But I know that I'm gonna hate the crap out of him forever. Screw that guy, he freaking sucks.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Further Future House
So I was thinking of what else I was going to have in my future house. And yes, this is sort of me projecting to a happier time where I'm not stuck in the fat, sweaty armpit of America. Sorry Indianblah, but you're the worst thing ever. It has to be an Indianan who wrote this piece of trash:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342457-onside-kick-was-dirty-pool
But I'm not commenting on how stupid people are on the internet. Today, like I said, is about what future John is going to have. I mean, the standard male testosterone needs, like a big-ass TV, but there's more to it than that.
I want that library. I want to be able to go in and smell that book smell. That'll be sweet.
I want a garden like my parents have, or like my grandmother's. My parents have a lot of really beautiful looking flowers in theirs, while my grandmother grows tomatoes, cucumbers, and several other vegetables that end up being turned into delicious food. I think my mom grows baby tomatoes, but I'm not sure if I want a real garden or just something to gussy up the house. The flower above is from the garden at my parents' house, taken by my sister. I want to start adding more pictures to this thing, and hopefully I can start taking some of them. We'll see what happens, but think of it this way: more pictures will probably lead to me typing less, allowing the pictures to fill up space. So there's less reading for you to do, which is good, right?
I want a really comfortable couch that while still nice has been lived in and has that lived in feel to it.
I want a game room, somewhere I can just hang out with friends and play games, be they board, video, or pool, or alcoholic. This may be in the library. Failing that, a game table. Failing that, a table I can clear off to play games on. Failing that, a table.
I want a kitchen with an island in the middle of it, that seems cool to me.
I do want that big ass TV, with some framed posters near it. They're framed, so it's art and thus it's ok.
I want a workshop where I can work in. I don't know what, maybe it'll just be the basement or whatever. But I want a room I can make models or whittle or whatever crazy hobby I develop. Or paint. Yeah, I can see myself painting.
I want someplace to store my sweaters. I have too many of them and I like a lot of them, but I need to either get rid of them or get a bigger dresser or something, but now I'm just getting sorta trivial. I also want a bigger closet, or less clothes there too. Same with tee-shirts, but not for underwear or socks. I think I'm good with regards to those.
I want a big backyard to go along with my garden. I forget who said it once, but a guy was playing in his yard with his kids and they were tackling each other and tearing up the grass. The mom comes out and is like, "dear, they're tearing up the grass," and the husband was like "we're not raising grass, we're raising children." Plus I generally like cutting the lawn, and when I stop liking it I can make my kid do it.
I want a dog. But then, who doesn't?
I want power tools and reasons to use them. Grunt grunt rargh.
I want a hot tub like my parents have. That thing is freaking sweet.
The rest of the physical stuff I want I got, so there's not much else that I want. I also realize that I'm not buying this all in one house at one time right after I graduate. I'll add onto the house like my parents did to ours. But it's always good to have goals you know.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
My Library
So I know I meant to talk about books at some point on here, but I haven't so far. I blame that on the fact that I've been rereading some Star Wars books recently which amuse me greatly. They aren't as intelligence building as that autobiography of MLK I just bought or Nixonland, which is about why politics have descended into the red state - blue state anger thing we currently got. But you know what? In the words of Stephen King, sometimes you just buy the Big Mac and Fries because it tastes good. You gotta enjoy your life and all you know. So I'll get to those other books soon enough. But I figure in this inaugural book post, I'll talk a little bit about my library, both past, present, and future.
Young John really liked reading books. Because books didn't require having hand-eye coordination or artistic talent. Plus all that blah blah blah about worlds of adventure and magic and stuff, you know. I liked stories, what can I say. I was like that kid in The Pagemaster (how's that for a reference?) but without the talking books. My parents liked raising my sister and me to read because of the simple fact that it shut us up. We were never looked at in church with those angry eyes, mainly because we were quiet and reading. I used to read at like everything. Mary's soccer games, church, or when I was supposed to be doing homework (this has continued...). Don't get me wrong, I liked playing outside and stuff, but I really liked books. My parents didn't have to call us inside for supper, they had to tell us to put the book down and eat (this also still continues). When school was canceled one day, rather than leave us home all day our Mom gave us books and had us sit in the back of her classroom and read. I read a lot of nerdy science fiction books, mainly Star Wars with a few Bruce Coville (shout outs to My Teacher Was an Alien) and all the Calvin and Hobbes mixed in. I also really liked a series by Terry Deary called Horrible Histories; it taught me all the incredibly gruesome things about different civilizations, which was really fun. Thank goodness my parents didn't believe in censorship.
Present John's literary taste has broadened largely. While I still read Star Wars books occasionally, I've read enough to know what the good ones are and don't read the crappy bad ones. For example, the series where they start out by killing Chewbacca. F that noise, R. A. Salvatore. But about 4 years or so ago, Chris infected me with Stephen King disease. That's where he introduced me to The Gunslinger and I got this bad disease where whenever I went into a bookstore I went and checked out the King section for something that looked new or awesome. Sad to say, I found a lot of awesome books there. They're all pretty good, even the crappy ones, and the great ones are really great. So now I read King often, and I still have a mess to read. At some point I got into Christopher Moore, and at some other point I got into comic books. I'm not sure who to blame for those, but comics have killed me. I like the great stories and the cool pictures. What can I say, inside all of us beats the heart of a ten year old. I further blame Kelly for getting me into Jim Butcher and all those, and things have branched out a bit from there. But I also read real books too. Like I said, I bought Nixonland and MLK's autobiography, along with a lot of books about sports too. I read and enjoy classics like To Kill A Mockingbird and Moby Dick and Dante's Inferno. I have The Blind Side on my "To Read Shelf" along with far too many other books. I've read LOTR, but you know what? The movies were better. There, I said it. So I own a lot of books. Some people collect DVDs, some collect music, I collect books.
And what's going to happen to future John? That poor, downtrodden bastard? Well, Future John is getting a library in his house. Because I've always wanted a library. It will of course require several bookcases, but I don't have to buy them all at once. And when it's done it'll be awesome. I'll have a fireplace, and a comfortable chair to curl up in and read, and I'll make it look all cool so that way if people want to come over and either borrow books or set up some cool game in the library, both would be acceptable. I haven't started designing my house yet, but there's definitely going to be a library. And there may be a secret door that leads to the Batcave, because I cannot see how having that would be a bad idea. I dunno, just a thought. As for book taste, I imagine things will spread out a little more; they already have now and I can only imagine them getting bigger.
Young John really liked reading books. Because books didn't require having hand-eye coordination or artistic talent. Plus all that blah blah blah about worlds of adventure and magic and stuff, you know. I liked stories, what can I say. I was like that kid in The Pagemaster (how's that for a reference?) but without the talking books. My parents liked raising my sister and me to read because of the simple fact that it shut us up. We were never looked at in church with those angry eyes, mainly because we were quiet and reading. I used to read at like everything. Mary's soccer games, church, or when I was supposed to be doing homework (this has continued...). Don't get me wrong, I liked playing outside and stuff, but I really liked books. My parents didn't have to call us inside for supper, they had to tell us to put the book down and eat (this also still continues). When school was canceled one day, rather than leave us home all day our Mom gave us books and had us sit in the back of her classroom and read. I read a lot of nerdy science fiction books, mainly Star Wars with a few Bruce Coville (shout outs to My Teacher Was an Alien) and all the Calvin and Hobbes mixed in. I also really liked a series by Terry Deary called Horrible Histories; it taught me all the incredibly gruesome things about different civilizations, which was really fun. Thank goodness my parents didn't believe in censorship.
Present John's literary taste has broadened largely. While I still read Star Wars books occasionally, I've read enough to know what the good ones are and don't read the crappy bad ones. For example, the series where they start out by killing Chewbacca. F that noise, R. A. Salvatore. But about 4 years or so ago, Chris infected me with Stephen King disease. That's where he introduced me to The Gunslinger and I got this bad disease where whenever I went into a bookstore I went and checked out the King section for something that looked new or awesome. Sad to say, I found a lot of awesome books there. They're all pretty good, even the crappy ones, and the great ones are really great. So now I read King often, and I still have a mess to read. At some point I got into Christopher Moore, and at some other point I got into comic books. I'm not sure who to blame for those, but comics have killed me. I like the great stories and the cool pictures. What can I say, inside all of us beats the heart of a ten year old. I further blame Kelly for getting me into Jim Butcher and all those, and things have branched out a bit from there. But I also read real books too. Like I said, I bought Nixonland and MLK's autobiography, along with a lot of books about sports too. I read and enjoy classics like To Kill A Mockingbird and Moby Dick and Dante's Inferno. I have The Blind Side on my "To Read Shelf" along with far too many other books. I've read LOTR, but you know what? The movies were better. There, I said it. So I own a lot of books. Some people collect DVDs, some collect music, I collect books.
And what's going to happen to future John? That poor, downtrodden bastard? Well, Future John is getting a library in his house. Because I've always wanted a library. It will of course require several bookcases, but I don't have to buy them all at once. And when it's done it'll be awesome. I'll have a fireplace, and a comfortable chair to curl up in and read, and I'll make it look all cool so that way if people want to come over and either borrow books or set up some cool game in the library, both would be acceptable. I haven't started designing my house yet, but there's definitely going to be a library. And there may be a secret door that leads to the Batcave, because I cannot see how having that would be a bad idea. I dunno, just a thought. As for book taste, I imagine things will spread out a little more; they already have now and I can only imagine them getting bigger.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
2010 Baseball Preview: AL East
Fictional famous baseball player - "So who's your favorite player? (beat) It's Johnny Damon, isn't it?"
Veronica Mars - "He's sooo hot."
You know you have a baseball problem when you start judging and being disappointed in fictional characters because of their favorite baseball players. In any case, thus begins my preview of the upcoming baseball season, starting with the AL east, the meat grinderiest of baseball divisions. Later previews will detail the other divisions of course, and at the end of the season all of my picks can be judged for the incorrectness that they are. I'll try to be objective here, but we all know that my hatred for so many players, teams, fanbases, and mascots can lead to that not happening. My fantasy addiction will of course cloud my judgment, but hopefully I can overcome that. Nevertheless, we'll see what happens.
So as we all know, the AL East contains 5 teams; 3 good and 2 mediocre.
The Yankees, last year's World Series winner, don't look any weaker, and with the signing of Curtis Granderson and Javier Vazquez look just as strong. I am incredibly glad that I root for an NL team and hardly ever have to play them. Many people I know hate the Yankees for buying their championships or whatever reason they claim, but (I blame Dan) I don't hate them. Personally, they know how to get wins, and I wish we could know how just as well. Hopefully, after we get rid of some of our bad contracts we can do just as well as they have. And now that we've recently decided to be Yankees NL Central version, in a few years I think we will. But I can easily see the Yankees repeating as AL East champions. Their pitching is better (even though Vazquez isn't going to be sub-3 ERA again thanks to new Yankee stadium), and Granderson, even though he has a few problems (notably against LH), is still gonna be YUGE in Yankeeland. Still champs, still something I don't want to face in the Series if we get there. But we'll see how our division breaks down when I get to it.
The Boston Red Sox last year came in second. The last bahzillion years, the wild card has come out of here. This division is freaking tough, and the Red Sox...are no longer the reason why. I just glanced at the depth chart and from what I can see there is no real offensive powerhouse here. There's a bunch of GOOD players, but there's no one in this lineup that I don't want to face, were I a pitcher. Kevin Youklis is tough, but not crazy difficult. David Ortiz is over the hill and not the powerhouse he once was. Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro are mediocre to freaking terrible, I don't care what their defense adds. Defense is important but so is scoring a few runs. Dustin Pedroia is a decent 20 HR - 20 SB guy, but he didn't deserve that MVP. Meanwhile, Mike Cameron and JD Drew are about five seconds removed from an injury. At least their pitching staff with the exception of Daisuke is pretty good. I think they'll hit a close third behind...
The Tampa Bay Rays, America's favorite team. From getting fans to shave mohawks into their hair to actually having a devil ray mascot in a tank near the field, this is my favorite AL East team. If I ever move to Florida, screw the Marlins, I'm gonna be a Rays fan. They have some great power threats on this team, from Carlos Pena to Evan Longoria to Ben Zobrist. Plus they got the speed in Crawford and Upton, and one of the best home-grown pitching staffs I've ever seen. Shields, Garza, Price, Davis, they're all really good and home-grown. The benefit to tanking for most of your first 11 years is that you get a lot of good players together at one time. Sadly other teams haven't been able to get that same level of talent. If things go well for the Rays, I can see them taking second place and the wild card. Because I'm a Rays fan of course. Boston still might be able to get things done, but I'm cheering for the Rays, and they're the ones I'm giving the card to.
The Toronto Blue Jays came in fourth last year. Adam Lind does provide some excitement, but you can't have a team with one good player. Aaron Hill isn't going to be as good as he was last year, Lyle Overbay is relatively meh, as is Edwin Encarnacion, Vernon Wells makes me glad that my team doesn't have the worst contract in baseball currently, it's a blah team. Blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The pitching staff has a lot of could-be's, potentials, and possibles. But that's sort of assuming they're not in the AL East. They aren't finishing higher than fourth this year, and they need more help to make their team able to compete in the future. Good luck, Toronto.
The Baltimore Orioles came in 5th last year, with a record of 64-98. That is abysmal. That is just grotesque, no matter what division you're in. And this offseason has not been filled with confidence for this team. They willingly gave Cesar Izturis a job, and hired Miguel Tejada and Garrett Atkins to play 3rd and 1st, respectively. Granted, they're not blocking anyone at those positions, but there had to be better players on the market than those two. Their outfield is filled with good players but none of them have the chance to play. They have to split two positions between Felix Pie, Nolan Reimold, and Adam Jones. Meanwhile, there pitching staff is just depressing. Yeah I know they're supposed to be focusing on the future, but that's one faraway future with this team. 5th again.
Stay tuned for more division previews in upcoming weeks.
Veronica Mars - "He's sooo hot."
You know you have a baseball problem when you start judging and being disappointed in fictional characters because of their favorite baseball players. In any case, thus begins my preview of the upcoming baseball season, starting with the AL east, the meat grinderiest of baseball divisions. Later previews will detail the other divisions of course, and at the end of the season all of my picks can be judged for the incorrectness that they are. I'll try to be objective here, but we all know that my hatred for so many players, teams, fanbases, and mascots can lead to that not happening. My fantasy addiction will of course cloud my judgment, but hopefully I can overcome that. Nevertheless, we'll see what happens.
So as we all know, the AL East contains 5 teams; 3 good and 2 mediocre.
The Yankees, last year's World Series winner, don't look any weaker, and with the signing of Curtis Granderson and Javier Vazquez look just as strong. I am incredibly glad that I root for an NL team and hardly ever have to play them. Many people I know hate the Yankees for buying their championships or whatever reason they claim, but (I blame Dan) I don't hate them. Personally, they know how to get wins, and I wish we could know how just as well. Hopefully, after we get rid of some of our bad contracts we can do just as well as they have. And now that we've recently decided to be Yankees NL Central version, in a few years I think we will. But I can easily see the Yankees repeating as AL East champions. Their pitching is better (even though Vazquez isn't going to be sub-3 ERA again thanks to new Yankee stadium), and Granderson, even though he has a few problems (notably against LH), is still gonna be YUGE in Yankeeland. Still champs, still something I don't want to face in the Series if we get there. But we'll see how our division breaks down when I get to it.
The Boston Red Sox last year came in second. The last bahzillion years, the wild card has come out of here. This division is freaking tough, and the Red Sox...are no longer the reason why. I just glanced at the depth chart and from what I can see there is no real offensive powerhouse here. There's a bunch of GOOD players, but there's no one in this lineup that I don't want to face, were I a pitcher. Kevin Youklis is tough, but not crazy difficult. David Ortiz is over the hill and not the powerhouse he once was. Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro are mediocre to freaking terrible, I don't care what their defense adds. Defense is important but so is scoring a few runs. Dustin Pedroia is a decent 20 HR - 20 SB guy, but he didn't deserve that MVP. Meanwhile, Mike Cameron and JD Drew are about five seconds removed from an injury. At least their pitching staff with the exception of Daisuke is pretty good. I think they'll hit a close third behind...
The Tampa Bay Rays, America's favorite team. From getting fans to shave mohawks into their hair to actually having a devil ray mascot in a tank near the field, this is my favorite AL East team. If I ever move to Florida, screw the Marlins, I'm gonna be a Rays fan. They have some great power threats on this team, from Carlos Pena to Evan Longoria to Ben Zobrist. Plus they got the speed in Crawford and Upton, and one of the best home-grown pitching staffs I've ever seen. Shields, Garza, Price, Davis, they're all really good and home-grown. The benefit to tanking for most of your first 11 years is that you get a lot of good players together at one time. Sadly other teams haven't been able to get that same level of talent. If things go well for the Rays, I can see them taking second place and the wild card. Because I'm a Rays fan of course. Boston still might be able to get things done, but I'm cheering for the Rays, and they're the ones I'm giving the card to.
The Toronto Blue Jays came in fourth last year. Adam Lind does provide some excitement, but you can't have a team with one good player. Aaron Hill isn't going to be as good as he was last year, Lyle Overbay is relatively meh, as is Edwin Encarnacion, Vernon Wells makes me glad that my team doesn't have the worst contract in baseball currently, it's a blah team. Blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The pitching staff has a lot of could-be's, potentials, and possibles. But that's sort of assuming they're not in the AL East. They aren't finishing higher than fourth this year, and they need more help to make their team able to compete in the future. Good luck, Toronto.
The Baltimore Orioles came in 5th last year, with a record of 64-98. That is abysmal. That is just grotesque, no matter what division you're in. And this offseason has not been filled with confidence for this team. They willingly gave Cesar Izturis a job, and hired Miguel Tejada and Garrett Atkins to play 3rd and 1st, respectively. Granted, they're not blocking anyone at those positions, but there had to be better players on the market than those two. Their outfield is filled with good players but none of them have the chance to play. They have to split two positions between Felix Pie, Nolan Reimold, and Adam Jones. Meanwhile, there pitching staff is just depressing. Yeah I know they're supposed to be focusing on the future, but that's one faraway future with this team. 5th again.
Stay tuned for more division previews in upcoming weeks.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Inanity in Food Form
So I've decided to rank the top 10 fruits based entirely on my subjective opinion. The ranks are going to be based around several factors, namely how much work it takes to get that fruit, how much of the fruit you can actually eat, any byproducts of said fruit (jellies, juices, etc) and how tasty the fruit is. I'm only going to rank fruits I've eaten on their own, so kiwis are out because I've only ever eaten them in fruit salads. And yes, I am just doing my own version of xkcd 388, but it's Monday. You want something better, go search the webernets.
Runner-ups: 13. Plums, 12. watermelon and 11. lemons. I like plums, especially in prune form. The problem is that they are far too sticky in prune form, even though they are delicious. Watermelon is good, but seeds freak me out, even though watermelon jolly ranchers are really tasty. Lemons are also delicious, even though they are tart, and lemon yogurt is freaking delicious. But I ate a lemon wedge yesterday from my ice tea and remembered how tart they were. Plus it made me the weird guy eating lemons. So sorry lemons, your uses are better as a flavoring instead of as an actual fruit.
10. grapefruit - as opposed to Randall, I actually like grapefruit. I just like other fruits more. It's good, and i like the fact that I can cut out little pieces for individual bites. Plus, flavored with sugar, it is delicious. I remember eating grapefruit every week back at U of C in the dining halls, it was a nice way to end the meal with a little bit of work for a good payoff. Sadly, I do not eat much with grapefruit flavoring, so it's down here.
9. pineapples - sooooooo good, but soooooo much work. I debated buying a pineapple today while grocery shopping, but decided against it as it was too pointy. Plus I didn't have any way of getting the pieces out, so I got lazy and bought it in a can. I don't want to have to enjoy my fruit in cans, Dole Corporation. But I remain too lazy to buy that one pineapple corer thing they sell. Sad life.
8. grapes - we leave the "big fruits" section and go into the "small" sizes. These fruits are all good, but they all received negative points for the sheer fact that I need to eat like 15 of them to feel like they contributed. Stupid jerks need to make me work less. Grapes are the lowest for several factors. First, they might have seeds. Seeded grapes are aggravatingly weird, since my mom only bought seedless grapes when I was young. To me, seeded grapes are just weird, especially seeded grapes that are the size of rocks. I don't want to be able to play ping-pong with my grapes, dude, you're weirding me out. Grape jelly is good, but number 5 is better, and I don't really eat many other grape flavored things that I can think of. Grape juice is really good though, but as I'm more of a beer man than a wine man, grapes are lower. Sorry, grapes. And I weirdly haven't eaten raisins in a while.
7. blueberries - berries are healthy, and blueberries in oatmeal or yogurt are pretty delicious. Plus they're blue and I don't have to worry about blueberry seeds destroying my life. I had blueberry pomegranite juice once and it was really tasty. Not worth what I paid for it, but still really tasty. Blueberries get the edge over grapes because, like I said, grape seeds weird me the heck out. Really kinda tied though, now that I think about it.
6. strawberries - I love strawberries. They are delicious. The problem is that they take too much work for so little payoff. If you want to fully maximize strawberry potential, you gotta take a steak knife and cut the stem part out, and that's for one berry! And if you don't do that, you always gotta worry if you got all the flavor and food out of that strawberry you could have. It's a harrowing life. But Special K with "red berries" (screw you kellogs, theyre freaking strawberries, i can see the damn shape) is delicious, as is strawberry yogurt, jelly, and basic strawberries, as much as I bitch, are delicious.
5. raspberries - king of the berries, raspberries are the best. Just small enough that I can grab four or five and I feel like I'm eating more than I am, but not big enough to scare me like grapes can. Blueberries I need like 20 in a handful to feel anything, but raspberries are good and tart enough that I don't need too many. And raspberry jelly is the best jelly for PBJs. Raspberry yogurt is also delicious, and raspberry vinagrette salad dressing has made me not want to shoot myself when I ate yet another salad. But it's still a berry, so 5 is the best I can give it.
4. apples - the hand size fruits are where we encounter ourselves now. In a last second upset, apples are now in fourth place. This happened for several reasons. I wanted ice cream Saturday, or failing that, an orange. I had neither and wasn't going to the food store at midnight for one of those because then I'm either the sad weird guy buying ice cream at 12 am, or the creepy weird guy buying a bag of oranges at 12 am. So I had an apple. That was probably the most disappointing apple I have had in a long while. And apples are usually good, too! I like apples, I like apple chips, I like apple juice, but that apple angered me. That, combined with the fact that number 3 is generally tastier and less cleanup/leftovers, I gotta give number 3 to...
3. peaches - they are delicious, sweet, and have songs written about them by mid-1990s alternative bands. Peaches know what's going on. Plus the fact that I don't have to worry about the outer layer with them made them pretty high up on this list. Steps for eating a peach? Eat the peach. That's some nice work there, God, in making peaches awesome like that.
2. bananas - yes, they have a peel, but you know what? Opening banana peels is kinda like opening a present. And inside? Boom, banana! Plus, Raffi wrote a song about a banana telephone, and Gwen Stefani wrote something about them. I did just ruin your mind there by throwing out two catchy songs, but let me just say this about bananas. One Week I was at a Small World exhibit and I felt like that Yellow Submarine banana made me feel like a pretty rocking monkey. Now that I fully hit everyone with that minefield, bananas rock.
1. oranges - the basic point of this post was just leading up to the fact that I really like oranges. I wanted one Saturday so I bought a bag of them on Sunday after church. They are delicious, and orange juice is the best of all possible juices. It tastes great, is really healthy, prevents scurvy, and mixes great with alcohol. Oranges are great and (as far as I can see) don't get bruised when you drop them, which is also nice. Clementines are just weeny oranges though. Regular navel (naval?) oranges are where it's at. Those are the boys and they are delicious. Go oranges.
Runner-ups: 13. Plums, 12. watermelon and 11. lemons. I like plums, especially in prune form. The problem is that they are far too sticky in prune form, even though they are delicious. Watermelon is good, but seeds freak me out, even though watermelon jolly ranchers are really tasty. Lemons are also delicious, even though they are tart, and lemon yogurt is freaking delicious. But I ate a lemon wedge yesterday from my ice tea and remembered how tart they were. Plus it made me the weird guy eating lemons. So sorry lemons, your uses are better as a flavoring instead of as an actual fruit.
10. grapefruit - as opposed to Randall, I actually like grapefruit. I just like other fruits more. It's good, and i like the fact that I can cut out little pieces for individual bites. Plus, flavored with sugar, it is delicious. I remember eating grapefruit every week back at U of C in the dining halls, it was a nice way to end the meal with a little bit of work for a good payoff. Sadly, I do not eat much with grapefruit flavoring, so it's down here.
9. pineapples - sooooooo good, but soooooo much work. I debated buying a pineapple today while grocery shopping, but decided against it as it was too pointy. Plus I didn't have any way of getting the pieces out, so I got lazy and bought it in a can. I don't want to have to enjoy my fruit in cans, Dole Corporation. But I remain too lazy to buy that one pineapple corer thing they sell. Sad life.
8. grapes - we leave the "big fruits" section and go into the "small" sizes. These fruits are all good, but they all received negative points for the sheer fact that I need to eat like 15 of them to feel like they contributed. Stupid jerks need to make me work less. Grapes are the lowest for several factors. First, they might have seeds. Seeded grapes are aggravatingly weird, since my mom only bought seedless grapes when I was young. To me, seeded grapes are just weird, especially seeded grapes that are the size of rocks. I don't want to be able to play ping-pong with my grapes, dude, you're weirding me out. Grape jelly is good, but number 5 is better, and I don't really eat many other grape flavored things that I can think of. Grape juice is really good though, but as I'm more of a beer man than a wine man, grapes are lower. Sorry, grapes. And I weirdly haven't eaten raisins in a while.
7. blueberries - berries are healthy, and blueberries in oatmeal or yogurt are pretty delicious. Plus they're blue and I don't have to worry about blueberry seeds destroying my life. I had blueberry pomegranite juice once and it was really tasty. Not worth what I paid for it, but still really tasty. Blueberries get the edge over grapes because, like I said, grape seeds weird me the heck out. Really kinda tied though, now that I think about it.
6. strawberries - I love strawberries. They are delicious. The problem is that they take too much work for so little payoff. If you want to fully maximize strawberry potential, you gotta take a steak knife and cut the stem part out, and that's for one berry! And if you don't do that, you always gotta worry if you got all the flavor and food out of that strawberry you could have. It's a harrowing life. But Special K with "red berries" (screw you kellogs, theyre freaking strawberries, i can see the damn shape) is delicious, as is strawberry yogurt, jelly, and basic strawberries, as much as I bitch, are delicious.
5. raspberries - king of the berries, raspberries are the best. Just small enough that I can grab four or five and I feel like I'm eating more than I am, but not big enough to scare me like grapes can. Blueberries I need like 20 in a handful to feel anything, but raspberries are good and tart enough that I don't need too many. And raspberry jelly is the best jelly for PBJs. Raspberry yogurt is also delicious, and raspberry vinagrette salad dressing has made me not want to shoot myself when I ate yet another salad. But it's still a berry, so 5 is the best I can give it.
4. apples - the hand size fruits are where we encounter ourselves now. In a last second upset, apples are now in fourth place. This happened for several reasons. I wanted ice cream Saturday, or failing that, an orange. I had neither and wasn't going to the food store at midnight for one of those because then I'm either the sad weird guy buying ice cream at 12 am, or the creepy weird guy buying a bag of oranges at 12 am. So I had an apple. That was probably the most disappointing apple I have had in a long while. And apples are usually good, too! I like apples, I like apple chips, I like apple juice, but that apple angered me. That, combined with the fact that number 3 is generally tastier and less cleanup/leftovers, I gotta give number 3 to...
3. peaches - they are delicious, sweet, and have songs written about them by mid-1990s alternative bands. Peaches know what's going on. Plus the fact that I don't have to worry about the outer layer with them made them pretty high up on this list. Steps for eating a peach? Eat the peach. That's some nice work there, God, in making peaches awesome like that.
2. bananas - yes, they have a peel, but you know what? Opening banana peels is kinda like opening a present. And inside? Boom, banana! Plus, Raffi wrote a song about a banana telephone, and Gwen Stefani wrote something about them. I did just ruin your mind there by throwing out two catchy songs, but let me just say this about bananas. One Week I was at a Small World exhibit and I felt like that Yellow Submarine banana made me feel like a pretty rocking monkey. Now that I fully hit everyone with that minefield, bananas rock.
1. oranges - the basic point of this post was just leading up to the fact that I really like oranges. I wanted one Saturday so I bought a bag of them on Sunday after church. They are delicious, and orange juice is the best of all possible juices. It tastes great, is really healthy, prevents scurvy, and mixes great with alcohol. Oranges are great and (as far as I can see) don't get bruised when you drop them, which is also nice. Clementines are just weeny oranges though. Regular navel (naval?) oranges are where it's at. Those are the boys and they are delicious. Go oranges.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday Musicians of Note
So I'm sorry I'm late with this, I was busy playing Rock Band with friends yesterday and never got around to writing this. So I'll write it today and everyone will be happy. I'll be happy that I continued my weekly column, Mary will be happy that I'm posting on the weekend, and the rest of you will be happy to have something meaningful to read.
This week I'm going to focus on someone very well-known but not so well-listened to. Considering he died 33 years ago, that's sorta understandable. I am of course, talking about Elvis.
Now you all know him, but have you ever listened to his music? Holy crap does he have some good songs. There are the old standards you all sorta know, "Jailhouse Rock," "Love Me Tender," "Viva Las Vegas," etc. But let's break things down a bit, let's talk about why Elvis is a) so good and b) so inspirational to other musicians.
Nowadays, you kids today with your rap music, with the hipping and the hopping, don't know what the rock used to be all about! That is, musicians today cross over so many platforms and interchange so many styles that we forget that used to never happen. You know who the famous white singers were in the 50s? Sinatra, Bennett, etc. Standards singers who didn't doo-wop but croon. They sang slowly and meaningfully, but kids liked faster music. Elvis incorporated all different types of music into his act; blues, gospel, rockabilly, rythym and blues, he MADE rock and roll. It's because of Elvis that Timberlake was willing to co-operate with Timbaland, why the Beatles were able to play the rock songs they created. And the other nice thing about Elvis was that he wasn't a racist. He not only acknowledged his debt to the singers he took from, but he also was pretty anti-segregation. That's another big part of why white parents hated him, which consequently made kids love him.
But enough about what came about because of him; let's talk about what he created. I'm sure everyone vaguely knows Elvis, but there's so many good songs that it's hard to limit myself to a few paragraphs. If you want some of his faster rock and roll tunes, with driving beats and a great bassline, then I recommend "Don't Be Cruel," "All Shook Up," "Jailhouse Rock," "I Got Stung," or "Bossa Nova Baby." And if you want crooning and caring from someone who understands the sadness or emotions you're feeling, then go for "Love Me Tender," "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You," "In the Ghetto," or "Can't Help Falling in Love." And if you want something hilarious to listen to, try "Teddy Bear," "Surrender," "Little Sister," (which other than the vocals sounds Beatlesish), "Return to Sender," "Little Less Conversation," or "Devil in Disguise."
The good thing about Elvis dying so long ago is that he's mostly lost the label of "big fat joke" that he had at the time of his death. Michael Jackson is currently going through that now, as people remember how kickass Thriller and Bad actually are. 20 years from now, it'll just be another part of his character that people mention in passing and don't care too much about as they focus on the music. Elvis at the time of his death had ballooned out to be huge, but nowadays most people just remember the good parts of Elvis and the great music such as the following songs.
If I Can Dream, a song that showed what side Elvis was on in the civil rights struggle while also being really peaceful.
I wish I could be that cool in jail. I would probably be crying more often than leading a dance number.
Viva Las Vegas, which I did not get to viva when I went to Las Vegas. Don't go when you're 20, you can't gamble. The family part of the vacation was fun though, and I did get a nice hat, so there is that. But no gambling.
Burning Love, one of my favorites. Because it's fun and passionate, and quite right for dancing to and all that. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and all
This week I'm going to focus on someone very well-known but not so well-listened to. Considering he died 33 years ago, that's sorta understandable. I am of course, talking about Elvis.
Now you all know him, but have you ever listened to his music? Holy crap does he have some good songs. There are the old standards you all sorta know, "Jailhouse Rock," "Love Me Tender," "Viva Las Vegas," etc. But let's break things down a bit, let's talk about why Elvis is a) so good and b) so inspirational to other musicians.
Nowadays, you kids today with your rap music, with the hipping and the hopping, don't know what the rock used to be all about! That is, musicians today cross over so many platforms and interchange so many styles that we forget that used to never happen. You know who the famous white singers were in the 50s? Sinatra, Bennett, etc. Standards singers who didn't doo-wop but croon. They sang slowly and meaningfully, but kids liked faster music. Elvis incorporated all different types of music into his act; blues, gospel, rockabilly, rythym and blues, he MADE rock and roll. It's because of Elvis that Timberlake was willing to co-operate with Timbaland, why the Beatles were able to play the rock songs they created. And the other nice thing about Elvis was that he wasn't a racist. He not only acknowledged his debt to the singers he took from, but he also was pretty anti-segregation. That's another big part of why white parents hated him, which consequently made kids love him.
But enough about what came about because of him; let's talk about what he created. I'm sure everyone vaguely knows Elvis, but there's so many good songs that it's hard to limit myself to a few paragraphs. If you want some of his faster rock and roll tunes, with driving beats and a great bassline, then I recommend "Don't Be Cruel," "All Shook Up," "Jailhouse Rock," "I Got Stung," or "Bossa Nova Baby." And if you want crooning and caring from someone who understands the sadness or emotions you're feeling, then go for "Love Me Tender," "I Want You, I Need You, I Love You," "In the Ghetto," or "Can't Help Falling in Love." And if you want something hilarious to listen to, try "Teddy Bear," "Surrender," "Little Sister," (which other than the vocals sounds Beatlesish), "Return to Sender," "Little Less Conversation," or "Devil in Disguise."
The good thing about Elvis dying so long ago is that he's mostly lost the label of "big fat joke" that he had at the time of his death. Michael Jackson is currently going through that now, as people remember how kickass Thriller and Bad actually are. 20 years from now, it'll just be another part of his character that people mention in passing and don't care too much about as they focus on the music. Elvis at the time of his death had ballooned out to be huge, but nowadays most people just remember the good parts of Elvis and the great music such as the following songs.
If I Can Dream, a song that showed what side Elvis was on in the civil rights struggle while also being really peaceful.
I wish I could be that cool in jail. I would probably be crying more often than leading a dance number.
Viva Las Vegas, which I did not get to viva when I went to Las Vegas. Don't go when you're 20, you can't gamble. The family part of the vacation was fun though, and I did get a nice hat, so there is that. But no gambling.
Burning Love, one of my favorites. Because it's fun and passionate, and quite right for dancing to and all that. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and all
Fight Fight Fight Fight Fight Fight!
So I’ve come to a very weird but simple conclusion. As crazy as this sounds, I want to get into a fight. Not one where I could end up paralyzed or anything, but a fight. Sorta like a more injury free fight club. I’d go into a boxing ring with whoever, we’d strap on helmet type things and gloves and all, and then bam, fight. I don’t know who I’d fight per se, but I have some good ideas. I imagine I’d do it in three minute rounds and all, but that’s just a guess. I also imagine that I’d allow tapouts and what haves you, but I imagine that this would be settled by whoever is refereeing the fight and all. And yes, liberal sensitivities and what have you, but I want to fight somebody!
Why do I want to get into a fight? Good question. I suppose it’s because I’ve never been in one before. It’s all that Fight Club crap about not knowing yourself until you get into a fight, plus there’s the fact that I’ve got all sorts of nerd testosterone and all to release. Rargh. Plus, come on, the ability to say that I’ve actually been in a fight would make me totally cool. I suppose a lot of the fake aggression could be solved by shooting paintballs at each other, but that’s so far removed that it doesn’t work. The masks, the distance, the whole other team aspect dilutes the fake anger that I would be fake feeling. So it needs to be mano a mano. And as I don’t know tennis or racquetball or any of those individual sports, it’s gotta be a fight.
I like to think it would be boxing style and all, but that’s because wrestling doesn’t get out that fake aggression that I’m fake feeling. Plus hitting a guy in the face or gut-punching someone is totally awesome. Kickboxing seems a little extreme for me, especially as I don’t know how to kickbox. So regular boxing, marquis of queensbury rules sounds good. I need to look into finding a gym that would allow this thing to take place really.
Ideally, the fight would be for something or have some meaning to it. While just punching a random guy is cool, punching for a reason is even cooler. And so now we have to determine what that reason is. First off, Craig is too damn tall, I’d need a stepladder to punch him in the face. The only reasons I can think of for getting into a fight are with regards to things, people, or ideas. Things is not nearly cool enough for a fight, unless it’s really expensive. I mean, “I kicked OP’s ass for his Rolex” sounds cool, but also really shallow and pretty much just a slightly better form of petty theft. And then we go into ideas, and it’s too deep. “I kicked Tim’s ass over the notion of whether God was Deistic or not.” Of course, ideally, fighting for an idea is the noblest of all fights. But I agree with my friends with most ideas so that’s out. And I’m not kicking Chris’s ass because he thinks Coheed is better than MCR. I could fight Kevin over whether he looks good bearded or not, but when I win, will my mom still let him keep his job or would he be fired for being a failure against Bloom? Well, I could make sure that she won’t fire him….and that Betsi wouldn’t kill me for beating up Kevin.
So the fight has to be over people, specifically a girl. Not to be sexist, but a girl isn’t going to fight me and I don’t want to fight a girl. So the fight is going to be with another guy, and the one thing that guys always disagree over is girls. Easy problem, easy solution: a butt-whooping. Granted, I need to get a girl to fight over/for, but that’s a problem for Future John. So I’m fighting some guy I know over a girl.
So at some point in the future, Future John is totally getting into a fight with somebody. And I will try to let everyone know the who, where, and when as soon as possible. And it’s gonna be freaking awesome. Challengers, reasons for the fight, and generic WWF-style taunts are welcome in the comments.
Why do I want to get into a fight? Good question. I suppose it’s because I’ve never been in one before. It’s all that Fight Club crap about not knowing yourself until you get into a fight, plus there’s the fact that I’ve got all sorts of nerd testosterone and all to release. Rargh. Plus, come on, the ability to say that I’ve actually been in a fight would make me totally cool. I suppose a lot of the fake aggression could be solved by shooting paintballs at each other, but that’s so far removed that it doesn’t work. The masks, the distance, the whole other team aspect dilutes the fake anger that I would be fake feeling. So it needs to be mano a mano. And as I don’t know tennis or racquetball or any of those individual sports, it’s gotta be a fight.
I like to think it would be boxing style and all, but that’s because wrestling doesn’t get out that fake aggression that I’m fake feeling. Plus hitting a guy in the face or gut-punching someone is totally awesome. Kickboxing seems a little extreme for me, especially as I don’t know how to kickbox. So regular boxing, marquis of queensbury rules sounds good. I need to look into finding a gym that would allow this thing to take place really.
Ideally, the fight would be for something or have some meaning to it. While just punching a random guy is cool, punching for a reason is even cooler. And so now we have to determine what that reason is. First off, Craig is too damn tall, I’d need a stepladder to punch him in the face. The only reasons I can think of for getting into a fight are with regards to things, people, or ideas. Things is not nearly cool enough for a fight, unless it’s really expensive. I mean, “I kicked OP’s ass for his Rolex” sounds cool, but also really shallow and pretty much just a slightly better form of petty theft. And then we go into ideas, and it’s too deep. “I kicked Tim’s ass over the notion of whether God was Deistic or not.” Of course, ideally, fighting for an idea is the noblest of all fights. But I agree with my friends with most ideas so that’s out. And I’m not kicking Chris’s ass because he thinks Coheed is better than MCR. I could fight Kevin over whether he looks good bearded or not, but when I win, will my mom still let him keep his job or would he be fired for being a failure against Bloom? Well, I could make sure that she won’t fire him….and that Betsi wouldn’t kill me for beating up Kevin.
So the fight has to be over people, specifically a girl. Not to be sexist, but a girl isn’t going to fight me and I don’t want to fight a girl. So the fight is going to be with another guy, and the one thing that guys always disagree over is girls. Easy problem, easy solution: a butt-whooping. Granted, I need to get a girl to fight over/for, but that’s a problem for Future John. So I’m fighting some guy I know over a girl.
So at some point in the future, Future John is totally getting into a fight with somebody. And I will try to let everyone know the who, where, and when as soon as possible. And it’s gonna be freaking awesome. Challengers, reasons for the fight, and generic WWF-style taunts are welcome in the comments.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Squeeze Box
Yes I could have gone with all sorts of Who related titles for this post, and as I'm getting introspective and insightful about who I am as a person, many of them could have worked. Who Are You, Won't Get Fooled Again, My Generation, I Can See For Miles, Behind Blue Eyes, they all work. But I like Squeeze Box for its zaniness, so that's the title.
So I stumbled upon another old blog that I didn't recall creating yesterday, and I saw her comment and tracked down my initial response on her blog. To the best of my knowledge we never had that conversation and I'm not sure why. I graduated from U of C and lost track of her and several other friends from there. I do recall us being alright friends but not as close as the ones I've kept in some contact with, which is pretty much my bad. I've been getting in contact with several old friends recently, so I figure I'll try to look her up. If I can get back in contact with her, I'll see how she's been, meanwhile I'm trying to evaluate how I've been. Have I actually become good people? Sorry for what seems like a Debbie Downer post, but it's what I'm feeling up for. It's not that depressing and I'm not depressed, so it shouldn't be too bad really.
This isn't a post about "Oh, my life is so depressing and sad and what have you." It's more a "Where actually AM I in my life? Is this where I had planned on being 5, 10 years ago?" And I would like to catch up and see that we both have become good people, but that's more me hoping past John hasn't totally screwed everything up ever. You know, that whole Saving Private Ryan ending, "Did I live a good life? Tell me I did," kinda crap. Make the most of what you have, blah blah blah. But the problem with that is that I'm only 4 years older than that comment and while I'm sure going back in time and talking to my old self would do wonders for both present and past John's psyches (here's a hint, past self, stop swearing and being an obnoxious dick so much) I find it kind of weird evaluating my life when it's (hopefully) only 25% over.
But let's try to look back. 10 years ago I was 13 and...a freshman I think. Doesn't really matter, the time frame is what matters. And to answer where did I think I would be at this age? Hell, married with a kid. 23 was freaking old, man. 23 year olds had beards and were like 6 feet tall! I remain 5'9" and still having not great luck with facial hair, but I blame that on it being blond, which isn't my fault. Meh. I expected to not only have life figured out, but to have a job and a family by this point. I think. Remembering my 13 year old antics is hard, sorry. 13 year olds are all idiots anyway.
But 5 years ago, heck, let's make it 4 years ago when I wrote that quote. 2006 I was a junior at U of C, ready to start looking towards the future, ready to become a man. I was 19, I was totally an adult, I was....still an idiot. Oh, past John, you marvelous idiot. I still had that thought that I was going to have the future figured out. At the age of 23 going on 24, I expected to have a job and be starting my life. I don't and I'm not. Grad school? Who needs grad school? I was 19 and the world was my oyster! Or some other animal that I like eating. Buffalo. We'll go with buffalo. But I'm still looking for a job, still looking for a girl, still looking for some creative outlet in my future. Hence why I plan on taking up painting at some point and learning to play guitar, and why I write. Organizing my thoughts is easier when they're written down.
But why did I write that quote 4 years ago? Probably because it was a new year and I was trying to be a better person. Marvelous how time moves in circles isn't it? Guess what my new year's resolution is this year? That's right, be a better person. BUT I REALLY MEAN IT YOU GUYS TOTALLY. Ka is a stupid wheel.
Two years ago, I lost 20 pounds to drop down to 180. I gained it back, mainly in the last half of a bad 2009 and am now trying to drop it again. I'm trying to be a better person this year after a bad behaviored 2009. (2009 was filled with lots of bad happenings, many of them clustering in the last half of the year. There were some good times in there as well, but on the whole I've lived better years.) I'm still looking towards the future and expecting to not only have a job in 5 years but the beginnings of a family as well. I'm reading many of the same books as I was two years ago (I've been rereading some star wars books lately, and then I'm about to start a new Stephen King after that) and like a lot of the same bands. What this proves is that I learn nothing from past John, other than to dampen my expectations.
But am I a better person, the question I initially posed myself for this entry? Well, I've stopped saying racist things jokingly which I had going on for a while there (Ugh my life), and I've cut my cursing down a lot (and not just verbally, I've also tried to drop it here too!), and I try not to talk about people behind their back as much, so i guess the answer is yes, but I still can improve. As I'm sure we all knew really. So let's say I'm a good person. How do I become a better one? Charity work I suppose, along with becoming more intellectually curious about the world I live in and what's going on in it. Maybe also actually learning to paint or play guitar could also help, along with being nicer to friends and all.
But that's more "How do I become a saint?" To be a better person, how about I talk to friends more often and work hard on finding that job while still being able to enjoy the time I have with the friends I have now. And I need to let go of some things I'm angry about currently which really aren't my concern and I cannot effect, but my anger issues tend to work themselves out over time. So I think I'm on my way.
We all fall off the horse at some point, the key is that you have to get back on. So to anyone I've been a dick to in the last 4 years? Past John and present John apologize for my/our behavior. And I'll bet that Future John is going to be apologizing for past John's behavior soon enough. But bear with me, I'm actually trying here.
"....also, im trying to become good people. ask me about it sometime, and help contribute to the project. its going to take some work, but i think its possible." - Me to a friend on her blog January 23, 2006
"As my sole reader...you more than make my life. We'll talk about becoming good people sometime." - Her response a short time later.
So I stumbled upon another old blog that I didn't recall creating yesterday, and I saw her comment and tracked down my initial response on her blog. To the best of my knowledge we never had that conversation and I'm not sure why. I graduated from U of C and lost track of her and several other friends from there. I do recall us being alright friends but not as close as the ones I've kept in some contact with, which is pretty much my bad. I've been getting in contact with several old friends recently, so I figure I'll try to look her up. If I can get back in contact with her, I'll see how she's been, meanwhile I'm trying to evaluate how I've been. Have I actually become good people? Sorry for what seems like a Debbie Downer post, but it's what I'm feeling up for. It's not that depressing and I'm not depressed, so it shouldn't be too bad really.
This isn't a post about "Oh, my life is so depressing and sad and what have you." It's more a "Where actually AM I in my life? Is this where I had planned on being 5, 10 years ago?" And I would like to catch up and see that we both have become good people, but that's more me hoping past John hasn't totally screwed everything up ever. You know, that whole Saving Private Ryan ending, "Did I live a good life? Tell me I did," kinda crap. Make the most of what you have, blah blah blah. But the problem with that is that I'm only 4 years older than that comment and while I'm sure going back in time and talking to my old self would do wonders for both present and past John's psyches (here's a hint, past self, stop swearing and being an obnoxious dick so much) I find it kind of weird evaluating my life when it's (hopefully) only 25% over.
But let's try to look back. 10 years ago I was 13 and...a freshman I think. Doesn't really matter, the time frame is what matters. And to answer where did I think I would be at this age? Hell, married with a kid. 23 was freaking old, man. 23 year olds had beards and were like 6 feet tall! I remain 5'9" and still having not great luck with facial hair, but I blame that on it being blond, which isn't my fault. Meh. I expected to not only have life figured out, but to have a job and a family by this point. I think. Remembering my 13 year old antics is hard, sorry. 13 year olds are all idiots anyway.
But 5 years ago, heck, let's make it 4 years ago when I wrote that quote. 2006 I was a junior at U of C, ready to start looking towards the future, ready to become a man. I was 19, I was totally an adult, I was....still an idiot. Oh, past John, you marvelous idiot. I still had that thought that I was going to have the future figured out. At the age of 23 going on 24, I expected to have a job and be starting my life. I don't and I'm not. Grad school? Who needs grad school? I was 19 and the world was my oyster! Or some other animal that I like eating. Buffalo. We'll go with buffalo. But I'm still looking for a job, still looking for a girl, still looking for some creative outlet in my future. Hence why I plan on taking up painting at some point and learning to play guitar, and why I write. Organizing my thoughts is easier when they're written down.
But why did I write that quote 4 years ago? Probably because it was a new year and I was trying to be a better person. Marvelous how time moves in circles isn't it? Guess what my new year's resolution is this year? That's right, be a better person. BUT I REALLY MEAN IT YOU GUYS TOTALLY. Ka is a stupid wheel.
Two years ago, I lost 20 pounds to drop down to 180. I gained it back, mainly in the last half of a bad 2009 and am now trying to drop it again. I'm trying to be a better person this year after a bad behaviored 2009. (2009 was filled with lots of bad happenings, many of them clustering in the last half of the year. There were some good times in there as well, but on the whole I've lived better years.) I'm still looking towards the future and expecting to not only have a job in 5 years but the beginnings of a family as well. I'm reading many of the same books as I was two years ago (I've been rereading some star wars books lately, and then I'm about to start a new Stephen King after that) and like a lot of the same bands. What this proves is that I learn nothing from past John, other than to dampen my expectations.
But am I a better person, the question I initially posed myself for this entry? Well, I've stopped saying racist things jokingly which I had going on for a while there (Ugh my life), and I've cut my cursing down a lot (and not just verbally, I've also tried to drop it here too!), and I try not to talk about people behind their back as much, so i guess the answer is yes, but I still can improve. As I'm sure we all knew really. So let's say I'm a good person. How do I become a better one? Charity work I suppose, along with becoming more intellectually curious about the world I live in and what's going on in it. Maybe also actually learning to paint or play guitar could also help, along with being nicer to friends and all.
But that's more "How do I become a saint?" To be a better person, how about I talk to friends more often and work hard on finding that job while still being able to enjoy the time I have with the friends I have now. And I need to let go of some things I'm angry about currently which really aren't my concern and I cannot effect, but my anger issues tend to work themselves out over time. So I think I'm on my way.
We all fall off the horse at some point, the key is that you have to get back on. So to anyone I've been a dick to in the last 4 years? Past John and present John apologize for my/our behavior. And I'll bet that Future John is going to be apologizing for past John's behavior soon enough. But bear with me, I'm actually trying here.
Friday That Guy Sucks
So as last week I did a Cubs player, this week it's a White Sox player. Now before i begin, I would like to point out a few facts about this player. It is not so much he sucks as this one article really angered me. This guy is actually decent, but, well, I can't say why I am angered unless I show you the article.
http://www.athbaseball.com/20100119137/2010-archives/january/paul-konerko-a-hall-of-fame-player.html
Paul Konerko is not a Hall of Fame player. I'm sorry, he's not. (And I'm not sure how much of a jerk I'll be in this review, weirdly. Please note, Sox fans that I'm not just bashing him because I hate him or am not as hot as he is claimed to be, but I bash credentials. Hell, Jim Thome looks like a fairy-tale giant but I love his power and ability and his character. So if I say something incredibly critical, feel free to call me on it as I'm not a fanatic of your team. Sorry, but I like my team DH free, my ballpark larger, and my homosexual fanbase fah-laaaaaaaaming!)
Anyway, let's see why the article is wrong. And as I'm new at this, let's try some Fire Joe Morgan style analysis. (For those who want to know, Fire Joe Morgan (FJM (and yes i do like parenthesis)) was a website that deconstructed sports writing and speech, especially bad sports writing that didn't mean anything. It took sentences like "that guy sure is gritty" or "he's a gamer" or "he has such heart" as reasons the guy was a great player and ripped them for the garbage they were. I feel the best response to that last sentence about heart calls for a quote from my friend Nate: "well, there's heart....then there's results.")
Generally, I wait until a player's career is over before deciding if he's a Hall of Famer or not, but whatever, dude. Go ahead and speculate early. Or you could phrase that sentence "whether he will be."
Well then young you was a damned idiot. I didn't realize statistics were for the non-pig-headed.
And you know, that whole character issue too. Character is part of why a player gets in or doesn't. This is also a really dumb way of looking at the Hall. Because (to put a white sox spin on this) kids arent going to care who Carlton Fisk is, but a few years from now, they'll care who Frank Thomas is. And yes, you could make the argument that adding new players all the time is diluting the Hall, but that's the same type of argument that wants the Hall to be 9 guys in a dusty room with no one else admitted ever, for the honor of the game.
You do know that Mazeroski holds the record for most double plays by a 2b, right? And that the fences in Forbes Field were pretty far back then, right? And that he hit a HR to win the World Series in Game 7 against the Yankees? Yes, HOF votes shouldn't be based entirely around sentimentalism, but they play a part, especially a) world series b) game 7, the most mythical game of them all c) home runs d) to win e) against the yankees, the eternal stand-in for evil (sorry dan, they are). And character is part of the HOF vote. Albert Belle isn't getting in because he pissed off a sportswriter; he's not getting in because he ran down trick or treaters in his truck. Yeah, he was a great slugger but he was also an unbelievable ass. That'll keep anyone out of the HOF.
Except that was a time of great pitching. The great freaking hitting explosion that you're used to isn't eternal. And Dawson is in the Hall because of two things. First, the move to Wrigley revitalized his career. He led an unbearable Cubs team with 49 HR and 137 RBI. He single-handedly turned a miserable Cubs season into a simply disappointing one. And he did this all with no knees, playing for peanuts on his contract. He was "The Hawk!" a Chicago legend, the man who came to Wrigley and threw a blank check down in front of management and said "Pay me what you think I'm worth." That's the kind of story that makes you happy. And if you want stats, he's also got 300 HR and 300 SB, the only non-SF Giant to have those (I had no idea the Giants were that good, huh). He's also in the 400-300 club, a club that has Willy Mays and Barry Bonds as its two other members. He has the 2nd highest non-juiced HR in a year in Cubs history and is one of the most popular players on the team. But yeah, discount the guy for your crappy article.
That's because Andre Dawson wouldn't try to kill me after or during the game. Once again, tremendous ass. And I will admit that Dawson is more All-Star than HOFer, but you need to keep bringing in fresh people so that kids know the players that are mentioned. If we kept the Hall of Fame to just the All-Time Indisputable Hall of Famers, there would be maybe 20 guys in there, and that doesn't show the history of the game and the memorable moments and all that.
I notice you're ignoring SB. Konerko has 8. In his whole career. 0 MVP awards, and only 3 all star appearances. And if we look at total runs scored by this point in both players careers, Dawson had over 100 more by this time. Konerko has more HR now, yes, but Dawson's SB helped a bunch. (all stats from baseball-reference.com) And furthermore, other than 2 more RBI and 4 more HR, the stats are virtually identical, especially as you're able to take Konerko's best years (youth) while you're stuck adding on Dawson's ending years as well, where his average had dropped and his playing time as well. Normalized stats for a finished player and one who isn't that played in two different eras is really dumb. Let's look at two players:
Player A 162 game average: .278, 36 HR, 31 SB, 106 R, 93 RBI
Player B 162 game average: .274, 33 HR, 3 SB, 84 R, 105 RBI
Player A looks better by most statistics. Player A is also Alfonso Soriano while player B is Ernie Friggin Banks, who any normal Cubs player would rather have any day of the week. And those stats are over Ernie's whole career. If we average Ernie's stats for the same years played as Soriano, from a less hit-happy era and a much crappier Cubs team, we get
Ernie Banks to age 33: .281, 37 HR, 5 SB, 93 R, 110 RBI. Let's hope Soriano holds up as well as Ernie did.
And if we want to go back to Paulie versus Dawson, let's average the Hawk's stats for those years.
Paulie to age 33: .277, 31 HR, 100 RBI, 84 R, 1 SB
Dawson to age 33: .282, 28 HR, 97 RBI, 92 R, 26 SB
Well it sure looks like Dawson comes out ahead in 3 of the 5 categories. And once again, Dawson played for one hell of a shitty Cubs team, in a park that is bigger than the one Konerko is playing in, in a time of pitching. (I don't know how to account for park size on b-r, if anyone knows how please let me know)
Once again, defense, character, the era of the game at the time, and the fact that Dawson's stats to this point were better than Konerko's say no. If Konerko can keep a .277 BA straight for the next several years, maybe. But when a guy hits 38 he ain't as fast at swinging a stick as he used to be.
Sigh. He's only number 2 in HR and extra base hits. RBIs third, total bases 4th, hits and runs 6th, stolen bases nonexistant. He's good, but he's not the second best player ever. Luke Appling from the 1930s was that guy. Other candidates could be (depending on if you want to include their non-white sox years or not) Jermaine Dye, Carlos Lee, and the beloved Albert Belle. And Baines isn't in because his stats came during the juicing era, so his 22 HR/year average aint gonna cut it at this time. Maybe in a few years. He's been on the ballot for 4, this was Dawson's 9th time getting voted on.
And that's the thing. The nickname or the lack thereof. Calling me Johnny isn't a nickname, that's a lazy extension. It's a matter of pride and what I've been lazily alluding to as character over the last dozen or so paragraphs. Let's play hypothetical situation. It's the 1987 or 1988 season for the chicago cubs and there are three random men on base, you're down by 3, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, etc. Who do you want at the plate? From the Cubs? At that time, you wanted Ryne Sandberg or Andre Dawson, as Palmeiro is a juicer and Mark Grace at the time was a youngin. After the game, who do you wait for autographs from? Andre Dawson, the man who hit 49 HR and saved the season, and Ryne Sandberg. Basically, as much as heart and childhood heroics shouldn't play into voting, they do, and the Hawk had them. C'mon, the guy is nicknamed the Hawk! That's a nickname up there with Maverick or Iceman or Goose or whatever the 4th guy was. And he played until age 40 with metal knees. He took an NFL level beating for the MLB. That's strength of character.
Similarly, let's turn to last year's White Sox team. I need a HR, who do i go to? IMO, Thome or Dye. Then Konerko. And yes, he's the guy on the team this year but he's not exciting. He's not making great defensive plays, he's not stealing bases, he doesn't get fans truly excited (and feel free to call BS on this white sox fans; i'm just saying that i personally am not excited to see paul konerko step up to the plate)
He's a perfectly serviceable 1st baseman, but in a time when Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Mark Teixiera, and Adrian Gonzalez exist with their 40+ HR, 30 HR a season from Paul Konerko isn't that great. It's why he's not getting in to the hall of fame and why I doubt Derrek Lee is getting in either.
So that's why Paul Konerko sucks; because he's not a Hall of Famer. Music post later, possibly tomorrow. We'll see.
http://www.athbaseball.com/20100119137/2010-archives/january/paul-konerko-a-hall-of-fame-player.html
Paul Konerko is not a Hall of Fame player. I'm sorry, he's not. (And I'm not sure how much of a jerk I'll be in this review, weirdly. Please note, Sox fans that I'm not just bashing him because I hate him or am not as hot as he is claimed to be, but I bash credentials. Hell, Jim Thome looks like a fairy-tale giant but I love his power and ability and his character. So if I say something incredibly critical, feel free to call me on it as I'm not a fanatic of your team. Sorry, but I like my team DH free, my ballpark larger, and my homosexual fanbase fah-laaaaaaaaming!)
Anyway, let's see why the article is wrong. And as I'm new at this, let's try some Fire Joe Morgan style analysis. (For those who want to know, Fire Joe Morgan (FJM (and yes i do like parenthesis)) was a website that deconstructed sports writing and speech, especially bad sports writing that didn't mean anything. It took sentences like "that guy sure is gritty" or "he's a gamer" or "he has such heart" as reasons the guy was a great player and ripped them for the garbage they were. I feel the best response to that last sentence about heart calls for a quote from my friend Nate: "well, there's heart....then there's results.")
Perusing through MLB website this morning I came across this article on Paul Konerko. 'Konerko focused on upcoming season - Not worried about future as he enters final year of contract' It seems like only yesterday to me that ‘Paulie' was the prized possession of the Los Angeles Dodgers. He was the Dodgers two time minor league player of the year and comparisons of "Steve Garvey with more power" were being made. After reading the article I found myself reflecting on Paul Konerko's career. Whenever a player that has had a quality body of work like Konerko has and is at this stage of his career, I always find myself looking at his stats and pondering whether he is a Hall of Famer or not.
Generally, I wait until a player's career is over before deciding if he's a Hall of Famer or not, but whatever, dude. Go ahead and speculate early. Or you could phrase that sentence "whether he will be."
Let me preface this by saying that as a young adult, my position on whether someone was a Hall of Famer or not was black and white. Simply put, if a player's name came up and my first reaction was not, "He's definitely a Hall of Famer" without looking at the players stats or listening to anyone else's attempts to persuade me, then he was NOT a Hall of Famer.
Well then young you was a damned idiot. I didn't realize statistics were for the non-pig-headed.
As I have gotten older though the, HOF and what it stands for has unfortunately been watered down. I guess the committee feels that they have to have a ceremony each and every year so they make sure that someone gets in. No longer does a player have to be a generational iconic ballplayer to make the hall, they just had to have very good careers.
And you know, that whole character issue too. Character is part of why a player gets in or doesn't. This is also a really dumb way of looking at the Hall. Because (to put a white sox spin on this) kids arent going to care who Carlton Fisk is, but a few years from now, they'll care who Frank Thomas is. And yes, you could make the argument that adding new players all the time is diluting the Hall, but that's the same type of argument that wants the Hall to be 9 guys in a dusty room with no one else admitted ever, for the honor of the game.
I'm sure you can come up with your own player or two, but the most offensive induction to Hall of Fame to me was that of Bill Mazerowski. I know he hit a HR to beat the Yankees in the World Series. I'm sure you've all seen the replays of Yogi Bera going back to the left field wall and watching the ball go over it. That's nice, but that doesn't make you a HOF player. I know Mazerowski won eight Gold Gloves at second base in 17 years. That's nice too, but that doesn't make you a HOF player either.
Bill Mazerowski's average 162 game season was .260, 10 HR, 64 RBI, 58 RS and he is in the Hall of Fame. I don't know how, I don't know why, but he is. The only thing I can think of is that he was a really nice guy and the baseball writers loved him because there are total Jerks that played the game like Albert Belle who have put up HOF stats that will never get in because they were jerks and pissed baseball writers off.
You do know that Mazeroski holds the record for most double plays by a 2b, right? And that the fences in Forbes Field were pretty far back then, right? And that he hit a HR to win the World Series in Game 7 against the Yankees? Yes, HOF votes shouldn't be based entirely around sentimentalism, but they play a part, especially a) world series b) game 7, the most mythical game of them all c) home runs d) to win e) against the yankees, the eternal stand-in for evil (sorry dan, they are). And character is part of the HOF vote. Albert Belle isn't getting in because he pissed off a sportswriter; he's not getting in because he ran down trick or treaters in his truck. Yeah, he was a great slugger but he was also an unbelievable ass. That'll keep anyone out of the HOF.
There are many examples of good ball players that are in the HOF that I don't think should be, Mazerowski is one of them. I'm not trying to pick on him because I could have chosen any number of players that are in that I think shouldn't be, but the most logical example is the most recent announced HOF sole inductee to be, Andre Dawson. I'm not going to go into all the details here on why he should not be in the HOF, but he shouldn't. In many years when he was with the Expos, he wasn't even the best player on his team let alone in the National League or in Major League Baseball. That's not a knock because they had some very good players, but it is one of the indications that he should not be in the HOF.
In summary, a 162 game normalization of his stats would be 27 HR's, 98 RBI, .279 BA, 85 RS. While I do in fact acknowledge that before his knees did him in, he was a very good defender, when you place the bar of being a good outfield defender at Roberto Clemente or even a player like Ichro who still plays today; it's silly to even bring up the topic of defense into his HOF candidacy. If you want to talk about Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson and why they are in the HOF because of their defense, that's one thing, but Andre Dawson is not in the HOF because of his defense. Let's just say that he was an above average defender, but that doesn't mean you go to the HOF..........
Except that was a time of great pitching. The great freaking hitting explosion that you're used to isn't eternal. And Dawson is in the Hall because of two things. First, the move to Wrigley revitalized his career. He led an unbearable Cubs team with 49 HR and 137 RBI. He single-handedly turned a miserable Cubs season into a simply disappointing one. And he did this all with no knees, playing for peanuts on his contract. He was "The Hawk!" a Chicago legend, the man who came to Wrigley and threw a blank check down in front of management and said "Pay me what you think I'm worth." That's the kind of story that makes you happy. And if you want stats, he's also got 300 HR and 300 SB, the only non-SF Giant to have those (I had no idea the Giants were that good, huh). He's also in the 400-300 club, a club that has Willy Mays and Barry Bonds as its two other members. He has the 2nd highest non-juiced HR in a year in Cubs history and is one of the most popular players on the team. But yeah, discount the guy for your crappy article.
Andre Dawson was a very good MLB player. Dawson was an All-Star who compiled stats because of the length of time he played the game. But there is a difference between an All-Star and HOF Player. There was no era where he dominated the sport as the best outfielder. Calling it as it is, Dawson had one HOF type year where he batted .287 with 49 HR, 137 RBI and 90RS.
Frankly, I don't see how you can say Andre Dawson was a HOF player and have someone like Albert Belle who basically put up the same stats as Dawson BUT IN 12 YEARS INSTEAD OF 22! Is there anyone out there who would have rather pitched to Albert Belle in his prime with the game on the line than Andre Dawson? If they were on the same team Belle would be walked to get to Dawson.
That's because Andre Dawson wouldn't try to kill me after or during the game. Once again, tremendous ass. And I will admit that Dawson is more All-Star than HOFer, but you need to keep bringing in fresh people so that kids know the players that are mentioned. If we kept the Hall of Fame to just the All-Time Indisputable Hall of Famers, there would be maybe 20 guys in there, and that doesn't show the history of the game and the memorable moments and all that.
So if we are going by the assumption that Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer, then why not Paulie? If Konerko simply has just a few more quality years doing no better than he's previously done, his accumulation of stats will surpass those of "The Hawk." In fact, at 31 HR, 100 RBI, .277 BA, 84 RS Paul Konerko's 162 game normalization of stats are currently better than that of Andre Dawson's!
I notice you're ignoring SB. Konerko has 8. In his whole career. 0 MVP awards, and only 3 all star appearances. And if we look at total runs scored by this point in both players careers, Dawson had over 100 more by this time. Konerko has more HR now, yes, but Dawson's SB helped a bunch. (all stats from baseball-reference.com) And furthermore, other than 2 more RBI and 4 more HR, the stats are virtually identical, especially as you're able to take Konerko's best years (youth) while you're stuck adding on Dawson's ending years as well, where his average had dropped and his playing time as well. Normalized stats for a finished player and one who isn't that played in two different eras is really dumb. Let's look at two players:
Player A 162 game average: .278, 36 HR, 31 SB, 106 R, 93 RBI
Player B 162 game average: .274, 33 HR, 3 SB, 84 R, 105 RBI
Player A looks better by most statistics. Player A is also Alfonso Soriano while player B is Ernie Friggin Banks, who any normal Cubs player would rather have any day of the week. And those stats are over Ernie's whole career. If we average Ernie's stats for the same years played as Soriano, from a less hit-happy era and a much crappier Cubs team, we get
Ernie Banks to age 33: .281, 37 HR, 5 SB, 93 R, 110 RBI. Let's hope Soriano holds up as well as Ernie did.
And if we want to go back to Paulie versus Dawson, let's average the Hawk's stats for those years.
Paulie to age 33: .277, 31 HR, 100 RBI, 84 R, 1 SB
Dawson to age 33: .282, 28 HR, 97 RBI, 92 R, 26 SB
Well it sure looks like Dawson comes out ahead in 3 of the 5 categories. And once again, Dawson played for one hell of a shitty Cubs team, in a park that is bigger than the one Konerko is playing in, in a time of pitching. (I don't know how to account for park size on b-r, if anyone knows how please let me know)
So if Konerko ends up with more than the 438 career HR's that Dawson had; more than the 1,591 RBI that Dawson had, and a career batting average approximately the same as Dawson, shouldn't Konerko be in the HOF too?
Once again, defense, character, the era of the game at the time, and the fact that Dawson's stats to this point were better than Konerko's say no. If Konerko can keep a .277 BA straight for the next several years, maybe. But when a guy hits 38 he ain't as fast at swinging a stick as he used to be.
You probably haven't thought of it this way, but Paul Konerko is the second most prolific hitter the White Sox have ever had standing in line only behind ‘The Big Hurt' Frank Thomas. I guess you could bring up Harold Baines, but it took him 22 years to compile his stats of 384 HR, 1628 RBI and a .289 BA.
HEY WAIT A MINUTE; Harold Baines' stats are better than Andre Dawson's! He's got to be in the Hall of Fame too right?
Sigh. He's only number 2 in HR and extra base hits. RBIs third, total bases 4th, hits and runs 6th, stolen bases nonexistant. He's good, but he's not the second best player ever. Luke Appling from the 1930s was that guy. Other candidates could be (depending on if you want to include their non-white sox years or not) Jermaine Dye, Carlos Lee, and the beloved Albert Belle. And Baines isn't in because his stats came during the juicing era, so his 22 HR/year average aint gonna cut it at this time. Maybe in a few years. He's been on the ballot for 4, this was Dawson's 9th time getting voted on.
All the great ones have nick names right? Just look at the ones we have here, "The Hawk", The Big Hurt." Well at least Konerko has "Paulie..." What does Baines have? "Harold Growing Baines"?
If Konerko puts in another 5 quality years, with the watered down HOF being the way it is, he's going to have to go in. I guess Harold Baines does too, DH or not. The bottom line is, the standards for making the Hall of Fame are now lowered so much that you can make a valid argument that Paul Konerko has a legitimate shot to make the Hall of Fame.
And that's the thing. The nickname or the lack thereof. Calling me Johnny isn't a nickname, that's a lazy extension. It's a matter of pride and what I've been lazily alluding to as character over the last dozen or so paragraphs. Let's play hypothetical situation. It's the 1987 or 1988 season for the chicago cubs and there are three random men on base, you're down by 3, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, etc. Who do you want at the plate? From the Cubs? At that time, you wanted Ryne Sandberg or Andre Dawson, as Palmeiro is a juicer and Mark Grace at the time was a youngin. After the game, who do you wait for autographs from? Andre Dawson, the man who hit 49 HR and saved the season, and Ryne Sandberg. Basically, as much as heart and childhood heroics shouldn't play into voting, they do, and the Hawk had them. C'mon, the guy is nicknamed the Hawk! That's a nickname up there with Maverick or Iceman or Goose or whatever the 4th guy was. And he played until age 40 with metal knees. He took an NFL level beating for the MLB. That's strength of character.
Similarly, let's turn to last year's White Sox team. I need a HR, who do i go to? IMO, Thome or Dye. Then Konerko. And yes, he's the guy on the team this year but he's not exciting. He's not making great defensive plays, he's not stealing bases, he doesn't get fans truly excited (and feel free to call BS on this white sox fans; i'm just saying that i personally am not excited to see paul konerko step up to the plate)
He's a perfectly serviceable 1st baseman, but in a time when Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Mark Teixiera, and Adrian Gonzalez exist with their 40+ HR, 30 HR a season from Paul Konerko isn't that great. It's why he's not getting in to the hall of fame and why I doubt Derrek Lee is getting in either.
So that's why Paul Konerko sucks; because he's not a Hall of Famer. Music post later, possibly tomorrow. We'll see.
Weight Loss Update
My weight loss is going relatively alright, I'm at about 195 or so, meaning a grand total of 8-10 pounds lost. Yay me, only 20 more to go.....Crud. I've lost the weight through running when I get the chance and lifting weights also when I get the chance, along with a slightly healthier diet and eating less food in that diet. For example, I've stopped eating a pint of ice cream each week, which has helped a lot. I miss it, but then I also miss a lot of things. But I eat more salads now, along with that Campbell's Chunky Heart Healthy Vegetable soup. It's vegetables in tomato soup, but it's got less salt so I think it's better for me. I think. I also eat yogurt all the damn time, those yoplait commercials arent kidding. Those things are delicious, especially the lemon one.
Liquid wise I'd like to say I drink more water. I don't, but I blame that on the purchase of the Pepsi throwback. I don't really like pepsi or pop generally, but I did want to try it. It tastes just like Pepsi, stupid commercials. And as I don't like throwing things away, I'm stuck with it in my fridge. I've only got like 4-5 cans left but I really hope some of my friends drink it tomorrow (hint any of you reading this). I don't really drink beer much anymore. Nothing against it, just haven't felt like one. Picking some up for a party tomorrow, might have one on Sunday, but drinking isn't what I'm up to now. I drink a lot of tea, but I'm not sure if it's the caffeine or the fact that I'm mainlining sugar when I do have some.
Breakfast and lunch are usually Special K and a PBJ, apple, and kudos bar respectively. Dinner is whatever I fix that's easy, though I do eat a lot of sandwiches, both Subway and Potbelly. I can't help it, sandwiches are tasty. But I'm not snacking as much as I once did, which it helps not having snacks in the house. A-doy. I do miss cookies, but granola bars almost make up for it.
As for the other part, the getting healthier, that's also going alright. Lifting is taking off in that I'm doing it twice a week (today being the second time this week....maybe Saturday night too?) and I try to go running twice a week as well. This week it will only be once, but that happens at times. I'm running about 5ish miles in an hourish. The problem is that as I'm still far heavier than I like, I can't run as long as I want to without needing a break. That's what taking two months off will do to you. But I'm getting back into it, and doing situps and pushups almost daily, so that's good. And I have no shortage of music to play while I do it, so that also helps.
It's all a process really. There's that old saying about how "My body is a temple." Pssh, temples let anyone in....except if they're carrying pork. My body is a nightclub. Restricted guestlist, lotta movement, loud music. I just need a bouncer to stand outside and not let the bad elements in. Anyone need a job?
Liquid wise I'd like to say I drink more water. I don't, but I blame that on the purchase of the Pepsi throwback. I don't really like pepsi or pop generally, but I did want to try it. It tastes just like Pepsi, stupid commercials. And as I don't like throwing things away, I'm stuck with it in my fridge. I've only got like 4-5 cans left but I really hope some of my friends drink it tomorrow (hint any of you reading this). I don't really drink beer much anymore. Nothing against it, just haven't felt like one. Picking some up for a party tomorrow, might have one on Sunday, but drinking isn't what I'm up to now. I drink a lot of tea, but I'm not sure if it's the caffeine or the fact that I'm mainlining sugar when I do have some.
Breakfast and lunch are usually Special K and a PBJ, apple, and kudos bar respectively. Dinner is whatever I fix that's easy, though I do eat a lot of sandwiches, both Subway and Potbelly. I can't help it, sandwiches are tasty. But I'm not snacking as much as I once did, which it helps not having snacks in the house. A-doy. I do miss cookies, but granola bars almost make up for it.
As for the other part, the getting healthier, that's also going alright. Lifting is taking off in that I'm doing it twice a week (today being the second time this week....maybe Saturday night too?) and I try to go running twice a week as well. This week it will only be once, but that happens at times. I'm running about 5ish miles in an hourish. The problem is that as I'm still far heavier than I like, I can't run as long as I want to without needing a break. That's what taking two months off will do to you. But I'm getting back into it, and doing situps and pushups almost daily, so that's good. And I have no shortage of music to play while I do it, so that also helps.
It's all a process really. There's that old saying about how "My body is a temple." Pssh, temples let anyone in....except if they're carrying pork. My body is a nightclub. Restricted guestlist, lotta movement, loud music. I just need a bouncer to stand outside and not let the bad elements in. Anyone need a job?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Super Bowl Shuffling
So I generally don't gamble on sports. I did a suicide pool this year and was out in week 8 of 17. I tried to do a March Madness style bracket this year for the finals and I came out at about 50 percent the first week. But the next few broke me, especially as I had the Cardinals going all the way against the Chargers or Colts. Yeah, that didn't happen. I try not to gamble on my own team because you're directly tempting fate and the sports gods. If you bet on your own team, you're jinxing them, and you can't bet against your team because then you're an asshole who hates the game. It's very complex.
In picking super bowl winners, I've gone about 50 percent the last several years, and if memory serves, this is the year I'm supposed to be right. But the question is were my picks based on love/luck or smart football? That is, am I picking the Saints to win because of the fact I less hate their team, or am I picking the Colts because I think they're better?
In 2006, Steelers v. Seahawks, I want to say I chose Steelers for that game, but I really wasn't too interested in the game. In 2007, I chose the Bears and lost badly. You have to support your team, even when things look bleak. And brother, that game was bleak. In 2008, I wanted the Giants to win more than anything because I really hate Boston. And I'm not sure if the magic came from their actual abilities or my drinking some sort of magic beer, but the Giants pulled it out. In 2009 I wanted the Cardinals to win, mainly because I liked Kurt Warner and their offense more than Pittsburgh. Steeler defense won out, so I was wrong there. What this seems to be telling me is that the team I want to win is the one that's gonna win.
I have nothing personal against Manning or his fivehead. But his fans are so damn annoying at times, and all the articles I've read about the whole thing keep having commenters/authors/everyone talking about the great city of Indianapolis. Listen, I've been there at least 12 times in the last 9 years. Every time I go there I encounter one emotion. Blah. It's a blah city in a blah state full of blah people who enjoy blah things and there is nothing to blah-ing do there. So blah them and blah Indianapolis.
Meanwhile, hey, did you hear about some sort of hurricane that hit New Orleans at one point? Yeah, I totally just heard about it! Whoever knew that happened? But seriously, I got nothing against New Orleans, and I do like jazz and spicy food, so there is that.
Football wise, I think the Colts are a better team. Better offense, better defense. Special teams is won by NO, and the NO players are healthy. I guess what it all comes down to is gut feeling, and the fact that Indianapolis is so blah has bored my gut. I'm going with the Saints.
In picking super bowl winners, I've gone about 50 percent the last several years, and if memory serves, this is the year I'm supposed to be right. But the question is were my picks based on love/luck or smart football? That is, am I picking the Saints to win because of the fact I less hate their team, or am I picking the Colts because I think they're better?
In 2006, Steelers v. Seahawks, I want to say I chose Steelers for that game, but I really wasn't too interested in the game. In 2007, I chose the Bears and lost badly. You have to support your team, even when things look bleak. And brother, that game was bleak. In 2008, I wanted the Giants to win more than anything because I really hate Boston. And I'm not sure if the magic came from their actual abilities or my drinking some sort of magic beer, but the Giants pulled it out. In 2009 I wanted the Cardinals to win, mainly because I liked Kurt Warner and their offense more than Pittsburgh. Steeler defense won out, so I was wrong there. What this seems to be telling me is that the team I want to win is the one that's gonna win.
I have nothing personal against Manning or his fivehead. But his fans are so damn annoying at times, and all the articles I've read about the whole thing keep having commenters/authors/everyone talking about the great city of Indianapolis. Listen, I've been there at least 12 times in the last 9 years. Every time I go there I encounter one emotion. Blah. It's a blah city in a blah state full of blah people who enjoy blah things and there is nothing to blah-ing do there. So blah them and blah Indianapolis.
Meanwhile, hey, did you hear about some sort of hurricane that hit New Orleans at one point? Yeah, I totally just heard about it! Whoever knew that happened? But seriously, I got nothing against New Orleans, and I do like jazz and spicy food, so there is that.
Football wise, I think the Colts are a better team. Better offense, better defense. Special teams is won by NO, and the NO players are healthy. I guess what it all comes down to is gut feeling, and the fact that Indianapolis is so blah has bored my gut. I'm going with the Saints.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Politics Shmolitics
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
Today, I want to discuss this poll. And where politics is in this country.
First, a few basic caveats. Yes, I am a Democratic socialist liberal commie who hates America and clearly supports the terrorists. Blah blah blah. And yes, the poll is funded by the great orange satan, who not only hates America worse than I do but is clearly a terrorist himself, someone think of the children, etc etc. So I'll have my liberal slant on the whole thing, but I welcome discussion. Second point is that even though it was founded by a Democrat, the polltakers are supposed to be non-partisan, and none of the questions seem too push-polly, so maybe they are. Third, these are taken of people who self-identify as Republicans, which means that libertarians like Steve are (I assume) out, and so we're left with the actual party base. And as a math major, statistical error blah blah blah. 2000 people were interviewed, but I'm not sure what the breakdown in region really was and all that.
That being said and caveats out of the way (unless I think of more) let's analyze it better than Markos did (because I AM that gifted, of course). I'm skipping the president in 2012 question because it's pointless. If you went back to 2006 and tried to find out who democrats were going to vote for for office, kerry or edwards were leading the list. Barack was probably pretty low, so this is equally a dumb question. The only reason Palin, Cheney, and Romney have higher numbers is name recognition, so at this point it's a stupid question. Two years from now the republicans will line up behind their guy and the process will continue, blah blah blah.
The next question I feel is shady. Should Barack Obama be impeached? 39 percent say yes and 29 percent are not sure. Well, hell, back in 2000 I'm willing to bet that you could find an easy 39 percent of people who wanted George Bush impeached for stealing the election. Granted, Obama hasn't led us into a false war or fucked up the myriad of ways Bush did, but it's not hard to find members of the other party who want to impeach the guy. The smart followup question would be, "why" of course, but that wasn't asked. So this question while informative that Republicans hate BO isn't much more helpful than that. I could stand here and go "ZOMG HOW CAN THEY BE SO F***ING RETARDED?" (and then sarah palin would call for me to quit my job of course) but that's not going to help the situation. Do I think Bush should be punished for all the crimes he committed? Yes, but I'm also a pretty strong liberal. Hell, I want Ann Coulter shot into the sun, but I only have one vote, etc etc.
Was Obama born in America? Well, hell, when the entire right wing media is bringing up kerning and all that bullshit, then of course you'll believe anything. Note that Yes is stronger than No with the exception of 2 categories, the south (racism forever, bitches!) and 18-29 year olds (i maintain that it's within the margin of error). The south, well, hell, we've tried fixing that cesspool before and it's not getting better. They want to hate black people, we can't stop them. But the 18-29 year olds? They're the ones reading the right-wing blogs and listening to Rush Limbaugh. If we go back to my liberalism, every time that W and Co fucked up in his 8 years, liberal blogs were all over that shit. "Cheney said fuck on the senate floor! He's ruining the VP office!" "we tortured prisoners! we're the worst country ever!" (that last one is a fucking travesty btw). So when you read 5-6 conservative blogs a day that are all saying "Not born in america zomg!" you start to believe it. And I'm not saying liberal blogs don't fuck up too. The problem with both is that no one remembers the retractions, and outrage doesn't lessen after you read a retraction a few days later, no matter what side.
The regular media should have actually never given the story as much weight as it did, but hey, first black president, election cycle scooping of each other, need to be the first one there, pointless both sides to each issue, etc. And the retractions should have been louder, even though no one likes to admit they screwed up. But hell, people were still mad 8 years after Bush "stole" the election in 2000. This issue isn't going away, it's just morons being dumb. The socialist claim is a similar thing. Blogs, Fox news repeats, radio shows, etc. The fact that that one sticks is easier because while you can easily say, "here's a birth certificate you ignorant jackals" it's a lot harder to go "here's a capitalist agenda you shmucks." You can't get out of the 20s with socialism, so there's one that's not going away. The problem is though that NO ONE CARES ABOUT SOCIALISM.
I was born in 86. I have many friends that were born in the 80s as well. None of us actually remembers Reagan as president. George W Bush is also a distant memory, as is the USSR and the cold war. I've seen video of the Berlin wall falling, but when it happened? I was busy watching Ninja Turtles, which was more exciting to me at the time. So when you try to drudge up scary fears of communism, the only people you're affecting are those that are at least 30ish. You're not recruiting the younger generation with talk of "socialism" and "red scares." Realistically, the best shot of socialism working is hoping the new Red Dawn isn't a glorious piece of shit. Hell, James Bond has stopped fighting commies, as has Captain America. You're not affecting youth culture with something youths have never cared about. It's the equivalent of saying "Oh no, Barack Obama is going to take your CD player away!"
Does he want the terrorists to win? Oh, you have to be kidding me. There is no way that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES wants the terrorists to win. What, is he going to wake up tomorrow and say something like "well, thanks for electing me, y'all, but as of today, we're letting all them Muslims come in and kill y'all!" Thank goodness that half those polled (ish) were able to figure that out. And there's still that stubborn 25(ish) percent that says yes. Media, media, media.
Did ACORN steal the election? Maybe if people had a better idea of what ACORN did they could answer this question better. ACORN signs people up to vote but they don't make them vote. IE, if you sign up Donald Duck for a voter registration card, unless Donald walks in with a valid ID, he ain't voting. And if you've never given a fake name to any form or shitty email sign-up (who here doesn't have a dumping email address for spam signups?) then throw the first stone. But accusing them of throwing the election is straight right wing media BS.
Is Sarah Palin more qualified? Get your heads out of your asses. The woman didnt know why there was a North and South Korea. She quit her job as governor. The ability to say "you betcha" and look like a hot librarian is not a presidential qualifier. This is just like that "who would you have rather have a beer with" bullshit. I don't want to have a beer with the president. I want to have a nice town hall meeting where he answers my questions, or failing that, a good state of the union speech. I don't want to be choosing between presidential candidates based on which one Mystery Date tells me is dreamier. Governor of Alaska barely counts as a job. I'm willing to bet I could be governor of Alaska now. You know why? It's f***ing Alaska! Half the residents are animals! I am willing to concede that each had similar national experience levels when they entered the stage, but you know what? Barack had a decent idea of what he was talking about and could explain policy decisions. He had that hour long speech where he listed all his plans for office, but Sarah Palin didn't have to do that, partly because she was running for VP and partly because, hey, look, tits. "I read all [the newspapers]"? Really? That's great, explain what you read. You want to make the point on election day that she's more qualified, I might be willing to buy that, even though I'd think you're an idiot. But now? After she quit being governor and then yelled at everyone in her final press conference and has basically been on a book tour for the last few months while BO was out being the President? No, you can't make that claim. These people are just wrong.
Does he hate whitey? Well, whites, men, the 60+, and the south sure seem to think so. Let's look at those lists. White Republicans - scared of black people. Male Republicans - "Where all the white women at" indeed, Cleavon Little. The 60+ are afraid he's going to come back and get them for slavery and the entire policy of whites pre-1960 America. The south? well of course the black guy hates white people, we hate him. It's projection, plain and simple.
Should we secede? Ok, that may be push-polling...or just plain stupid. You know who wants to secede? Idiots who spend Saturdays at the gun range in their Rebel Flag tee-shirts listening to Skynyrd. The south is the strongest who want out, but it's still a 20 percent difference and this question is pointless. There's 25 percent of people who would support anything.
I had no idea that people hated unions so much. Growing up in Chicago there's no such thing as non-union labor, which works I gotta say. With my living experience, I have no idea why unions would be seen as bad and shouldn't be created, so anyone who cares to enlighten me is welcome.
Immigrants! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them. And everyone hates them, because the American dream was only meant for white people 50-100 years ago. F*** those Mexicans, man, they took 'er jerbs! It's more fear of "where all the white women at" again combined with an actual fear of losing their job, with another bit of religious paranoia thrown in for a few people. Not being an immigrant or hating them, I'm not exactly qualified to try to qualify these numbers.
Gays in the military? Well, not much you can do about that, now is there? That problem will be fixed soon enough. Gays allowed to marry and receive benefits? Nope, them queers is gonna ruin marriage. If I can deny someone I don't like the chance to be happy, why wouldn't I? Strangely, the youth demographic is going right with the party line on this one, which is weird. I would have expected them to know someone who "caught the gay" and be a little more accepting; that's how I stopped being scared of it. But as these are self-identifying Republicans, I imagine a lot of them are not only toeing the party line but also overly Christian. And I definitely remember Jesus saying "Hate the sinner, hate his sins too. Throw those rocks boys!" Even if America was founded on Christian ideas, separation of Church and state, people.
The gays teaching in public schools question was a trick. The reason it was asked was because back when Reagan was running for president he actually stood up and said yes, they should be allowed to teach. So Saint Reagan was OK with the gays, but I imagine that knowing a lot from Hollywood helps. If people could see gays as normal then things might get easier to deal with.
Sex education and creationism? Ugh, church and state people. Church myah, state, nyah. Sex education keeps your daughter from getting pregnant and creationism is why we're behind japan and india in educational standards.
Marriages equal or the men in charge? There's always wackjobs in every case.
Contraceptives outlawed and are they abortions? Well those two tie together nicely. If you want the hard Catholic belief, sex is for creating babies. If you're doing something else with it then you're doing it wrong. If it's outlawed, then the girls can't go on the pill and go out and have sex. No one wants their daughter to grow up, but sometimes you have to let her. As for is it murder? I suppose if you look at it in a very skewed way then yes it is. But it's a hell of a skew and you're just being dumb. Some girls take the pill for bad periods, some take them for intense cramps, it's not just so you don't need to worry about the babies.
Abortion is murder. Sorry I'm Catholic, but it is. However, sometimes we gotta go lesser of two evils, and church and state are separate. It's going to happen whether it's legal or not, and I'd rather it be in a clean and sterile location rather than a back alley with a coat hanger and a punch in the stomach. Personally I don't like it, but you know what? I haven't knocked a girl up, I don't have a uterus, I really don't deserve a huge say in the matter. And if you're pulling the pro-life bull crap, why do they then so strongly support the death penalty? "Those of you without sin throw the first stone." And if we want to call abortion murder, what punishment fits the crime for women who have abortions?
Women can work outside the home, that was kind of a pointless question.
Most Republicans are Christian, shocking. It's a Christian nation, and as Catholics are one of the few if only sects that believe works can get you into heaven, of course they're all about faith.
So what does this tell us all (sorry I've been going on for so long)? That there are crazies in the Republican party. You know what? From the other side, there's crazies in the Democrat party too. I'm willing to bet you can think of all sorts of issues where I'm wrong or crazy or what have you. But the party difference is where things happen. Republican leaders have to vote the party line or they get kicked out of the party. You have to be pro-life, you do what you're told. If your head guy says vote No on the bill, you vote no or you lose your committees and are voted out next election. Meanwhile, the democrats still employ Joe Lieberman. The democrats are more willing to take people in, but that leads to varied messages and a bunch of crappy compromises. Shouting at the other side isn't going to get anything done, but that's not what the media would have you believe.
What the poll says to me is that those people who still identify as Republicans generally have Republican beliefs, and I think several of those beliefs are wrong. That's why I'm a Democrat. Welcome to freedom in America, where you can believe what you want. The problem is that if you want to be a Republican leader in this day and age you have to agree 100% with the party line, which is eventually going to be set by a lot of those people polled. I don't like that, as the beliefs I didn't like the most were the ones that were just about hating others. The whole point of being Christian is that you don't hate other people, which is what a lot of the opinions kinda were. If you want to live in a more Christian world, why don't you start treating these people in a more Christian way? Forgiveness and kindness, not yelling and killing. But that's just my take on it all.
Join me tomorrow when I go back to being comical and amusing for your benefit. A small post about my weight loss program and another small one about the Super Bowl probably.
Today, I want to discuss this poll. And where politics is in this country.
First, a few basic caveats. Yes, I am a Democratic socialist liberal commie who hates America and clearly supports the terrorists. Blah blah blah. And yes, the poll is funded by the great orange satan, who not only hates America worse than I do but is clearly a terrorist himself, someone think of the children, etc etc. So I'll have my liberal slant on the whole thing, but I welcome discussion. Second point is that even though it was founded by a Democrat, the polltakers are supposed to be non-partisan, and none of the questions seem too push-polly, so maybe they are. Third, these are taken of people who self-identify as Republicans, which means that libertarians like Steve are (I assume) out, and so we're left with the actual party base. And as a math major, statistical error blah blah blah. 2000 people were interviewed, but I'm not sure what the breakdown in region really was and all that.
That being said and caveats out of the way (unless I think of more) let's analyze it better than Markos did (because I AM that gifted, of course). I'm skipping the president in 2012 question because it's pointless. If you went back to 2006 and tried to find out who democrats were going to vote for for office, kerry or edwards were leading the list. Barack was probably pretty low, so this is equally a dumb question. The only reason Palin, Cheney, and Romney have higher numbers is name recognition, so at this point it's a stupid question. Two years from now the republicans will line up behind their guy and the process will continue, blah blah blah.
The next question I feel is shady. Should Barack Obama be impeached? 39 percent say yes and 29 percent are not sure. Well, hell, back in 2000 I'm willing to bet that you could find an easy 39 percent of people who wanted George Bush impeached for stealing the election. Granted, Obama hasn't led us into a false war or fucked up the myriad of ways Bush did, but it's not hard to find members of the other party who want to impeach the guy. The smart followup question would be, "why" of course, but that wasn't asked. So this question while informative that Republicans hate BO isn't much more helpful than that. I could stand here and go "ZOMG HOW CAN THEY BE SO F***ING RETARDED?" (and then sarah palin would call for me to quit my job of course) but that's not going to help the situation. Do I think Bush should be punished for all the crimes he committed? Yes, but I'm also a pretty strong liberal. Hell, I want Ann Coulter shot into the sun, but I only have one vote, etc etc.
Was Obama born in America? Well, hell, when the entire right wing media is bringing up kerning and all that bullshit, then of course you'll believe anything. Note that Yes is stronger than No with the exception of 2 categories, the south (racism forever, bitches!) and 18-29 year olds (i maintain that it's within the margin of error). The south, well, hell, we've tried fixing that cesspool before and it's not getting better. They want to hate black people, we can't stop them. But the 18-29 year olds? They're the ones reading the right-wing blogs and listening to Rush Limbaugh. If we go back to my liberalism, every time that W and Co fucked up in his 8 years, liberal blogs were all over that shit. "Cheney said fuck on the senate floor! He's ruining the VP office!" "we tortured prisoners! we're the worst country ever!" (that last one is a fucking travesty btw). So when you read 5-6 conservative blogs a day that are all saying "Not born in america zomg!" you start to believe it. And I'm not saying liberal blogs don't fuck up too. The problem with both is that no one remembers the retractions, and outrage doesn't lessen after you read a retraction a few days later, no matter what side.
The regular media should have actually never given the story as much weight as it did, but hey, first black president, election cycle scooping of each other, need to be the first one there, pointless both sides to each issue, etc. And the retractions should have been louder, even though no one likes to admit they screwed up. But hell, people were still mad 8 years after Bush "stole" the election in 2000. This issue isn't going away, it's just morons being dumb. The socialist claim is a similar thing. Blogs, Fox news repeats, radio shows, etc. The fact that that one sticks is easier because while you can easily say, "here's a birth certificate you ignorant jackals" it's a lot harder to go "here's a capitalist agenda you shmucks." You can't get out of the 20s with socialism, so there's one that's not going away. The problem is though that NO ONE CARES ABOUT SOCIALISM.
I was born in 86. I have many friends that were born in the 80s as well. None of us actually remembers Reagan as president. George W Bush is also a distant memory, as is the USSR and the cold war. I've seen video of the Berlin wall falling, but when it happened? I was busy watching Ninja Turtles, which was more exciting to me at the time. So when you try to drudge up scary fears of communism, the only people you're affecting are those that are at least 30ish. You're not recruiting the younger generation with talk of "socialism" and "red scares." Realistically, the best shot of socialism working is hoping the new Red Dawn isn't a glorious piece of shit. Hell, James Bond has stopped fighting commies, as has Captain America. You're not affecting youth culture with something youths have never cared about. It's the equivalent of saying "Oh no, Barack Obama is going to take your CD player away!"
Does he want the terrorists to win? Oh, you have to be kidding me. There is no way that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES wants the terrorists to win. What, is he going to wake up tomorrow and say something like "well, thanks for electing me, y'all, but as of today, we're letting all them Muslims come in and kill y'all!" Thank goodness that half those polled (ish) were able to figure that out. And there's still that stubborn 25(ish) percent that says yes. Media, media, media.
Did ACORN steal the election? Maybe if people had a better idea of what ACORN did they could answer this question better. ACORN signs people up to vote but they don't make them vote. IE, if you sign up Donald Duck for a voter registration card, unless Donald walks in with a valid ID, he ain't voting. And if you've never given a fake name to any form or shitty email sign-up (who here doesn't have a dumping email address for spam signups?) then throw the first stone. But accusing them of throwing the election is straight right wing media BS.
Is Sarah Palin more qualified? Get your heads out of your asses. The woman didnt know why there was a North and South Korea. She quit her job as governor. The ability to say "you betcha" and look like a hot librarian is not a presidential qualifier. This is just like that "who would you have rather have a beer with" bullshit. I don't want to have a beer with the president. I want to have a nice town hall meeting where he answers my questions, or failing that, a good state of the union speech. I don't want to be choosing between presidential candidates based on which one Mystery Date tells me is dreamier. Governor of Alaska barely counts as a job. I'm willing to bet I could be governor of Alaska now. You know why? It's f***ing Alaska! Half the residents are animals! I am willing to concede that each had similar national experience levels when they entered the stage, but you know what? Barack had a decent idea of what he was talking about and could explain policy decisions. He had that hour long speech where he listed all his plans for office, but Sarah Palin didn't have to do that, partly because she was running for VP and partly because, hey, look, tits. "I read all [the newspapers]"? Really? That's great, explain what you read. You want to make the point on election day that she's more qualified, I might be willing to buy that, even though I'd think you're an idiot. But now? After she quit being governor and then yelled at everyone in her final press conference and has basically been on a book tour for the last few months while BO was out being the President? No, you can't make that claim. These people are just wrong.
Does he hate whitey? Well, whites, men, the 60+, and the south sure seem to think so. Let's look at those lists. White Republicans - scared of black people. Male Republicans - "Where all the white women at" indeed, Cleavon Little. The 60+ are afraid he's going to come back and get them for slavery and the entire policy of whites pre-1960 America. The south? well of course the black guy hates white people, we hate him. It's projection, plain and simple.
Should we secede? Ok, that may be push-polling...or just plain stupid. You know who wants to secede? Idiots who spend Saturdays at the gun range in their Rebel Flag tee-shirts listening to Skynyrd. The south is the strongest who want out, but it's still a 20 percent difference and this question is pointless. There's 25 percent of people who would support anything.
I had no idea that people hated unions so much. Growing up in Chicago there's no such thing as non-union labor, which works I gotta say. With my living experience, I have no idea why unions would be seen as bad and shouldn't be created, so anyone who cares to enlighten me is welcome.
Immigrants! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them. And everyone hates them, because the American dream was only meant for white people 50-100 years ago. F*** those Mexicans, man, they took 'er jerbs! It's more fear of "where all the white women at" again combined with an actual fear of losing their job, with another bit of religious paranoia thrown in for a few people. Not being an immigrant or hating them, I'm not exactly qualified to try to qualify these numbers.
Gays in the military? Well, not much you can do about that, now is there? That problem will be fixed soon enough. Gays allowed to marry and receive benefits? Nope, them queers is gonna ruin marriage. If I can deny someone I don't like the chance to be happy, why wouldn't I? Strangely, the youth demographic is going right with the party line on this one, which is weird. I would have expected them to know someone who "caught the gay" and be a little more accepting; that's how I stopped being scared of it. But as these are self-identifying Republicans, I imagine a lot of them are not only toeing the party line but also overly Christian. And I definitely remember Jesus saying "Hate the sinner, hate his sins too. Throw those rocks boys!" Even if America was founded on Christian ideas, separation of Church and state, people.
The gays teaching in public schools question was a trick. The reason it was asked was because back when Reagan was running for president he actually stood up and said yes, they should be allowed to teach. So Saint Reagan was OK with the gays, but I imagine that knowing a lot from Hollywood helps. If people could see gays as normal then things might get easier to deal with.
Sex education and creationism? Ugh, church and state people. Church myah, state, nyah. Sex education keeps your daughter from getting pregnant and creationism is why we're behind japan and india in educational standards.
Marriages equal or the men in charge? There's always wackjobs in every case.
Contraceptives outlawed and are they abortions? Well those two tie together nicely. If you want the hard Catholic belief, sex is for creating babies. If you're doing something else with it then you're doing it wrong. If it's outlawed, then the girls can't go on the pill and go out and have sex. No one wants their daughter to grow up, but sometimes you have to let her. As for is it murder? I suppose if you look at it in a very skewed way then yes it is. But it's a hell of a skew and you're just being dumb. Some girls take the pill for bad periods, some take them for intense cramps, it's not just so you don't need to worry about the babies.
Abortion is murder. Sorry I'm Catholic, but it is. However, sometimes we gotta go lesser of two evils, and church and state are separate. It's going to happen whether it's legal or not, and I'd rather it be in a clean and sterile location rather than a back alley with a coat hanger and a punch in the stomach. Personally I don't like it, but you know what? I haven't knocked a girl up, I don't have a uterus, I really don't deserve a huge say in the matter. And if you're pulling the pro-life bull crap, why do they then so strongly support the death penalty? "Those of you without sin throw the first stone." And if we want to call abortion murder, what punishment fits the crime for women who have abortions?
Women can work outside the home, that was kind of a pointless question.
Most Republicans are Christian, shocking. It's a Christian nation, and as Catholics are one of the few if only sects that believe works can get you into heaven, of course they're all about faith.
So what does this tell us all (sorry I've been going on for so long)? That there are crazies in the Republican party. You know what? From the other side, there's crazies in the Democrat party too. I'm willing to bet you can think of all sorts of issues where I'm wrong or crazy or what have you. But the party difference is where things happen. Republican leaders have to vote the party line or they get kicked out of the party. You have to be pro-life, you do what you're told. If your head guy says vote No on the bill, you vote no or you lose your committees and are voted out next election. Meanwhile, the democrats still employ Joe Lieberman. The democrats are more willing to take people in, but that leads to varied messages and a bunch of crappy compromises. Shouting at the other side isn't going to get anything done, but that's not what the media would have you believe.
What the poll says to me is that those people who still identify as Republicans generally have Republican beliefs, and I think several of those beliefs are wrong. That's why I'm a Democrat. Welcome to freedom in America, where you can believe what you want. The problem is that if you want to be a Republican leader in this day and age you have to agree 100% with the party line, which is eventually going to be set by a lot of those people polled. I don't like that, as the beliefs I didn't like the most were the ones that were just about hating others. The whole point of being Christian is that you don't hate other people, which is what a lot of the opinions kinda were. If you want to live in a more Christian world, why don't you start treating these people in a more Christian way? Forgiveness and kindness, not yelling and killing. But that's just my take on it all.
Join me tomorrow when I go back to being comical and amusing for your benefit. A small post about my weight loss program and another small one about the Super Bowl probably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)