Villanova barely beat Robert Morris in overtime, and Temple lost to Cornell. So Villanova still has a shot at the national title, and Temple doesn't.
If Temple played Robert Morris, they would've blown them out. If Villanova played Cornell, they probably would've lost (judging by the Robert Morris result).
Had Temple been a 3 seed in its own bracket, they would've handled Montana better than New Mexico did. If Villanova was a 3 or 4 in their own bracket, the result likely would've been the same.
The NCAA was wrong, but what's done is done, and you have to beat the opponent you're presented with. Villanova did; Temple didn't. Let's see what happens next year.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Comparing the opponents
As I’ve discussed in this blog all week, I differ with the NCAA tournament committee’s decision to seed Villanova higher than Temple in the upcoming tournament. However, regardless of what I believe, it’s going to come down to whichever team goes further. Matchups or not, the best teams usually advance the farthest in the tournament, so now it’s time to turn my attention to the opposition. In the interest of not looking ahead, I’ll only look at the opponents for the first round at this time.
No. 2 Villanova vs. No. 15 Robert Morris
South Region
Thursday, 12:30 p.m.
The Colonials began the season 0-3, and finished 20-11 before winning the Northeast Conference championship. They defeated Quinnipiac, 52-50, in the tournament final. They are making their second consecutive NCAA tournament appearance, and are led by freshmen Karon Abraham, who has 13.4 points per game. They have won just one tournament game, defeating Georgia Southern in 1983.
No. 5 Temple vs. No. 12 Cornell East Region
Friday, 12:30 p.m.
Cornell is the only team in this year’s tournament that legitimately earned its automatic bid, winning the Ivy League, the only conference that determines its champion during the regular season. Cornell was 27-4 this year, one loss less than Temple, and won their third straight conference title. Three of those losses came to Big East teams Seton Hall and Syracuse, and national title favorite Kansas, 71-66. Kansas beat Temple, 84-52.
Senior Ryan Wittman leads the Big Red with 17.5 points per game for a team that is generally recognized as having its best season in team history.
I see no reason Villanova should lose in the first round. There is speculation that Cornell could upset Temple, as always happens with a 5-12 matchup. If it were a regular season game, I’d pick Temple and I’m not going to change my mind now.
No. 2 Villanova vs. No. 15 Robert Morris
South Region
Thursday, 12:30 p.m.
The Colonials began the season 0-3, and finished 20-11 before winning the Northeast Conference championship. They defeated Quinnipiac, 52-50, in the tournament final. They are making their second consecutive NCAA tournament appearance, and are led by freshmen Karon Abraham, who has 13.4 points per game. They have won just one tournament game, defeating Georgia Southern in 1983.
No. 5 Temple vs. No. 12 Cornell East Region
Friday, 12:30 p.m.
Cornell is the only team in this year’s tournament that legitimately earned its automatic bid, winning the Ivy League, the only conference that determines its champion during the regular season. Cornell was 27-4 this year, one loss less than Temple, and won their third straight conference title. Three of those losses came to Big East teams Seton Hall and Syracuse, and national title favorite Kansas, 71-66. Kansas beat Temple, 84-52.
Senior Ryan Wittman leads the Big Red with 17.5 points per game for a team that is generally recognized as having its best season in team history.
I see no reason Villanova should lose in the first round. There is speculation that Cornell could upset Temple, as always happens with a 5-12 matchup. If it were a regular season game, I’d pick Temple and I’m not going to change my mind now.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
This is the last time I'll bring it up
The day was December 13, 2009. Villanova was undefeated and ranked third in the country. Temple was 7-2 and unheralded. It was a typical rivalry game situation between two Big 5 teams, and in typical fashion, the highly-touted team went down at the hands of the team no one was talking about.
Juan Fernandez, possibly the Owls’ breakout star of the year, dropped 33 points and had four assists in Temple’s upset of Villanova, 75-65. Scottie Reynolds led the Wildcats with 23 points, seven rebounds, three assists and three steals.
The problem with calling it an upset was that immediately following the game, Villanova coach Jay Wright asked reporters to refrain from calling it an upset. In his mind, Temple always was the better team.
This is a fact that people just won’t believe. After all, it was Villanova that started the season with high hopes a season after advancing to the Final Four. Despite two straight NCAA tournament appearances, Temple was still seeking its first win in the big dance since 2001.
Except that Villanova is a squad that has just three seniors, albeit one of them -Reynolds- is probably the best player in the Big East. They have three talented juniors, and the rest of the team is made up of underclassmen. The Wildcats couldn’t keep their success up all year, and Villanova did indeed hit their wall late in the season.
On the positive side, Villanova was third in the nation in points per game with 82.5, led by Reynolds with 18.5.
Temple is also young, but its most heralded player coming into the season was junior Lavoy Allen, and the Owls play a stingy defense. Allen averaged a double-double with 11.5 points and 10.9 rebounds for the season. This was the year Temple finally did what it should do every year by separating itself from the rest of the Atlantic 10. They also didn’t let up with a higher number of underclassmen on the roster.
Temple had no individual in the national top 10 in any category, nor was it team top 10.
Following its win over Villanova, Temple went undefeated in the city and won the unofficial Big 5 title. Villanova finished with just one loss.
To Temple.
Despite the loss, Villanova was given the higher seed in the national championship tournament.
Juan Fernandez, possibly the Owls’ breakout star of the year, dropped 33 points and had four assists in Temple’s upset of Villanova, 75-65. Scottie Reynolds led the Wildcats with 23 points, seven rebounds, three assists and three steals.
The problem with calling it an upset was that immediately following the game, Villanova coach Jay Wright asked reporters to refrain from calling it an upset. In his mind, Temple always was the better team.
This is a fact that people just won’t believe. After all, it was Villanova that started the season with high hopes a season after advancing to the Final Four. Despite two straight NCAA tournament appearances, Temple was still seeking its first win in the big dance since 2001.
Except that Villanova is a squad that has just three seniors, albeit one of them -Reynolds- is probably the best player in the Big East. They have three talented juniors, and the rest of the team is made up of underclassmen. The Wildcats couldn’t keep their success up all year, and Villanova did indeed hit their wall late in the season.
On the positive side, Villanova was third in the nation in points per game with 82.5, led by Reynolds with 18.5.
Temple is also young, but its most heralded player coming into the season was junior Lavoy Allen, and the Owls play a stingy defense. Allen averaged a double-double with 11.5 points and 10.9 rebounds for the season. This was the year Temple finally did what it should do every year by separating itself from the rest of the Atlantic 10. They also didn’t let up with a higher number of underclassmen on the roster.
Temple had no individual in the national top 10 in any category, nor was it team top 10.
Following its win over Villanova, Temple went undefeated in the city and won the unofficial Big 5 title. Villanova finished with just one loss.
To Temple.
Despite the loss, Villanova was given the higher seed in the national championship tournament.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Temple vs. Villanova, common opponents
The second blog in my angry rant about Villanova getting a higher seed than Temple. This one explores the teams’ common opponents. Villanova gets some credit, but the anger is still there.
Georgetown vs. Temple, 46-45 win vs. Villanova, split
St. John’s vs. Temple, 55-48 win vs. Villanova, 81-71 loss
Seton Hall vs. Temple, 71-65 loss vs. Villanova, 81-71 loss
St. Joe’s vs. Temple, lost twice vs. Villanova, 97-89 loss
Penn vs. Temple, 60-45 loss vs. Villanova, 103-65 loss
LaSalle vs. Temple, lost twice vs. Villanova, 81-63 loss
Dayton vs. Temple, 49-41 loss vs. Villanova, 71-65 loss
Fordham vs. Temple, 62-45 loss vs. Villanova, 96-58 loss
Delaware vs. Temple, 76-56 loss vs. Villanova, 97-63 loss
What jumps out to me is why did Villanova play Fordham and Dayton in non-conference games? Two Atlantic 10 teams going up against one of the best teams in the Big East? Shouldn’t the Wildcats be building their resume against superior competition?
Villanova falls into the category of teams that believes its non-conference schedule is so hard, it can relax a little when it comes to non-conference scheduling, and the NCAA tournament committee validated this thinking by seeding them so high. Actually, it’s good to see the Wildcats play teams from a respectable mid-major rather than scheduling Big Sky and MAAC opponents. Clearly, Georgetown, St. John’s and Seton Hall had the same mindset when they scheduled Temple.
As for the results, Temple gave dangerous Georgetown a close game, while Villanova both beat and lost to the Hoyas in conference play. Temple beat no one Villanova couldn’t beat, while Villanova beat both Georgetown and St. John’s.
On paper, Villanova seems to have a slight edge. On the court, Temple beat them.
Georgetown vs. Temple, 46-45 win vs. Villanova, split
St. John’s vs. Temple, 55-48 win vs. Villanova, 81-71 loss
Seton Hall vs. Temple, 71-65 loss vs. Villanova, 81-71 loss
St. Joe’s vs. Temple, lost twice vs. Villanova, 97-89 loss
Penn vs. Temple, 60-45 loss vs. Villanova, 103-65 loss
LaSalle vs. Temple, lost twice vs. Villanova, 81-63 loss
Dayton vs. Temple, 49-41 loss vs. Villanova, 71-65 loss
Fordham vs. Temple, 62-45 loss vs. Villanova, 96-58 loss
Delaware vs. Temple, 76-56 loss vs. Villanova, 97-63 loss
What jumps out to me is why did Villanova play Fordham and Dayton in non-conference games? Two Atlantic 10 teams going up against one of the best teams in the Big East? Shouldn’t the Wildcats be building their resume against superior competition?
Villanova falls into the category of teams that believes its non-conference schedule is so hard, it can relax a little when it comes to non-conference scheduling, and the NCAA tournament committee validated this thinking by seeding them so high. Actually, it’s good to see the Wildcats play teams from a respectable mid-major rather than scheduling Big Sky and MAAC opponents. Clearly, Georgetown, St. John’s and Seton Hall had the same mindset when they scheduled Temple.
As for the results, Temple gave dangerous Georgetown a close game, while Villanova both beat and lost to the Hoyas in conference play. Temple beat no one Villanova couldn’t beat, while Villanova beat both Georgetown and St. John’s.
On paper, Villanova seems to have a slight edge. On the court, Temple beat them.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Apparently, College Basketball Games Don't Matter Either
My favorite college football national championship game debate has always been that of the 1993 season, when Notre Dame defeated Florida State in a regular season game, both teams finished with one loss, and Florida State was given the national title over Notre Dame. It was clear at that point that the regular season games really don't matter, despite what the NCAA would have you believe.
On Sunday night, we learned what the NCAA thinks of regular season college basketball games.
On December 13, 2009, Temple defeated Villanova, 75-65. Temple went on to earn the No. 1 seed in its conference tournament, then won its third consecutive Atlantic 10 championship, including a tough finals win over Richmond. Meanwhile, Villanova would go on to lose four of its final six regular season games, and didn't win a game in its conference tournament. The Big East is undeniably the best conference in the country, and herein lies the problem.
On Sunday, the NCAA revealed its 65-team field to determine this year's national champion. The seedings and matchups were announced, and when it was all said and done, the Owls had to be left scratching their heads. Temple was seeded fifth in its region, behind No. 1 Kentucky, No. 2 West Virginia, No. 3 New Mexico and No. 4 Wisconsin. SEC Champion Kentucky should be considered a favorite to win the national title and West Virginia won the Big East title. Wisconsin was 23-8 in an improved Big 10.
But New Mexico? Come on. New Mexico was good in the Mountain West, an inferior conference to the A-10 in my opinion, and the Lobos failed to win the conference title. But whatever. Let's move on to the next region.
No. 1 Duke. Won the ACC title. Good seeding, despite what some experts believe. No. 2 Villanova.
What?!?
Villanova doesn't deserve a 2 seed at all, but it really doesn't deserve a 2 seed ahead of Temple. And this is where the NCAA tournament committee clearly favored the strength of conference over all else, including the fact that the Wildcats didn't fare particularly well at the end of this tough schedule. This would be annoying if Temple had been downgraded to a 3 seed, but it's outright atrocious considering the Owls are No. 5.
As for the matchups, Temple has a tough Cornell team that won the Ivy League title and had a better record by one game. It's an infamous 5-12 matchup, meaning Temple really needs to be prepared to avoid the easiest upset among seeds in a tournament named March Madness. So a victim of seeding, they may be out after one round.
Villanova has a chance to advance to its second consecutive Final Four, but better beware Richmond in a possible second round game. It might be the most telling game of the tournament. If Villanova easily wins that game, fine. If it struggles or loses, the NCAA needs to rethink its committee and rethink its seedings.
Maybe even consider factoring in results of games played on the court.
On Sunday night, we learned what the NCAA thinks of regular season college basketball games.
On December 13, 2009, Temple defeated Villanova, 75-65. Temple went on to earn the No. 1 seed in its conference tournament, then won its third consecutive Atlantic 10 championship, including a tough finals win over Richmond. Meanwhile, Villanova would go on to lose four of its final six regular season games, and didn't win a game in its conference tournament. The Big East is undeniably the best conference in the country, and herein lies the problem.
On Sunday, the NCAA revealed its 65-team field to determine this year's national champion. The seedings and matchups were announced, and when it was all said and done, the Owls had to be left scratching their heads. Temple was seeded fifth in its region, behind No. 1 Kentucky, No. 2 West Virginia, No. 3 New Mexico and No. 4 Wisconsin. SEC Champion Kentucky should be considered a favorite to win the national title and West Virginia won the Big East title. Wisconsin was 23-8 in an improved Big 10.
But New Mexico? Come on. New Mexico was good in the Mountain West, an inferior conference to the A-10 in my opinion, and the Lobos failed to win the conference title. But whatever. Let's move on to the next region.
No. 1 Duke. Won the ACC title. Good seeding, despite what some experts believe. No. 2 Villanova.
What?!?
Villanova doesn't deserve a 2 seed at all, but it really doesn't deserve a 2 seed ahead of Temple. And this is where the NCAA tournament committee clearly favored the strength of conference over all else, including the fact that the Wildcats didn't fare particularly well at the end of this tough schedule. This would be annoying if Temple had been downgraded to a 3 seed, but it's outright atrocious considering the Owls are No. 5.
As for the matchups, Temple has a tough Cornell team that won the Ivy League title and had a better record by one game. It's an infamous 5-12 matchup, meaning Temple really needs to be prepared to avoid the easiest upset among seeds in a tournament named March Madness. So a victim of seeding, they may be out after one round.
Villanova has a chance to advance to its second consecutive Final Four, but better beware Richmond in a possible second round game. It might be the most telling game of the tournament. If Villanova easily wins that game, fine. If it struggles or loses, the NCAA needs to rethink its committee and rethink its seedings.
Maybe even consider factoring in results of games played on the court.
Let's all have a cup of joe
So the liberals have their answer to the Tea Party, and it's the creatively-named Coffee Party (I never would've thought of that). The objective of the Coffee Party is to bring civility back to politics, something I thought I'd never hear from the liberal left, notorious for violent clashes with authorities during the 1960's. Like the Tea Party, they believe we have a one-party system, although they call that party "corporations" rather than "socialists on the left, socialists on the right." Like the Tea Party, they're concerned about taxes, but unlike the Tea people, they also realize we need some taxes to pay for government services.
They also champion the cause of Campaign Finance Reform, and perhaps the biggest similarity between the two groups is the wide range of beliefs among followers, including Anarchism.
And like the Tea Party, they don't partake in their party name's beverage of choice.
They sprang up with little fanfare over the weekend, with four different gatherings in four states, as opposed to the Tea Party, which had the unrelenting support of Fox News. Come on MSNBC, where's the love? Of course, it goes in with our society's tendency to ignore peaceful movements and focus on the outspoken morons that call the president Hitler.
So I'll do my part to spread the word. So far, I've seen "chapters" on the East and West Coasts, as well as the Midwest.
I personally think the Coffee Party is a good idea, because it actually does bother me how action-packed politics has become. It's supposed to be intellectual discourse, but of course, it's being ruined by the right. (Just kidding conservatives; you know I love you.)
So let's all bring intelligence and civility to politics; let's all have a cup of joe.
Except me. Coffee bothers my esophagus, so I'll be drinking tea.
They also champion the cause of Campaign Finance Reform, and perhaps the biggest similarity between the two groups is the wide range of beliefs among followers, including Anarchism.
And like the Tea Party, they don't partake in their party name's beverage of choice.
They sprang up with little fanfare over the weekend, with four different gatherings in four states, as opposed to the Tea Party, which had the unrelenting support of Fox News. Come on MSNBC, where's the love? Of course, it goes in with our society's tendency to ignore peaceful movements and focus on the outspoken morons that call the president Hitler.
So I'll do my part to spread the word. So far, I've seen "chapters" on the East and West Coasts, as well as the Midwest.
I personally think the Coffee Party is a good idea, because it actually does bother me how action-packed politics has become. It's supposed to be intellectual discourse, but of course, it's being ruined by the right. (Just kidding conservatives; you know I love you.)
So let's all bring intelligence and civility to politics; let's all have a cup of joe.
Except me. Coffee bothers my esophagus, so I'll be drinking tea.
World Cup of Beer
Some of you might already know how I love my contests. Well, I have another idea, and this time the idea is to broaden my horizons when it comes to drinking (something some would call an impossible task). So this summer, or beginning as soon as possible, my plan is to hold a "contest" in which I drink 32 beers, 1 from each representative country in this summer's World Cup. I have some ideas, like Guiness for Ireland, but others are puzzling, like what's a good beer from Slovenia? Suggestions are welcome, and there might be a prize if you suggest the beer that ends up winning.
For those that don't know, the following is a list of all countries that will compete in this summer's World Cup. All suggestions, the more creative the better and as many as possible, are welcome.
Group A
South Africa
Mexico
Uruguay
France
Group B
Argentina
Nigeria
South Korea
Greece
Group C
England
United States
Algeria
Slovenia
Group D
Germany
Australia
Serbia
Ghana
Group E
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Cameroon
Group F
Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia
Group G
Brazil
North Korea
Ivory Coast
Portugal
Group H
Spain
Switzerland
Honduras
Chile
For those that don't know, the following is a list of all countries that will compete in this summer's World Cup. All suggestions, the more creative the better and as many as possible, are welcome.
Group A
South Africa
Mexico
Uruguay
France
Group B
Argentina
Nigeria
South Korea
Greece
Group C
England
United States
Algeria
Slovenia
Group D
Germany
Australia
Serbia
Ghana
Group E
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Cameroon
Group F
Italy
Paraguay
New Zealand
Slovakia
Group G
Brazil
North Korea
Ivory Coast
Portugal
Group H
Spain
Switzerland
Honduras
Chile
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Another Rocco quote
The future is always brighter than the past seems to be. What I mean is, it's easier to remember things in a good light than it is to remember it for the reality it was. I should know; I've spent most of my life in the womb.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Obama Administration killing Americans
In my initial blog, I mentioned some things about the current administration that bother me, including the continuation of the Bush-era Domestic Spying program. I recently learned of another Bush practice Mr. Change and Hope is continuing: the practice of assassinating American citizens.
Initially reported last week by the Washington Post, under the Bush Administration, the CIA began a practice of targeting American citizens with possible ties to terrorist networks, with the goal of bringing them to justice by any means necessary, including assassination. These aren't people that are confirmed terrorists; they're suspected terrorists. Unfortunately, Barack Obama, who opposed so many of Bush's policies while running for president, including the use of torture, has decided murder is a good policy. Three Americans have been targeted, and although they very likely have played a hand in terrorist activity, none have been confirmed as terrorists.
Murdering someone that is only suspected of anything is just bad policy by authorities, but when the government is involved, whether the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc., questions of personal vendettas are raised. The government can get away with killing anyone as long as the story's good. See: Ivins, Bruce, below.
I would like to think that only true terrorists were going to get the axe, but you never know who the true terrorists are until they're questioned; I also always suspect the government will use any excuse to take out personal enemies, and this is as good a red herring as any.
Why is it OK to murder someone on a list, but if you capture them, it's not OK to torture them? Just a thought.
This policy has already been opposed by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and his Republican counterpart Ron Paul. Links to videos of their objections are below.
In conclusion, Mr. President, it is not OK for people to call you a socialist and claim you weren't born in this country. It's even worse when you OK the murders of some of that country's citizens.
Democracy Now's report, featuring Kucinich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhaDWmYNZ2E
Ron Paul's brief response:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-02-04/ron-paul-to-obama-dont-assassinate-american-citizens/
My thoughts on Bruce Ivins from two years ago, worth repeating here and now for those that missed it:
If this doesn’t get me thrown in Guantanamo, I don’t know what will
For the past eight years, we've had a pretty shitty president and an administration willing to clean up after him, or engage in illegal activities first and tell him about it later. Or never.
The Bush Administration has been an active participant in every kind of scandal you can think of:
1) Dragging the country into an unpopular war based on lies
2) Outing an undercover agent and using "Scooter" as a scapegoat
3) Abducting people and holding them without probable cause for years at a time, often exercising the use of torture on someone that happens to have a last name that rhymes with Drewhommed
4) Spying on innocent people illegally
5) Transforming the executive branch of government into a position that is not only above the law, but doesn't even recognize its existence
6) The creation of a new "security system" clearly designed to distract American citizens from these other atrocities against civil liberties; what alert level/pretty color are we at right now anyway, and when was the last time it was changed/used/mentioned?
That's not all, but I can't be expected to name everything; that's for Vincent Bugliosi and Dennis Kucinich to do.
Yes, there has been a lot for those of us on the left to protest for nearly decade now, but there's been something missing. We've been missing that mysterious death that was timed so well, politically, that the FBI or some other government agency just had to be behind it.
The wait is over. Say hello, or rather goodbye, to Bruce Ivins, the scientist "behind" the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Let's begin with the facts of the anthrax attacks, as they stood in September, 2001. They began less than a week after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The anthrax attacks seemed to be aimed at senators (while there were other instances of suspicious packages, only the senators were attacked by anthrax). The poison might as well be considered not deadly at all. And the initial claim was that Iraq was behind the attacks. (I saw the cover of the Philadelphia Daily News with Sadaam Hussein's portrait on the cover proclaiming he was behind this attack on America. RIP Sadaam less than a week after 9/11). What's more, once this Iraq accusation was made public, the investigation into the attacks was taken off the front page, in favor of the various other reasons to invade Iraq, i.e., weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, connections to bin Laden, etc. (don't tell me this war wasn't based on lies).
Not much was said about the investigation publicly until recently. In fact, I heard nothing about it until today.
Now let's take a look at Mr. Ivins, someone that even his therapist literally was afraid of. He was a psychopath and a weirdo that had next to no friends. You know, like most scientists. The perfect person to pin this on.
For a while, the FBI was investigating another scientist that was cleared of any wrongdoing in the situation. The focus then shifted to Mr. Ivins, who "committed suicide" as the FBI was "closing in on him" (at a snail's pace, might I add).
Here's what happened in my opinion, which for the sake of argument we'll just take as a fact:
First, let's acknowledge that the "anthrax attacks" happened within days of 9/11, and most intelligent people I crossed paths with agreed the two incidents had nothing to do with the other, even though the letters that accompanied the anthrax made reference to 9/11.
In order to carry these attacks out so close to the tragedy and be able to make reference to it, the anthrax had to have been ready to go, with the mention to 9/11 slipped in at the last minute before being shipped out. It takes a while to gather enough anthrax that when mailed to government officials, it can be used as a scare tactic. And if it came from Iraq, something tells me we would've been able to figure that one out for sure, rather than have it be subject to speculation with no real proof. There still remains the possibility that those terrorists that actually died in the 9/11 attacks set the whole thing up prior to their demise, something I left my mind open to for quite some time.
Then comes the accusation of our dear Mr. Ivins.
The fact is, our very own Bush Administration was behind these anthrax attacks, looking to blame Iraq and gather support for a war against that nation. When it wasn't enough, it had to come up with about 500 other reasons before just doing essentially because it wanted to.
The fact is, another scientist was the target of a hush-hush FBI investigation, but he was too competent to frame, so they had to let up on the charges.
The fact is, Mr. Ivins was unstable, an easy target for a frame-up, so paranoid and easy to scare that when the FBI began closing in on him, rather than defend himself, he committed suicide
OR
he was willing to defend himself, something the FBI never counted on, so they found a way to take him out and make it look like a suicide. Remember, every president's administration gets one free assassination.
This is why the administration is rushing through this case, trying to close it before people realize it happened. Remember, while the death took place on a Tuesday, the story didn't break until Friday, when news tends to get lost in normal people's weekend drinking binge.
The issue was also resolved close to a presidential election, when people may hear about it but not look too much into it because there's "more important" political news to consider.
And now I'm just going to spell it out: The Bush Administration knew something was going to happen on or around 9/11, not that they knew what or helped set it up or knew that it would be as bad as it was, just that they knew something would happen; they had the anthrax ready to go so they could plant in the public's mind the thought that we needed to invade Iraq with no real opposition; they tried to frame one person for the attack, but he was unframable; and finally
The government killed Bruce Ivins.
Not that it's a big deal. Ivins was actually part of the anthrax investigation until the FBI turned its focus on him. So someone who was trying to help his country ended up dead, killed by the powers-that-be.
The same thing happens in Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
Life goes on.
But only for some of us.
Initially reported last week by the Washington Post, under the Bush Administration, the CIA began a practice of targeting American citizens with possible ties to terrorist networks, with the goal of bringing them to justice by any means necessary, including assassination. These aren't people that are confirmed terrorists; they're suspected terrorists. Unfortunately, Barack Obama, who opposed so many of Bush's policies while running for president, including the use of torture, has decided murder is a good policy. Three Americans have been targeted, and although they very likely have played a hand in terrorist activity, none have been confirmed as terrorists.
Murdering someone that is only suspected of anything is just bad policy by authorities, but when the government is involved, whether the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc., questions of personal vendettas are raised. The government can get away with killing anyone as long as the story's good. See: Ivins, Bruce, below.
I would like to think that only true terrorists were going to get the axe, but you never know who the true terrorists are until they're questioned; I also always suspect the government will use any excuse to take out personal enemies, and this is as good a red herring as any.
Why is it OK to murder someone on a list, but if you capture them, it's not OK to torture them? Just a thought.
This policy has already been opposed by Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and his Republican counterpart Ron Paul. Links to videos of their objections are below.
In conclusion, Mr. President, it is not OK for people to call you a socialist and claim you weren't born in this country. It's even worse when you OK the murders of some of that country's citizens.
Democracy Now's report, featuring Kucinich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhaDWmYNZ2E
Ron Paul's brief response:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-02-04/ron-paul-to-obama-dont-assassinate-american-citizens/
My thoughts on Bruce Ivins from two years ago, worth repeating here and now for those that missed it:
If this doesn’t get me thrown in Guantanamo, I don’t know what will
For the past eight years, we've had a pretty shitty president and an administration willing to clean up after him, or engage in illegal activities first and tell him about it later. Or never.
The Bush Administration has been an active participant in every kind of scandal you can think of:
1) Dragging the country into an unpopular war based on lies
2) Outing an undercover agent and using "Scooter" as a scapegoat
3) Abducting people and holding them without probable cause for years at a time, often exercising the use of torture on someone that happens to have a last name that rhymes with Drewhommed
4) Spying on innocent people illegally
5) Transforming the executive branch of government into a position that is not only above the law, but doesn't even recognize its existence
6) The creation of a new "security system" clearly designed to distract American citizens from these other atrocities against civil liberties; what alert level/pretty color are we at right now anyway, and when was the last time it was changed/used/mentioned?
That's not all, but I can't be expected to name everything; that's for Vincent Bugliosi and Dennis Kucinich to do.
Yes, there has been a lot for those of us on the left to protest for nearly decade now, but there's been something missing. We've been missing that mysterious death that was timed so well, politically, that the FBI or some other government agency just had to be behind it.
The wait is over. Say hello, or rather goodbye, to Bruce Ivins, the scientist "behind" the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Let's begin with the facts of the anthrax attacks, as they stood in September, 2001. They began less than a week after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The anthrax attacks seemed to be aimed at senators (while there were other instances of suspicious packages, only the senators were attacked by anthrax). The poison might as well be considered not deadly at all. And the initial claim was that Iraq was behind the attacks. (I saw the cover of the Philadelphia Daily News with Sadaam Hussein's portrait on the cover proclaiming he was behind this attack on America. RIP Sadaam less than a week after 9/11). What's more, once this Iraq accusation was made public, the investigation into the attacks was taken off the front page, in favor of the various other reasons to invade Iraq, i.e., weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, connections to bin Laden, etc. (don't tell me this war wasn't based on lies).
Not much was said about the investigation publicly until recently. In fact, I heard nothing about it until today.
Now let's take a look at Mr. Ivins, someone that even his therapist literally was afraid of. He was a psychopath and a weirdo that had next to no friends. You know, like most scientists. The perfect person to pin this on.
For a while, the FBI was investigating another scientist that was cleared of any wrongdoing in the situation. The focus then shifted to Mr. Ivins, who "committed suicide" as the FBI was "closing in on him" (at a snail's pace, might I add).
Here's what happened in my opinion, which for the sake of argument we'll just take as a fact:
First, let's acknowledge that the "anthrax attacks" happened within days of 9/11, and most intelligent people I crossed paths with agreed the two incidents had nothing to do with the other, even though the letters that accompanied the anthrax made reference to 9/11.
In order to carry these attacks out so close to the tragedy and be able to make reference to it, the anthrax had to have been ready to go, with the mention to 9/11 slipped in at the last minute before being shipped out. It takes a while to gather enough anthrax that when mailed to government officials, it can be used as a scare tactic. And if it came from Iraq, something tells me we would've been able to figure that one out for sure, rather than have it be subject to speculation with no real proof. There still remains the possibility that those terrorists that actually died in the 9/11 attacks set the whole thing up prior to their demise, something I left my mind open to for quite some time.
Then comes the accusation of our dear Mr. Ivins.
The fact is, our very own Bush Administration was behind these anthrax attacks, looking to blame Iraq and gather support for a war against that nation. When it wasn't enough, it had to come up with about 500 other reasons before just doing essentially because it wanted to.
The fact is, another scientist was the target of a hush-hush FBI investigation, but he was too competent to frame, so they had to let up on the charges.
The fact is, Mr. Ivins was unstable, an easy target for a frame-up, so paranoid and easy to scare that when the FBI began closing in on him, rather than defend himself, he committed suicide
OR
he was willing to defend himself, something the FBI never counted on, so they found a way to take him out and make it look like a suicide. Remember, every president's administration gets one free assassination.
This is why the administration is rushing through this case, trying to close it before people realize it happened. Remember, while the death took place on a Tuesday, the story didn't break until Friday, when news tends to get lost in normal people's weekend drinking binge.
The issue was also resolved close to a presidential election, when people may hear about it but not look too much into it because there's "more important" political news to consider.
And now I'm just going to spell it out: The Bush Administration knew something was going to happen on or around 9/11, not that they knew what or helped set it up or knew that it would be as bad as it was, just that they knew something would happen; they had the anthrax ready to go so they could plant in the public's mind the thought that we needed to invade Iraq with no real opposition; they tried to frame one person for the attack, but he was unframable; and finally
The government killed Bruce Ivins.
Not that it's a big deal. Ivins was actually part of the anthrax investigation until the FBI turned its focus on him. So someone who was trying to help his country ended up dead, killed by the powers-that-be.
The same thing happens in Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
Life goes on.
But only for some of us.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Dude, just don't pay your taxes
I mean, you didn't have to fly your airplane into a building. Right?
That's what Joe Stacks did Thursday morning when he flew his private airplane into a building that housed the IRS and the CIA in Austin, Texas. His online "suicide note" said it all; he was angry with the government and the catholic church for "steeling" his money. I read the entire post online, and it made some sense, up until he wrote "Violence isn't just the answer; it's the only answer." He hoped the bodies would pile up until the government was forced to change its ways. Although he wrote about how our health care system just sits back and allows people to die, his primary concern was with government theft of his hard earned money.
So just don't pay your taxes. People find ways around it all the time. How about starting your own engineering business and not incorporating it? There's no real need to pay taxes if you don't want to. There's also no need to go out and kill people.
It's an act of domestic terrorism, the third act of terroristic violence this year following the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day bomber. In less than two years, we've now seen three acts of major violence from people that feel the same way Stacks did. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when was the last time we've seen five acts of terrorism this open in a 13-month span?
The time for violent revolution is over. If we didn't rise up and violently overthrow this country's previous regime for deliberate and repeated murder of our citizens and the people of Iraq, why take to violence now to try to change something that's been a problem for decades. It's called non-violent resistance, and if you decide the government has too much involvement in your life, protest or find a way to disconnect yourself from that "system." You don't need to disconnect other people.
The battle over taxes, health care, etc., etc. is a battle over ideology.
Any ideological battle really just comes down to an argument over which side is smarter.
When violence comes into play, the perpetrator forfeits his right to participate in that battle.
That's what Joe Stacks did Thursday morning when he flew his private airplane into a building that housed the IRS and the CIA in Austin, Texas. His online "suicide note" said it all; he was angry with the government and the catholic church for "steeling" his money. I read the entire post online, and it made some sense, up until he wrote "Violence isn't just the answer; it's the only answer." He hoped the bodies would pile up until the government was forced to change its ways. Although he wrote about how our health care system just sits back and allows people to die, his primary concern was with government theft of his hard earned money.
So just don't pay your taxes. People find ways around it all the time. How about starting your own engineering business and not incorporating it? There's no real need to pay taxes if you don't want to. There's also no need to go out and kill people.
It's an act of domestic terrorism, the third act of terroristic violence this year following the Fort Hood shootings and the Christmas Day bomber. In less than two years, we've now seen three acts of major violence from people that feel the same way Stacks did. It doesn't sound like a lot, but when was the last time we've seen five acts of terrorism this open in a 13-month span?
The time for violent revolution is over. If we didn't rise up and violently overthrow this country's previous regime for deliberate and repeated murder of our citizens and the people of Iraq, why take to violence now to try to change something that's been a problem for decades. It's called non-violent resistance, and if you decide the government has too much involvement in your life, protest or find a way to disconnect yourself from that "system." You don't need to disconnect other people.
The battle over taxes, health care, etc., etc. is a battle over ideology.
Any ideological battle really just comes down to an argument over which side is smarter.
When violence comes into play, the perpetrator forfeits his right to participate in that battle.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Partisan Politics: The Wave of the Future
Two days ago, Indiana senator Evan Bayh announced he wouldn't run for re-election this year, citing the partisan atmosphere in Washington as his primary reason for leaving. Apparently, he is no longer "in love with Congress."
From what I hear, Congress failed to send Bayh flowers on Valentine's Day. It hasn't paid attention to him since this internal struggle with what it really wants has heated up, circa 2003. So Bayh, who has given Congress everything he's had and received nothing in return, called Congress, told him to meet with him in public on Monday, and went through with a very public breakup.
Congress has every right to be mad. It's been humiliated in front of everyone by someone else. Over the past six years, it's shown no one embarrasses Congress in public except Congress. It's left hurting and vulnerable, particularly considering the wave of Democrats that have decided to give Congress one last goodbye kiss this year.
It shouldn't worry though; it'll be back to making a mockery of itself in no time.
Recently, veteran senators have been said to be shocked and disappointed by how partisan the Congress has been acting. It had its problems in the 1990's when the Republicans hated on the Clintons, but it really ramped up in 2003, when Congressional Democrats led the wave of (justified) anti-Bush sentiment. Our Democratic leaders began making the same derogatory Bush statements private citizens were making, but they were making them in public.
Now, it's the Republicans' turn. I feel as though the past year has been a 'How do you like it?' revenge game for Republicans, who have denied President Barack Obama just about everything he wants out of spite.
If you doubt the above statement, look at the hypocrisy they've shown when it comes to trying terrorists in civilian courts. It was OK when tried notorious shoe bomber Richard Reid in civilian court in Massachusetts, but now that the Obama Administration wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, it's the wrong thing to do, and he's endangering America.
The thing is, if Senators such as Bayh that are truly disturbed by the partisanship in Congress run away, it's never going to end. Congress will turn into a club for children that all think their dad's the coolest, and 'No one knows nothin 'cept me.'
Even more so than it already is like that.
We need for Senators that are truly bi-partisan to stand up and fight for the people, and replace everyone else with people that don't know the meaning of the words, 'Democrat' and 'Republican.' Figuratively: I'm not asking to bring George W. Bush back or anything.
We need Senators that either stand up for what they believe in legitimately and at least listen when other people speak. Otherwise, there's no difference between listening to them and listening to a baby cry.
It's Liberty With Reason people; tell your friends.
From what I hear, Congress failed to send Bayh flowers on Valentine's Day. It hasn't paid attention to him since this internal struggle with what it really wants has heated up, circa 2003. So Bayh, who has given Congress everything he's had and received nothing in return, called Congress, told him to meet with him in public on Monday, and went through with a very public breakup.
Congress has every right to be mad. It's been humiliated in front of everyone by someone else. Over the past six years, it's shown no one embarrasses Congress in public except Congress. It's left hurting and vulnerable, particularly considering the wave of Democrats that have decided to give Congress one last goodbye kiss this year.
It shouldn't worry though; it'll be back to making a mockery of itself in no time.
Recently, veteran senators have been said to be shocked and disappointed by how partisan the Congress has been acting. It had its problems in the 1990's when the Republicans hated on the Clintons, but it really ramped up in 2003, when Congressional Democrats led the wave of (justified) anti-Bush sentiment. Our Democratic leaders began making the same derogatory Bush statements private citizens were making, but they were making them in public.
Now, it's the Republicans' turn. I feel as though the past year has been a 'How do you like it?' revenge game for Republicans, who have denied President Barack Obama just about everything he wants out of spite.
If you doubt the above statement, look at the hypocrisy they've shown when it comes to trying terrorists in civilian courts. It was OK when tried notorious shoe bomber Richard Reid in civilian court in Massachusetts, but now that the Obama Administration wants to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, it's the wrong thing to do, and he's endangering America.
The thing is, if Senators such as Bayh that are truly disturbed by the partisanship in Congress run away, it's never going to end. Congress will turn into a club for children that all think their dad's the coolest, and 'No one knows nothin 'cept me.'
Even more so than it already is like that.
We need for Senators that are truly bi-partisan to stand up and fight for the people, and replace everyone else with people that don't know the meaning of the words, 'Democrat' and 'Republican.' Figuratively: I'm not asking to bring George W. Bush back or anything.
We need Senators that either stand up for what they believe in legitimately and at least listen when other people speak. Otherwise, there's no difference between listening to them and listening to a baby cry.
It's Liberty With Reason people; tell your friends.
Why this blog is so hard to maintain
Raising a newborn baby isn't easy, and it's even harder when you're home alone with him during the day, working at night, looking for a job, and trying to maintain a blog you hope will make money some day so you don't have to worry about two of those three things. Teaching Rocco to eat solid foods and changing his diaper three or four additional times a day as a result isn't easy, and not always fun, but I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world.
And watching him lay in his play pen motionless and in dreamland while I write this is even better.
People ask me, 'What's it like being a father,' and here's the best answer I can give, which may differ for anyone else. When you have a child that looks exactly like you, loves eating like you do, and just goes with the flow when girls try to kiss him, it's hard not to think that somehow, you've been reincarnated while still alive. I'm pretty sure my days are limited, but before I go, I just have to teach him how to be me, and with his, 'I'm the center of the universe' attitude, Rocco's already just about there. Up next: You're better and smarter than everyone else, too.
I'm going to try and maintain this blog as often as possible, but if it's a few days between posts, that's why. And hopefully, I have a lot of days left in my life, because how much better off is this world now that there's two of me?
And watching him lay in his play pen motionless and in dreamland while I write this is even better.
People ask me, 'What's it like being a father,' and here's the best answer I can give, which may differ for anyone else. When you have a child that looks exactly like you, loves eating like you do, and just goes with the flow when girls try to kiss him, it's hard not to think that somehow, you've been reincarnated while still alive. I'm pretty sure my days are limited, but before I go, I just have to teach him how to be me, and with his, 'I'm the center of the universe' attitude, Rocco's already just about there. Up next: You're better and smarter than everyone else, too.
I'm going to try and maintain this blog as often as possible, but if it's a few days between posts, that's why. And hopefully, I have a lot of days left in my life, because how much better off is this world now that there's two of me?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Microchip Controversy
So I read an article on aol.com this afternoon about corporations planting microchips in people, something that has been happening with animals and certain people since 1998. I was shocked, surprised and appalled, of course.
Apparently, the chips can be used to "store personal ID and health information." It has been acknowledged that this technology can be expanded to be used to track people that have this chip implanted in them, so that those that implant them in your head or hand will know where you are at all times.
A little disturbing. Fortunately, our senators have come out against this chip, and are looking to pass a ban on it. That's good, and surprising, considering the leaders in this controversy are Republicans Mark Cole (Virginia), Susan Lynn (Tennessee), and Chip Pearson and Chip Rogers (Georgia).
Such a refreshing move towards Civil Liberties protection from the G.O.P.
"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times," Cole explained to the (Washington) Post. "Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."
Shit.
They don't care about us anymore than previously thought; they've actually just gotten crazier. This isn't a priest, preacher, pope or cartoon charicature of the Jesus we're talking about here; these are people that have been elected by the people of their state to represent them. I now find that while our reasoning is much, much different, I agree with these people on the ultimate outcome. It's the battle of keeping church and state separate intersecting with maintaining some sense of personal freedom.
I don't know what to think anymore.
Any thoughts.
A link to the stated article can be found below.
http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/apocalyptic-talk-stokes-debate-over-microchip-implants-for-humans/19354099
Apparently, the chips can be used to "store personal ID and health information." It has been acknowledged that this technology can be expanded to be used to track people that have this chip implanted in them, so that those that implant them in your head or hand will know where you are at all times.
A little disturbing. Fortunately, our senators have come out against this chip, and are looking to pass a ban on it. That's good, and surprising, considering the leaders in this controversy are Republicans Mark Cole (Virginia), Susan Lynn (Tennessee), and Chip Pearson and Chip Rogers (Georgia).
Such a refreshing move towards Civil Liberties protection from the G.O.P.
"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times," Cole explained to the (Washington) Post. "Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."
Shit.
They don't care about us anymore than previously thought; they've actually just gotten crazier. This isn't a priest, preacher, pope or cartoon charicature of the Jesus we're talking about here; these are people that have been elected by the people of their state to represent them. I now find that while our reasoning is much, much different, I agree with these people on the ultimate outcome. It's the battle of keeping church and state separate intersecting with maintaining some sense of personal freedom.
I don't know what to think anymore.
Any thoughts.
A link to the stated article can be found below.
http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/apocalyptic-talk-stokes-debate-over-microchip-implants-for-humans/19354099
Monday, February 8, 2010
All Politics are Local
First of all, I'd like to thank Kay for joining my group of loyal followers.
OK, so is anyone else living in New Jersey offended that this year's round of congressional races is labeled the mid-term elections, while last year's races were the mini-mid-terms? Our governorship was on the line, and a new governor was elected, and the media treated it as though it wasn't that big a deal. Until Chris Christie won, of course. Then, it became a referendum on Barack Obama.
Last year's election wasn't a referendum on the president, or congress, or health care, or anything else. It was a judgement on former governor Jon Corzine, who didn't do enough to fix our state, so he was voted out. That was it. So dismiss that election is one thing, but to then say it was a referendum on our president afterwards is uber-insulting.
I think it all goes along with our misplaced national mentality that says every election is a national issue. It isn't. Scott Brown is Massachusetts' newest senator because Martha Coakley didn't know how to spell the name of the state in which she was running, among other reasons. The Democrats put up a bad candidate; I'm pretty sure the bluest state in the Union didn't suddenly turn red because of a health care policy that's not as liberal as what those people have in their state.
The old saying is 'All politics are local.' The new slogan seems to be the exact opposite, although I believe there's less meaning behind it. So the next time you hear someone say the liberal agenda is dead just because the 'Liberal' Democrats don't hold a Super-Majority anymore, ... um, ... well, ... don't listen, I guess.
TEA PARTY, ANYONE?: I love to drink tea. My wife collects tea cups. You won't see either one of us at a tea party rally anytime soon, however. Is this a movement or the beginning of a political party? I'd like to know. And if it's the beginning of a party, can't they at least get a better representative than Sarah Palin? What's Ross Perot up to these days?
I understand Palin might be consevative, although I doubt she's the most conservative member of the Republican Party, but I can't listen to her say, 'How's that Hopey Changey stuff workin out for ya?' (Maybe a sign I should watch the news less). Here's what I say to her: How's that plan you had for Alaska as governor working out? Oh, you quit? Was there a scandal? No? Did you accomplish everything you wanted mad early? No? Well what is it?
Oh you wanted to hang out on Facebook more and consider running for president? What's your plan? To criticize the president, and not be real clear on what it is that makes you a qualified politician? Huh.
When I was in high school, I fantasized about running for president when I turned 37. It's good to know I'm already a step ahead of a serious Republican candidate for 2012.
MEETING ON TV?: When running for president, Barack Obama promised to have legislation discussed on C-Span, and now it looks like it might happen. It only took a year, and he was prompted into it by the right, who is saying they're open to televised discussions as long as they start from scratch, which everyone knows won't happen. So we won't get that televised discussion, and Obama will continue to be criticized, and it will bother him.
Hey Obama, you and your party run everything right? So just do something. Instead of heeding the warning not to 'ram legislation down our throats' why don't you at least try to get something passed. Eventually, you probably will actually have to ram it down conservatives' throats, but the first step to that is showing that you're actually serious about something.
And don't worry about losing votes to Republicans. Any smart liberal that is made Democrats didn't get health care reform passed isn't going to go vote for a party that clearly has no interest in reforming health care at all; they'll vote for more liberal third party candidates. So as long as your party continues to go after the Ralph Naders of the world, you guys should seriously have no problem come November.
As for that conservative movement we keep hearing about, refer to the aforementioned Tea Party.
HEY ISRAEL, GUESS WHAT THE FUCK'S UP: Iran's moving forward on a plan to enrich uranium, which is a step toward developing Nuclear Weapons. How long does the rest of the world have to threaten Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and company with sanctions before you get the hint and blow them back to times in which they think they still live. You will suffer most from a nuclear-armed Iran. The rest of the world will just be inconvenienced, but secretly celebrate once you get the hint.
OK, so is anyone else living in New Jersey offended that this year's round of congressional races is labeled the mid-term elections, while last year's races were the mini-mid-terms? Our governorship was on the line, and a new governor was elected, and the media treated it as though it wasn't that big a deal. Until Chris Christie won, of course. Then, it became a referendum on Barack Obama.
Last year's election wasn't a referendum on the president, or congress, or health care, or anything else. It was a judgement on former governor Jon Corzine, who didn't do enough to fix our state, so he was voted out. That was it. So dismiss that election is one thing, but to then say it was a referendum on our president afterwards is uber-insulting.
I think it all goes along with our misplaced national mentality that says every election is a national issue. It isn't. Scott Brown is Massachusetts' newest senator because Martha Coakley didn't know how to spell the name of the state in which she was running, among other reasons. The Democrats put up a bad candidate; I'm pretty sure the bluest state in the Union didn't suddenly turn red because of a health care policy that's not as liberal as what those people have in their state.
The old saying is 'All politics are local.' The new slogan seems to be the exact opposite, although I believe there's less meaning behind it. So the next time you hear someone say the liberal agenda is dead just because the 'Liberal' Democrats don't hold a Super-Majority anymore, ... um, ... well, ... don't listen, I guess.
TEA PARTY, ANYONE?: I love to drink tea. My wife collects tea cups. You won't see either one of us at a tea party rally anytime soon, however. Is this a movement or the beginning of a political party? I'd like to know. And if it's the beginning of a party, can't they at least get a better representative than Sarah Palin? What's Ross Perot up to these days?
I understand Palin might be consevative, although I doubt she's the most conservative member of the Republican Party, but I can't listen to her say, 'How's that Hopey Changey stuff workin out for ya?' (Maybe a sign I should watch the news less). Here's what I say to her: How's that plan you had for Alaska as governor working out? Oh, you quit? Was there a scandal? No? Did you accomplish everything you wanted mad early? No? Well what is it?
Oh you wanted to hang out on Facebook more and consider running for president? What's your plan? To criticize the president, and not be real clear on what it is that makes you a qualified politician? Huh.
When I was in high school, I fantasized about running for president when I turned 37. It's good to know I'm already a step ahead of a serious Republican candidate for 2012.
MEETING ON TV?: When running for president, Barack Obama promised to have legislation discussed on C-Span, and now it looks like it might happen. It only took a year, and he was prompted into it by the right, who is saying they're open to televised discussions as long as they start from scratch, which everyone knows won't happen. So we won't get that televised discussion, and Obama will continue to be criticized, and it will bother him.
Hey Obama, you and your party run everything right? So just do something. Instead of heeding the warning not to 'ram legislation down our throats' why don't you at least try to get something passed. Eventually, you probably will actually have to ram it down conservatives' throats, but the first step to that is showing that you're actually serious about something.
And don't worry about losing votes to Republicans. Any smart liberal that is made Democrats didn't get health care reform passed isn't going to go vote for a party that clearly has no interest in reforming health care at all; they'll vote for more liberal third party candidates. So as long as your party continues to go after the Ralph Naders of the world, you guys should seriously have no problem come November.
As for that conservative movement we keep hearing about, refer to the aforementioned Tea Party.
HEY ISRAEL, GUESS WHAT THE FUCK'S UP: Iran's moving forward on a plan to enrich uranium, which is a step toward developing Nuclear Weapons. How long does the rest of the world have to threaten Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and company with sanctions before you get the hint and blow them back to times in which they think they still live. You will suffer most from a nuclear-armed Iran. The rest of the world will just be inconvenienced, but secretly celebrate once you get the hint.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Quotable Rocco
One feature that will make this blog unique is the wisdom of my son Rocco, who is currently three and a half months old. Periodically, when he says something I feel is particularly noteworthy, I'll include it on this site. And now, today's little gem:
Ahhh, Ahhhh, Ahhhh (rocks head back and forth; throws up)
I promise, this portion will improve over time.
Ahhh, Ahhhh, Ahhhh (rocks head back and forth; throws up)
I promise, this portion will improve over time.
My Super Bowl blog
The weekends will most likely be reserved for sports blogging. There was some good college basketball played today, including Georgetown making a statement for the second Saturday in a row.
World Cruiserweight boxing champ Thomas Adamek fought his second fight at heavyweight, and of course, UFC 109 was tonight.
The big news, though, is it's Super Bowl weekend. The Colts and the Saints look like they may play in the highest scoring Super Bowl ever, but not being a fan of either team, I'm going to focus on the fact that ESPN Classic is currently airing the 20 best Super Bowls of all time.
It's a completely subjective list. I guess a completely unbiased fan, or a fan whose team has never been to a Super Bowl, would rank them based solely on quality of the games. But I just can't see being able to make an unbiased list. I know which Super Bowls Niners fans enjoyed, as opposed to Cowboys fans. I'm sure Bills fans have their four favorite. Or maybe not.
In that tradition, here is my personal list of the 10 best Super Bowls of all time, beginning at the top.
1. Super Bowl XLIII: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23: Yes, it's going to be like that. This one tops the list because I was alive for three Steelers Super Bowl appearances, and two victories. This team's defense was absolutely awesome, and although their three games against the Ravens were epic, their Super Bowl victory managed to exceed my expectations. James Harrison's interception return for a touchdown notwithstanding, the MVP could've been shared by Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes. Roethlisberger's heroics probably should've helped him snag the award, but a second Lombardi Trophy in four years was good enough.
2. Super Bowl XL: Steelers 21, Seahawks 10: It's a close second, as it was the first time my favorite team won the sport's biggest event while I was alive, and NO they didn't steal it. It was great to see Jerome Bettis, who helped me dominate Madden 64 for a solid year, walk away from his hometown with a world title. I thought it would be the beginning of our own personal dynasty, and it still might be.
3. Super Bowl X: Steelers 21, Cowboys 17: The first Super Bowl I saw was the Cowboys' win over Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XXX, and worse than the fact that the Steelers lost that game was the fact that the Cowboys were so damn arrogant about it afterwards. So while Super Bowl IX was the Steelers' first world title, the pre-emptive revenge bowls are higher on my list. Remember, it's my blog.
4. Super Bowl XIII: Steelers 35, Cowboys 31: After going two years without an appearance in the NFL title game, the Steelers returned to face an old foe. Nothing makes me happier than the thought of Terry Bradshaw outplaying Roger Staubach, and a Steelers team winning one of the higher scoring Super Bowls.
5. Super Bowl IX: Steelers 16, Vikings 6: If only I could've been alive for this one. Two really good defenses, and two of my favorite franchises going head-to-head, plus Pittsburgh winning its first Super Bowl. Those must've been the days.
6. Super Bowl XIV: Steelers 31, Rams 19: My least favorite Steelers win, as it was the first time they beat an overmatched team that didn't belong in the game with them. This game actually went the way I thought XL and XLIII were likely to go.It was their first win I was alive for, but it doesn't count. I guess.
7. Super Bowl XXX: Cowboys 27, Steelers 17: At least Pittsburgh was in it.
8. Super Bowl XLII: Giants 17, Patriots 14: What's better than watching a team you hate go undefeated then lose in the Super Bowl? Probably seeing a team you like beat them, but I'll take this. Actually, I did want to see New England win this game, just so I could see a team go undefeated and win the Super Bowl in my lifetime, but in retrospect, this was awesome.
9. Super Bowl VII: Dolphins 14, Redskins 7: The one time a team went undefeated and won the Super Bowl needs to make this list. Even better is that the Dolphins had the 'no-name defense' and Bob Griese is humble about this most excellent accomplishment.
10. Super Bowl III: Jets 16, Colts 7: Need an explanation? The guarantee? The AFL's breakthrough win over the NFL? A Super Bowl-winning quarterback that wore pantyhose and attempted to make out with Suzy Kolber on national TV? Case closed.
In closing, I know there are several games better than every game I just listed, but as a fan, this is my list. For the record, let's go Saints.
World Cruiserweight boxing champ Thomas Adamek fought his second fight at heavyweight, and of course, UFC 109 was tonight.
The big news, though, is it's Super Bowl weekend. The Colts and the Saints look like they may play in the highest scoring Super Bowl ever, but not being a fan of either team, I'm going to focus on the fact that ESPN Classic is currently airing the 20 best Super Bowls of all time.
It's a completely subjective list. I guess a completely unbiased fan, or a fan whose team has never been to a Super Bowl, would rank them based solely on quality of the games. But I just can't see being able to make an unbiased list. I know which Super Bowls Niners fans enjoyed, as opposed to Cowboys fans. I'm sure Bills fans have their four favorite. Or maybe not.
In that tradition, here is my personal list of the 10 best Super Bowls of all time, beginning at the top.
1. Super Bowl XLIII: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23: Yes, it's going to be like that. This one tops the list because I was alive for three Steelers Super Bowl appearances, and two victories. This team's defense was absolutely awesome, and although their three games against the Ravens were epic, their Super Bowl victory managed to exceed my expectations. James Harrison's interception return for a touchdown notwithstanding, the MVP could've been shared by Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes. Roethlisberger's heroics probably should've helped him snag the award, but a second Lombardi Trophy in four years was good enough.
2. Super Bowl XL: Steelers 21, Seahawks 10: It's a close second, as it was the first time my favorite team won the sport's biggest event while I was alive, and NO they didn't steal it. It was great to see Jerome Bettis, who helped me dominate Madden 64 for a solid year, walk away from his hometown with a world title. I thought it would be the beginning of our own personal dynasty, and it still might be.
3. Super Bowl X: Steelers 21, Cowboys 17: The first Super Bowl I saw was the Cowboys' win over Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XXX, and worse than the fact that the Steelers lost that game was the fact that the Cowboys were so damn arrogant about it afterwards. So while Super Bowl IX was the Steelers' first world title, the pre-emptive revenge bowls are higher on my list. Remember, it's my blog.
4. Super Bowl XIII: Steelers 35, Cowboys 31: After going two years without an appearance in the NFL title game, the Steelers returned to face an old foe. Nothing makes me happier than the thought of Terry Bradshaw outplaying Roger Staubach, and a Steelers team winning one of the higher scoring Super Bowls.
5. Super Bowl IX: Steelers 16, Vikings 6: If only I could've been alive for this one. Two really good defenses, and two of my favorite franchises going head-to-head, plus Pittsburgh winning its first Super Bowl. Those must've been the days.
6. Super Bowl XIV: Steelers 31, Rams 19: My least favorite Steelers win, as it was the first time they beat an overmatched team that didn't belong in the game with them. This game actually went the way I thought XL and XLIII were likely to go.It was their first win I was alive for, but it doesn't count. I guess.
7. Super Bowl XXX: Cowboys 27, Steelers 17: At least Pittsburgh was in it.
8. Super Bowl XLII: Giants 17, Patriots 14: What's better than watching a team you hate go undefeated then lose in the Super Bowl? Probably seeing a team you like beat them, but I'll take this. Actually, I did want to see New England win this game, just so I could see a team go undefeated and win the Super Bowl in my lifetime, but in retrospect, this was awesome.
9. Super Bowl VII: Dolphins 14, Redskins 7: The one time a team went undefeated and won the Super Bowl needs to make this list. Even better is that the Dolphins had the 'no-name defense' and Bob Griese is humble about this most excellent accomplishment.
10. Super Bowl III: Jets 16, Colts 7: Need an explanation? The guarantee? The AFL's breakthrough win over the NFL? A Super Bowl-winning quarterback that wore pantyhose and attempted to make out with Suzy Kolber on national TV? Case closed.
In closing, I know there are several games better than every game I just listed, but as a fan, this is my list. For the record, let's go Saints.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Welcome
If you know me, you know it's snowing pretty heavily outside my home.
If you know me, you know it's a Friday night, my wife and son are sleeping, and I still have a few hours left in me. My night of Bill and Ted watching has reached its final climax.
If you know me, you know I've been drinking.
This is Liberty With Reason. Welcome.
For the past few years, I've struggled with my political affiliation. While being a Libertarian sounds like a good idea, I can't ignore the fact that everyone needs Health Care, and that Climate Change is a reality. So as the Tea Party holds its first convention with Sarah Palin as its guest speaker, I publish my first blog on my new website.
The guest speaker: Me; however, all guests are welcome.
If you know me, you know this will blog will deal primarily with politics. I will also tackle sports from time to time, and share my experiences as a first-time father (how exciting, I know.)
I'm going to get the initial conversation started by saying I did vote for our current president, and after one year, I'm happy I did. Has he successfully passed any health care reform? No. Is Guatanamo Bay still open? Unfortunately. Is the War in Iraq over? Not yet. Did he escalate the War in Afghanistan? Yes, and I'm glad he did.
He wants to continue the Bush Administration policy of trying terrorists in civilian courts, and suddenly, the Republicans disagree. I say, go for it, but I know you won't.
As for Domestic Spying, the PATRIOT Act and our overall civil liberties the Bush Administration stole from us, these issues have yet to be acknowledged by the Obama Administration, and as long as the media has forgotten about them, they never will be.
As for the economy, just one politician could really have solved our problem, and the Republicans failed to nominate him.
So after a year, Barack Obama has done exactly one thing I wanted him to, while driving our economy into a hole most politicians would've dragged us into. Still, for the most part, I would say we're no worse off with Obama than we would've been had anyone else been elected, and that includes Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, etc. Obama is proving to be President as usual, which is better than the Execution Artists we had before this.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
