Saved By the Bell was not realistic  


This has bothered me for years, so here we go....

Anyone remember the episode where the Russian chess player came to challenge Screech? No? Anyway, I can't remember the exact details, but I think zack and crew were worried that Screech was going to lose b/c he didn't have his lucky berret (it was stolen by the rival school). So, they did what any rational human being would do...They kidnapped the russian star and threw him in a closet. Zack then dressed up like the russian and was ready to throw the game to Screech. Of course, not knowing how to play chess, Zack was forced to jump the pieces like they were checkers. When the triple jump worked (and screech was impressed), Zack just forfeited the game. If i recall, the russian was able to escape from the closet, challenged screech to a real game, and screech won.

Now, there was one part of the episode that really bothered me. I can accept the fact that a russian genius would come all the way to bayside for no good reason. I can accept that this game was being broadcast on radio or tv (Slater and Lisa were doing play by play if i recall). I can accept that Zack would commit a felony by kidnapping a person, that they wouldn't later press charges on him, and even that Screech wouldn't recognize his best friend with a fake wig and moustache. All of that is plausible. What really bothers me, though, is that a great chess player like screech wouldn't know that you can't triple jump in chess. The writers are very insulting to us, the viewers, by thinking we will accept that. Saved by the Bell was a great show because it was a realistic portrayal of school. We watched because we shared a common bond with Zack and the crew. For them to shatter the realism of the show with such a ridiculous plot is very disturbing. Regardless how "true" the show reamined after that (like the episode where the grew went into business selling tomato sauce), there was always this thing lingering in the back of my mind. A little part of me died inside when Screech said "wow, that was a great move"

Ash Wednesday  


I know this will come as a complete shock to most, but I was once again disturbed by the "rainman" mentality that consumed catholics yesterday. Instead of watching jeopardy at 5 o'clock, people instead had to flock to go get their ashes. Organized religion trully is the opium of the masses.

This isn't a question of whether or not God exists. Obviously, that is a personal question that every person has to answer on their own. But, assuming arguendo, that She does exist, i think it's safe to say that you wont be able to trick her by going through the motions. Saying "oh i HAVE to go do that tonight" is an exercise in futility. If you do something only out of "obligation" then it's not worth doing it at all. Rituals and formality have no business in spirtuality. God doesn't have a checklist to see if you "qualify" as a good christian. "hmm, ashes the past 4 years, but ate meat twice in 1999".

God doesn't care about your diet, or if you formally adhere to the rituals that an organization has put in place. Not to sound completely gay/cliched, but living a decent life where you put other people first and try to do "good" should be enough. If God is more concerned about my diet and not whether i'm a decent human being, then screw it, i'm not buying what She's selling.

btw, OF COURSE i wrote "she" just to mess with your minds. I hate having to explain my jokes, but you know it will go right over Tuna's head.

Battle Without Honor or Humanity  


"As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you're unconvinced that a particular plan of action I've decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo. Except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is - I collect your f'n head. Just like this f'er here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now's the f'n time."

Christina, you and I don't always agree on subjects, and that's ok. I imagine our differences stem from the fact that I use logic and common sense, and you well, you have developed your ideology from staring at the pattern of tea leaves in a cup. At times, your ridiculous and wacky beliefs are almost amusing to me, like watching a struggling puppy trying to swim.

Apparently, however, you have not learned your role. You continue to think you have the right to "show me the error of my ways". If you want to engage in an unwinable battle, that is your choice. But for the record, in the future, the definition of pretentious is someone who goes on someone else's blog and tells them they don't have a right to their opinions. This is my blog! These are my thoughts! I'm not going around telling people what to think. This is what I think. If you don't like it, don't read. I'm completely fine with someone posting a disagreeing opinion for the purpose of healthy debate. But that's not what you did here. You are incapable of debating an opinion without become emotional about it. And furthermore, your comments are entirely inappropriate because of their arrogance...both with the name calling and the hypocracy of your pretentious statements. But, if it's a war you want, it's a war you got. Enjoy.

Well I am so glad that you apparently have such an insight into raising children. I am sure that all your experience with childcare really gives you the right to write such a great message.

You should just attach a string to your back so people can pull it and have you crow "You don't have a right to an opinion, b/c you don't do it for a living." Over and over and over again, you take such a high and mighty road when it comes to your job. Not only is your job apparently the most important (and hardest) in the world, but NOBODY knows how tough it is. You really should be annointed for sainthood. Please, oh wise one, explain to me the error of my ways. I understand the "concept" of children, but I have NO idea about anything regarding any issue regarding them (?) Do you really believe you need to experience something first hand to have an opinion on it?

Do you think the hollocaust was bad? No wait, don't answer that because you didn't experience it. Just because I haven't worked extentsively in day care doesn't mean that I can't LOGICALLY come to the conclusion that it's important for a child to hear the answer "no". Is that really that hard a concept to grasp? If anything, my post is overly simplistic. I'm stating the obvious. "parents should tell their children no sometimes". I'm not reinventing the wheel here. I realize you put blinders on when it comes to your job and that it consumes your every thought, but that's not how life works for normal people. It's ok, in fact almost encouraged, to try and understand more areas of culture and society OTHER than your own narrow niche. If you want to become a one trick pony, mission acomplished. I guess I'm just more enlightened. I like to think about things other than what immediately impact me in the here and now.

And for the record, not that I should need to defend my experience to you, but I have been exposed to children in my life. Besides obviously being a kid myself at one point, I have grown up with friends who were never told "no". Needless to say, growing up spoiled eventually becomes detrimental. I have also spent many summers umpiring for little league and have thus spent countless hours with children. Furthermore, I have taken several classes in pyscology, including honors seminars at college. While none of this makes me an "expert" in child-rearing, I think I'm at least capable of making a general statement about children. But I guess opinions are only acceptable after you have spent your entire life in one area. I sincerely hope the government will allow me to have children when I'm ready and not just say "sorry, you can't have kids because you have never had kids and thus aren't an expert in child rearing". Let's hope that day never comes.

Please, talk about self-control, when is the last time you limited yourself?..i.e. all day video game marathons (you too Tom).

Have you spent years studying my behavior? If not, then you have no right to talk about my self control (using your backwards logic). For the record though, I graduated near the top of my class in highschool, graduated with high honors from Rutgers (with about a 3.75 gpa), got into law school (with a huge scholarship), and will be graduating in the top third of my class. To say I have no self control simply b/c i occassionally enjoy to play video games is bordering on slander. I work hard at what I do and am mature enough to set boundaries in terms of my recreation. I am "successful" not only by society's standards, but, more importantly, by my own.

In short, I have self control. Do you know why i have self control? Because, among things, I learned the value of no.

Parents have to fight a lot of issues today... God forbid that I ever presume to understand another person's troubles so well that I can make such ignorant comments.

wow, that's so unlike you to make broad general statements that have nothing to do with the issue [sarcasm]. Yes, parents deal with issues. Ok. I am aware of this fact. And while i might not be experiencing them myself at this very moment, that doesn't mean that my comments are ignorant. Are you a parent? If not, then aren't you as equally ignorant for attepting to presume the same issues (and commenting on them)? Oh I forgot, you WORK with kids and that makes you an expert on all things children.

SO what if that lane does not candy, are you that lazy to not walk to a different lane to get candy? If you are, maybe parents should read your blog and comment on your laziness.

Do me a favor, point to the part in the post where I say my disdain for the line has ANYTHING to do with the fact that I wanted candy. Look at the title of the post, it's about raising kids! I would never buy candy loose like that (it's much cheaper to buy from Costco in bulk). And I don't think these random parents should be allowed to comment on my laziness. Lazy people like me are dealing with many issues and it would be pretentious of people to comment on my laziness without having experienced the concept of lazy for many years. right?

Are you really that pretentious that you complain about a candy free lane? Maybe having a candy free lane prevents a diabetic child from seeing the one thing that he or she cannot eat and not only does that prevent heartache for the parents that have to struggle with a lifelong disease but it also prevents the child from being reminded of a disease that will probably eventually kill them.

Your previous "point" about me just being too lazy to walk over to get candy actually looks intelligent compared to this jibberish. Do you honestly think the purpose of these candy free lanes was to help out diabetic children? What % of children are diabetic? I doubt the 20% that would be required to justify 2 out of 10 lanes being candy free. But let's take your "logic" to the next level. Should the people at shoprite cover up their dairy section because, heaven forbid, there might be a lactose intollerant person walking around. Now, I wouldn't be pretentious enough to know what it's like to be lactose intollerant, but I imagine they must cry themselves to sleep everytime they see a slice of cheese.

What about people who are allergic to yellow #5. Should all of that be removed from the shelves? For crying out loud, I'm fat and thus have had to "deal" with the "issue" of food my whole life. Maybe shoprite should just remove all food from their stores so I don't get emotionally disturbed upon seeing it.

A diabetic kid would have even MORE of a need to learn the meaning of "no" as it pertains to candy. Call me crazy, but a child will be exposed to a candy bar at some point in their lives. As a parent, I would like the opportunity to be able to tell my diseased child "no" to a candy bar and explain to them why they can't have it. That way, when the kid is at a friends house and has the opportunity to eat a candy bar (b/c i'm not there), he'll understand that he can't have one.

Ultimately, it doesn't REALLY matter if a non diabetic kid has a candy bar in a checkout lane at shoprite. It's about the bigger picture. Raising children (so i've heard. remember, i'm not an expert in the field) is teaching your children lessons that can be carried out in bigger situations. A kid who doesn't get what he wants immediately might grow up to be less self centered and consumed with immediate gratification. The easy parenting move, the path of least resistence, is of course spoiling. A kid starts begging for candy, you have two options: shut the kid up immediately by giving him what he wants, or *gasp* actually being a parent and telling the kid no. The point of my post (since it obviously escaped you), is that parents are avoiding this "job". They'd rather just avoid the issue entirely and go through the candy free lane. Again, I'm no expert, but i think it's important for parents to actually, you know, raise their kids. And part of parenting is telling children no.

Maybe you should think a little more about people's position in life before you rant about such things you could not understand. Try to understand someone else’s life before you comment about how something so little affects yours.

Typical jibberish that has no rational point. It's impossible for me to understand anything about children and/or parenting? why? I understand that parent's have a tough job. but it's an important job that needs to get done. And to say how they raise their children has virtually no affect on me is pretty insane. Kids become adults, and the morals of adults obviously affect the world I live in. As a society, we all pay for public schools regardless of whether we have children. The reason is simple: we all benefit from an educated society. Similarly, whether or not children grow up spoiled affects society. Bad parents raise bad kids (who become bad adults). I was pointing out a flaw in current parenting that will eventually affect society. It's my right to do so. It's not pretentious. I'm not an expert in the field nor do i need to be. And, for the record, this is my blog where i express my opinions. In the future, feel free to disagree, but don't you EVER dare to lecture me on having opinions. If my answers bother you, then you should cease asking scary questions. Or better yet, stop reading a website that's entire existence is predecated on the fact that they are MY OPINIONS.

that is all. go away.

i'm not retarded, i just play one on tv  


i was rereading a previous post (in preparation for ranting on christina), and i noticed that i wrote the word "guessed" three times in the span of two sentences. I changed it now, but almost feel bad for altering my original thoughts. Clearly, I write this jibberish as a steam of consciousness and rarely go back to look at it. Trust me, i'm a much better writer than one would think upon reading these rants. I just don't have the time to sit down and make this coherent.

Just take my word for it that i'm a genius. Everything just goes more smoothly when people just agree with me.

The pupil has surpassed the master.  


Today is a sad day, as i've finally accepted the fact that I have surpassed my mentor, Rob Neyer. Neyer was a good guy, perhaps a bit egotistical, maybe a tad condecending. And let's not forget that embarassing lisp. But, if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have been exposed to the world of sabermetrics. He is the necessary middle man between the mainstream and the progressive thinker. Unfortunately, i no longer require his services; his articles are useless and quite frankly, "below me".

In his latest article

Neyer tries to downplay the difference in ability between Soriano and Arod. He does it the same way that other marks have in the past week, by comparing their road stats. You see, everyone knows that arod plays in a hitters park (actually, probably the best hitters park in the AL) while Soriano played in a pitchers park. So, any slack jawed local would say "dang jethro, we can't look at their home stats then. we should just look at the road stats."

The problem is that while one "variable" is being eliminated, others are not. Within their road stats, one has to also realize that a) Arod played road games at pitcher friendly yankee stadium and Soriano did not. B) Soriano played road games at hitter friendly arlington, Arod did not.

Neyer thinks he's being so witty and "true" to the saber world by suggesting we look at road stats. However, he's being even more of a mark b/c he's using statistical analysis incorrectly. The above two factors aren't the only reason why you can't look at just road stats. Arod also had to face a dominate rotation at yankee stadium while soriano got to feast on infererior texas pitching. also, soriano played an unbalanced number of road games in hitter-friendly fenway and toronto (granted, tb is neutral and baltimore is slight pitcher-friendly). Meanwhile, Arod had to deal with an unbalanced number of games in pitcher-friendly Oakland (and let's remember what pitchers are benefiting in oakland, the big three). Seattle is also a huge pitcher-friendly park, one of the worst in the league. (I don't know about the Angel's stadium). One can also argue that soriano had better protection in the lineup, but that argument is hard to prove or disprove.

So, what we have here is neyer breaking down a stat to prove something. However, he is selectively choosing his stats to prove a conclusion that he already wants to believe. He's smart enough to realize that arod and soriano had different hitting environments, but didn't fully think it out. He also throws in a little thing about "the numbers would be even less distinguishable if you throw out soriano's medicore 2001. huh, why? Why not throw out arod's first half of 2003 when he was battling nagging injuries that hampered his power. Why not point to the fact that arod is younger and in his prime while soriano, at 28, is about to begin his decline. Why not point to the fact that a high strike out / low walk rate are a good indicator to future decline while arod's plate disipline indicates that his offensive performance will remain more stable.

Neyer doesn't just stop at screwing up the soriano vs arod argument. He also adds a comment about the yankee's payroll:

I attended a local SABR meeting this weekend, and Mike Rice noted that the Yankees' payroll, as a percentage of all MLB payroll, was essentially the same in 2003 as it was in 1977, and generally has remained stable since then.

Let me get this straight. The yankees were x% of the total payroll for all of baseball (say 10%). Then, after expansion has added several teams, the yankees are still at 10%. Does Neyer really not realize that 10% now is "more" than 10% with less teams. What if a million teams were added to MLB. Wouldn't spending 10% of the entire league's payroll mean you have a HUGE advantage over the other million teams?

Poor poor neyer...he's in way over his head.

Update: I just read the comments on baseball primer regarding the article and they all say the same thing i'm saying (but better). While i'm disapointed that i didn't have an original thought, i love the idea that there are people out there smarter than me and who "get it".

have we just given up on trying to raise kids?  


I was in shoprite the other day, and i couldn't figure out why two "lanes" were labeled as "not having candy for your convenience." I had a guess as to why it was like that, but deep down i suppose i'm just too big an optimist; i couldn't really accept the fact that mankind is this flawed. But, as you probably have figured out, these lanes are for parents who don't want to deal with their kids begging for candy. So, instead of actually, you know, being a parent, and telling these kids "no", they'd just rather avoid the situation all together. Fantastic. Why should a kid learn any type of self control? it's not important for a kid to learn that they can't just get whatever they want. No, it's much easier to avoid any situations of conflict. Hide the candy from the kid. Give the parent a break.

People should not be allowed to raise children. They obviously can't handle it. And no amount of support from shoprite is going to change that fact.

It's time to pack it in and admit defeat. The inmates are running the asylum.

AIM made a HUGE mistake by including invisibilty as a function. Clearly, it's intended purpose is to protect users from unwanted IM's. But, as in any experient, it's the unintended results that tend to have the biggest impact.

Obviously, everyone is going to want to be invisible. Who wouldn't? If you see a VIP, you can IM them without having to risk talking to someone you don't want to. Seems ideal. The only problem is that same VIP is thinking the same thing, and he/she is going to be doing the same. So, even if two people would want to talk to each other, they aren't going to be able to b/c they'll both be hiding from each other. Before you know it, everyone is going to be invisible and all the benefits of the IM universe will be destroyed. The beauty of IM is that it allows for selective/staggered/casual conversation. If everyone is online for extended periods of time, you can periodically im as need dictates. A funny link, a question, whatever. They are there, and you can contact them w/o it being a big event. With a phone call you basically have to be constantly going back adn forth for the length of the call. with im, communication is limited to a volunteer basis.

but not with invisibility. Now, people are going to be "on" (read: visisible) for less time. And so, when they are on, you are going to have to treat it like a phone conversation. Who knows when you are going to see so and so again, so you better get everything out of the way now.

Dealing with non-vip people is a small price to pay for the benefits of a fully visible IM universe. The away message is enough of a barrier to deal with such people / situations where you don't want to talk. If an away message isn't enough, then maybe you shouldn't be on IM at all.

It's time to slaughter the sheep.  


They say you can sheer a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once. I'm so sick of having to deal with the whims of the sheep that it's time we skin every last one of them. Out of a morbid curiosity, i gave the series finale of "sex and the city" (S/C) a try. In a word, it was pure evil.

Just to get it out of the way, let's start with the clothes. From the very first season, the "fashion" of s/c was at the forefront in terms of media attention. The show was credited for bringing back the utterly tasteless "my name here" necklaces. There was a reason that that went out of style. it's tacky. S/c once and for all proves that the emperor does in fact have new clothes. No matter how ridiculous something is, everyone will believe it so long as it comes from the top down. Hollywood can do whatever it wants, and no matter how ugly or disgusting something is, the masses will eat it up. Huge broaches (is that the word?), disgusting prints, heck even a ladybug dress made it in tonight's episode. I may not have an eye for fashion (tm: mrs costanza), but i know ugly when i see it. and this stuff is ugly. But it's "in" in the same way that jeans with every nba team's logo is in. The same way that a bandaid under the eye became "in" at one point and how people used to roll one pant leg up. Is there ANYTHING that people wont do / find "fashionable". I hope and pray that hollywood is at least secretly laughing at us. We will consume ANYTHING we are spoonfed.

Steve wondered out loud tonight as to whether there are websites dedicated to the fashion of s/c. the first thing that came up on google for me was:

I can't believe that people go out and copy what they see on tv. the "rachel" haircut was one thing. putting 20 bobby pins in your head for no good reason is just unacceptable.

Point 2: the cliches that each character had to go through to "wrap up" the series was just laughable. Samatha gets cancer, loses her hair, but finds true love with someone half her age. charolette somehow winds up with lex luthor and doubles up on the adoption cliches. 1) surrogate changes her mind. and then the topper 2) let's adopt a chinese baby. I've heard some drivel in my days, but "I guess god didn't forget our address" takes the cake. Red head "loves" by taking in the old lady and treating her with respect. I HOPE that the writers realized that the "this pizza tastes like garbage" line was funny. At this point though, i have so little faith in them.

And now to carrie. The story arc of carrie's love life is EXACTLY the problem i developed towards the show and why i stopped watching years ago. Not only is carrie a disgusting human being, but people watch her and symphatize with her. Making her the protangonist (is that the word i'm looking for? i don't want to call her the victim, but rather the person we are supposed to relate to) reinforces all the horrible qualities. For example, we are supposed to feel terrible that her b/f let's go of her hand to shake the guy who is congratulating him. When he goes off to walk with the group to talk about his exibits, she sits there and pouts.

Women everywhere saw this and collectively gasped "how could he do that to her? she was there for him!" These women deserve death. He didn't choose work over her. he didn't abandon her. She was the one who created an unrealistic standard. "pay 100% of your attention towards me, never let go of my hand, or else you must not care about me". Her ego, raging out of control, caused her to take a handshake as a rejection. She then felt sorry for herself and sat there. Why didn't she walk with him and actually support him while he was showing people around the exibit? What did she want for him to say "sorry fellas, i can't walk around, i'm here with carrie".

Oh poor carrie, she couldn't be with a bunch of strangers who are drooling over b/c she's some famous writer. Heaven forbid her ego doesn't get stroked for 24 hours. She's her own person, you know. An independent person that wont live in the shadow of anyone. What a role model.

I'm not doing this rant justice. Carrie should be universally hated, but she's not. When she was complaining to the b/f, he should have rationally told her why she was being retarded and she should have understood. But instead, she's portrayed as the victim, and women agree with her. They then look at their own lives and realize "oh yeah, there was that one time when my husband stopped holding my hand b/c he had to sneeze. what a horrible person!"

And i realize that the hand thing was just "symbolic" of what she was feeling. The fact that this show uses such unimaginative symbolism (uh, a dirty book at the dinner table) could be it's own rant. But for the sake of my sanity, I'm using the hand holding to sum up carrie's entire essence. When it comes down to it, that's all this show was about. Carrie and company spent 6 seasons whining over stupid stuff and making themselves the victim. They were never happy, and not because the guys were horrible people, but rather b/c they WANTED to be the victims. They created unachievable goals for others and then were shocked and depressed when people didn't live up to them. And they did it all in some of the ugliest clothes that i've ever seen.

At the end of the day, it's not the show that bothers me, but rather the people who adore it. It's the groups of women who were interviewed on NEWS programs leading up to the finale of this show. "oh, carrie is just like me and my friends. what she goes through, i have gone through." I'm just so sickened by it. The cycle is never ending. People are empty shells with no real feelings and are drawn to similar characters. These characters then reinforce these disgusting traits and are hero-worshpped.

Good riddance. Now the countdown to soprnaos can finally begin.

This letter was sent to me recently...  


i was halfway through it before i realized that i had written it this past october. I wrote it in response to a sportswriter's (from boston) article about game seven. Why i cc'd it to steve, i'm not sure. I have to admit though, it gave me a nice chuckle.

> Dear Mr. Aucoin:
> I just wanted to thank you for your article in
> today's Boston Globe discussing the pain that Red
> Sox fans are going through. As a die-hard Yankee
> fan, game 7 was obviously a very joyous occasion.
> However, the much deeper satisfaction was not that
> we won (again), but rather that the Red Sox lost
> (again). I have to admit, the image of a Boston fan
> in tears over yet another painful collapse brought a
> smile to my face. It was almost as though the
> Yankees were teasing the fans. Everything was in
> your favor all game until we decided to step up and
> crush your hopes and dreams. The fact that it was
> your best pitcher on the mound makes it so much more
> satisfying. Let's not forget that it was Posada who
> tied the game and got his revenge on the
> head-hunter. And just when Red Sox fans thought
> that they had weathered the storm by surviving
> Mariano, Boone ends the game with one swing.
> A truly crushing defeat that I sincerely hope sends
> your city into a state of depression. Red Sox fans
> have long had an inferiority complex when it comes
> to the Yankees, and I fully expect this series to
> demoralize them even more.
> Keep up the good work. If you happen to come across
> any pictures of an 8 year old Red Sox fan crying
> (preferably with a red "B" painted on their face to
> show their love for the team), I would greatly
> appreciate you sending it to me. If the paint is
> smeared by the tears that Boston fans have continued
> to shed since 1918, all the better!
> Long live the curse of the Bambino,
> Dennis
> Yankee Fan

so many blogs, so little time  


since i was home, i couldn't find the time to properly rant. but, i emailed myself a list of topics. here's the first:

How do we know that "money is no object" for the yanks other than their (and other teams') payroll?

Ok, we all know that the yank's pay roll will be 185 million and that it's like 50 million more than the redsox. But, what else do we know? Ok, the yanks play in the biggest market, but so do the mets. How come their payroll gets capped at around 90 million. Yes, the yankees generate the biggest revenue, but how much of that is because of the fact that they win? If mo vaughn put up mvp numbers and the mets were celebrating their second championship in three years, how do we know that they wouldn't be in the same place as the yankees. Do we "know" that the redsox couldn't afford arod? Boston might be smaller than nyc, but doesn't boston basically get all of new england all to itself. What if they marketed themselves better? And why couldn't a team owned by Disney afford to put out a better team (granted, they won the ws that one year but they were a fluke).

I think all this talk of money is pointless. Until they "open up the books" we'll never know if these teams crying poor really have a claim. George wants to win, plain and simple. Does he have an advantage playing in nyc? sure. But i don't know if you can JUST look at payrolls to determine how much of an advantage they have.

So, until someone proves to me otherwise, i'll assume that there is no advantage to being a yankee (ha!)

why is my reaction atypical?  


I caught newlyweds for the first time this season. There's something about america's cute acceptance of jessica's lack of intelligence that i find annoying. After last season, you couldn't go 20 minutes w/o hearing a "chicken of the sea" joke. And this season seems to be sold on the hook of "tune in to see what she's going to say next." So, against my better judgment, i tuned in and this is what i heard....

1) couldn't say the word Massachusetts. tried over and over and then gave up.

2) had to film two commercials and could not, for the life of her, get her lines right. take after take and she couldn't get more than 3 words out w/o messing up. Nick nailed his lines on the first take.

so, here's my problem. People shouldn't be watching this show with an "oh my god, she so crazy" mentality. They should be filled with rage. They should want to take a baseball bat to jessica's skull and beat the retardness out of her. Her ignorance drives me crazy. Not only should she not be rich/famous, but she should be without the use of her legs.

Anyone want to bet a dollar that they will be divorced in the next five years?

I would have been a great fisherman  


I sent out the bait, and you bit.

Oh the irony. Although you previously posted regarding the lack of spell checking this blog. You wrote : "i'm never rong." See, the irony is that you say that you are never wrong, and in doing so, you were wrong. Its the little things in life that make me chuckle.

at the end of the post i was going to write "btw, i spelled mistkae and rong wrong on purpose". Then i thought, "no, i only have intelligent readers and they'll get the joke."

Boy, was i rong. I guess that statement was ironic b/c i made an incorrect assumption about your lack of retardness.

Mourning the loss of a dear friend  


Now, there is NOBODY who watches as much tv as me. I couldn't speak if i had to remove all seinfeld/simpsons references from my vocabulary. Half of my rants are tv related. For better or worse, tv is a part of my life....i big part.

But that doesn't mean i'm emotionally attached to certain shows. And the lovefest that has surrounded the ending of "sex and the city" has sickened me to the point of actually feeling sorry for people.

If you believe the commercials airing on HBO, one of your family members is dying. In theory, this show is supposed to be a comedy, but all the clips have that somber music and the slow moving film. Carrie turns her head as her hair wisks around. "only two episodes left...." etc etc. Should I be depressed b/c this show is ending? Am i "losing" a part of my life?

No. First of all, the show is being self righteous for doing this. While this show pulls in good ratings and has it's cult following, it's by no means a defining part of pop culture. But I'll take it one step further...Friends is doing the exact same thing and it's driving me crazy. While Friends has obviously fallen on some pretty hard times, there was a point where i thought the show was ok. No seinfeld, but ok. But, even if you love Friends and were a huge fan who couldn't miss an episode, the sappy commercials are still pretentious. When i "lost" seinfeld, i was upset ONLY in the sense of "man, i enjoyed watching that show and now i wont be able to see new ones." I never looked at it as "i feel so close to george costanza and now he's not going to be there." Joe and Chanlder aren't "leaving you". Carrie isn't abandoning you when you need her most. They are shows, and whether they are comedies or dramas or whatever, their only function is to entertain. So, be upset that you'll have to find entertainment elsewhere (and, maybe said entertainment wont be as "entertaining"). But don't for one second think a show is anything more than that. Good riddance Sex and the City.

As an aside, the cast of Sex and the City was on Oprah today (ok, mock me if you must, but i dare you to find something better on at 4 PM. And believe me, i only watch it for it's "trainwreck" appeal.) Parker and the rest of the cast shed more tears than the Red Sox Nation did over arod. These actors are so pompous. How long was this show on? 5 years? You'd think they had fought in a war together and been down in the trenches. They were your coworkers for a few years, and maybe they became friends. But, not being able to work together is hardly a reason to shed. There's an arrogance that comes with being in entertainment (big revelation, i know). A person works on a show for a few years and then "needs a change". Well guess what, the average american spends their entire life doing something meaningless and repetitive. An actor's job, however glamerous, is still just a job. This wasn't a family that you created and worked together for 5 years. They were coworkers. And if they are really friends, then that friendship should exist outside of the job. To cry because "something that was a part of you is ending" is ridiculous.

Now, the loss of Family guy is completely different b/c that was a show that was never given a chance and cut off before it even had a chance to hit it's prime. Crying over the loss of that is completely normal.

so easy, it's like shooting cheese doodles in a barrel  


so, i was going over the answers to my quiz with my sister, and we couldn't figure out which ones she got wrong. It turns out that she put "cheese doodle" instead of "cheese curl". Well, CLEARLY cheese curls are better, so i can't figure out how she could get that one wrong. However, she was convinced that the doodles are the crunchy ones while the curls are the big poofy ones. She was so proud that she caught me in a mistake.

the only problem is that i don't make mistkaes. i'm never rong.

so i asked her to prove that i was wrong. she comes back with a video of dancing cheese poofs or something. Meanwhile, my superior google skills get me pictures of cheese curls and cheese doodles (also known as cheese puffs). End of story, right?

until she sends me one last link. It's a website dedicated to "hardcore snackers". There was a bag of "cheese doodle o's". She then proceeded to analyze the picture and say that they looked more like crunches than puffs and were called doodles. Never mind the fact that i sent her exact bags of what we were looking for and she was instead trying to hypothesize over this hybrid creation. Then i notice the text that comes with the picture:

These are moderately crunchy cheese puffs — not as crunchy as a crunchy cheese curl, such as Crunchy Cheetos, but crunchier than a cheese puff, such as Jax. "

Ugh, somtimes winning arguments is so easy it's sickening. Such is the curse of true genius.

i really only wrote this entry for one reason. i LOVE the last line of the review of said cheese doodle o's:

The level of cheese residue left on your hands is moderate.

indeed it is, indeed it is.

Afflect starring in a movie about copernicus...  


here's part of the script

"You know, George Steinbrenner is the center of evil in the universe," Affleck said. "There's no question about that."

Real World Rant: episode eight  


First, i caught a good quote from Super Frat Boy Brad from last week when frankie was flipping out. "i don't understand how she can live her life like that. part of her must like feeling that way" For someone who SHOULD be a complete idiot, brad has usually been right on point with his opinions. He understood where Moorehouse was coming from when Robin used the N word, basically admitted that he put himself in that situation in terms of getting arrested, and in this new episode, he was all over Robin for talking smack about Randy. Eh, i still dislike him.

This latest episode reminded me of the Rich girl show where droopy face flipped out when Mike brought his girlfriend to her party. Jealousy is such an ugly emotion, but usually creates great television. Robin flipping out over Randy talking to a girl at a bar was so embarassing. They aren't married, they aren't going out, heck, according to the tally board, they haven't even hooked up [mini side rant: if you go to the rw website they have all the cast members with little icons under their names. the icons range from little martini glasses (for drunken hook ups), eye lashes (for flirting), to balls and chains (for serious relationships). Steve said it best: you'd expect a website mocking RW to have this kind of stuff, not the official one. I think MTV is much smarter than we give them credit for. The editing jobs on both the newlyweds show and the rich girl show give me the impression that they "get it". There's no way you could watch those shows and not feel contempt for the characters. They are shown as the empty shells that they are. 80 consecutive "oh that's cute" is just brilliance.]

so....anyway....she drags randy out of the bar (randy, "i had to leave the bar....before it closed!) and starts cursing him out on the walk to the cab. Then, in the car, she continues to flip out on him. It was only after Brad called her out for being rude to Randy did she come up with this gem, "everyone knows i've given him my heart." uh, come again? Even if that was true, I don't think that justifies you telling someone to "drop dead". Who does she think randy is? gladyss?

Randy, getting a glimpse of the maddness that is robin, decided to end anything before it even got started. Smart move, and this provided some GREAT lines by moorehouse about not being weak to the flesh and winning the battle, but not the war. In what was not only a great moment in RW history, but in my life as well, Randy pulled off the ultimate insult. As Robin was trying to get into his bed he rolled over at just the right time to cause her to fall out and slam her head against the wall. I tip my cap to you, Randy, for you are the master.

btw, this is yet another season where people just have one massive blanket that they sleep completely under. whatever happened to sheets and layers of stuff? Am i the only one who likes blankets up to the neck only? I don't get it.

Caught the series premeire of Inferno. Seems like a show i'm goign to have to watch. The competiton was shimmying across two buildings on ropes. Julie (from new orleans) was trying to pull her opponent off. The person's response was "what are you goign to do mormon? punch me?". if only it were that simple. instead, julie decided to try and rip the safety harness off the poor girl. As the girl shrieked in fear, julie's defense was "well, it's 10,000." I would have paid anything to see the girl actually fall and die. Would Julie have gotten disqualified?

Stop living in the past....  


i think it's pretty clear that we are currently living in the most important time in the history of the universe. 30 years ago? who cares? yesterday? Didn't even exist.

Someone please explain to me why 22.5% of espn voters think yanks getting arod was the WORST thing that the yanks have ever done to the redsox. 63.5% got it right with Babe Ruth. I will tolerate the 8.6% who picked the boone homerun. But why is bucky dent's only 5.2%. That homerun was just as memorable. the only reason it didn't get more votes was b/c it happened in 78. It disgusts me that for every person who picked dent, FOUR people picked this arod trade.

i wonder what the biggest thing of all time will be tomm.

Thanks for the info, netscape.  


in bright red letters, on the top of netscapes news page we are told that "president bush nominated for the nobel peace prize." when you actually click on the article it mentions how 174 people were nominated (the largest group ever). i don't have the stats, but i imagine every us president has cracked the top 150 every year. But go bush! u-s-a! u-s-a!

well, that was an awkward few minutes  


woke up after a 3 hour nap (yes, on a friday night), and when i woke up that bonnie hunt show was on. I was really disturbed by how awkward the scene was between bonnie (who hosts some type of regis show) and a 12 year old chef (who seemed gay). The dialogue was so jilted (is that the word i'm thinking of? jolted? staggered?) that i had to cringe. "man, i hope this is improv or something." well, after some searching on the net, turns out the show is now at least partially improved (i don't actually enough about the show to learn the exact details of it). Well, even though i still think the show is unfunny, at least now i don't have to seek professional help to get the dark and disturbing images out of my head.

Brutus Beefcake Causes Anthrax Scare  


Brutus Beefcake Causes Anthrax Scare
Posted By Ashish on 02.13.04

What is this former WWF star up to?

Ed "Brutus the Barber Beefcake" Leslie caused an anthrax scare last night in Boston. Leslie had been working as a fare collector at a subway and left a bag of cocaine unattended. The first assumption by those who found it was that the powder was anthrax. Leslie later admitted that the powder was cocaine and that it was his.

sometimes, the blog entries just write themselves. But, i will throw in the little tidbit about that "career paper" i wrote in highschool where my career ambitions were to be a toll booth collector. seems like i have a role model in Brother Bruti

see tuna, even a direct quote can be an editorial.  


“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

that's how you wrote it on your blog.

here's another interpretation:

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

and one last one:

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

don't you think those are three different ways to view what is obviously a meaningless sentence from 35 years ago?

does anyone else get phone calls like this?  


d: Hello?

s: Knicks game on, want to come over?

d: nah, too tired.

s: i watched the game on saturday. it wasn't widescreen. i was upset.

d: oh yeah?

s: I mean, fine, it was super clear, and the bars on the side were black and not gray, which is very important, but still, i can't watch non widescreen games. They are giving starting lineups now and it's still not widescreen. i'm getting nervous.

d: maybe they don't have widescreen on away games b/c there aren't high definition cameras.

s: oh my god, if that's true, i'm going to really get into home games. when i see a home game scheduled it will be that much more important.

d: goodbye.

real world rant (a week late)  


I never got around to ranting on last weeks' real world, probably b/c steve already said everything perfectly in person. But, just so i can have a record of it, let me state for the record that Frankie is one of the worst types of people in the world. Her constant need to "play the victim" disgusts me and makes me wish ill upon her. If this girl didn't have people feeling sorry for her, she wouldn't know what to do with herself.

Ok, let's start with the premise that she has a crippling disease. I can accept that and feel sorry for her in theory. But she's turned that into her gimmick. She couldn't wait to drop that bomb on her roomates and i'm sure everytime something bad goes bad she turns to it. Secondly, i'm so absolutely tired of hearing about how she's not the traditional definiton of "hot". If she wants to reject society's ridiculous superficial stanards, more power to her. But she can't have it both ways. She goes out of her way to make herself look freaky and then has the gaul to complain that she's judged on her looks. I'm sure she THINKS she's being an individual with her "style" but she's not. By being so focused on society's standards (even when you are rejecting them) is the definition of conformity. she's defining herself by other's perception. Even though it's a complete 180 from society, it's still dependent.

and finally, we have last week's episode where she ONCE AGAIN attempts to cheat on her b/f while drunk and then is SHOCKED when he breaks up with her. Tons of crying (not while she was on the phone, but rather after when she was in the company of her roomates), and blaming HIM for being mean to her. Unbelievable! I almost have to respect her for being able to twist ANYTHING to make herself the victim. And all the roomates follow suit, blaming the guy. Poor frankie, it's not her fault she's unfaithful....she's a freak with a disease, afterall.

I hope a big boat comes by and eats her up.

i was almost killed on my walk home last night  


the combination of curb and several hours of mario kart meant i was walking the "mean streets of newark" very late at night. I'm usually not worried, if anything ever went down, my plan would be to show them my tattoo and say "don't you know who i am? who my friends are." Granted, i don't have any such friends, but in my neighborhood, it just might work.

well, this thug that i had to deal with would not listen to such reason. I saw him lurking around my doorway just as i was walking down the sidewalk. I swear to god, this was the biggest possum i've ever seen. If the thing charged at me, i have no doubt it could have taken me down at the shins. Luckily, i must not have been enough of a challenge for him, so he just left quietly. I don't know what i would have done had he not moved.

I need to get a gun.

giving fox the finger  


fox has this show called "max x videos to the xtreme" or something. I only know this because i can't find my remote and i'm too lazy to get up and change the channel (i was watching die hard with a vengence earlier). they just had a hockey fight caught on tape. at one point, the guy was on the ground and another guy accidently skated over his hand and completely severed his finger. they actually zoomed in on the finger being sliced off! How can this be acceptable television? are our standards that low? i guess so.

i don't understand knicks articles  

Posted is by far one of the greatest sites on the net. it's so simple: just collect every knicks article that you find and put them all in one place. What i find baffling though is how similiar the articles are. Why is it that each of the three major papers in NY each focus on Doleac today. Is it just b/c he's my favorite player? perhaps, perhaps not. I just don't understand how three writers can each come up with the idea to run a doleac story. Do they all sit around and agree on it? Granted, it was a slow news day, but why not write about something else? it's not as though doleac did anything newsworthy in the past week. They are all filler articles.

What's going on here?

The Problem With Kant  


[i'm having a very serious case of deja vu as i begin to write this. I don't know if i've already ranted on it...perhaps here or in an email. If i'm being repetitive, don't worry, because repetiveness is my job. In other words, it's my job to be repetitive.]

Ever since i took that ethics and morality class at RU, i've been facinated with the teachings of Kant. I have utmost respect for his theories, but i've always been conflicted with their actual application. As i'm sure you know, he refuses to ever look at the consequences of decisions. Instead, he says that a person can ony have control over his own decision making and that's where the focus should be. The classic example of Kantian theory is this: If you were hiding an innocent jew in your house (during nazi germany) and an SS soldior came to your door, you couldn't/shouldn't lie to him. If he asks "do you have any jews hiding in your place" you'd have to admit to it, even though you KNOW that means that an innocent person will be murdered.

Kant justifies such a perplexing theory by saying that the person in question does not have any control over the circumstances he finds himself in. Nazis exist independent of him. It's not his fault the SS soldior is going to commit an unethical action. All the person can do is stay true to himself and not lie.

Obviously, the problem is that not everyone will stay true to the Kant code. While it is noble to try and stay ethical in the cespool that is mankind, being a martyr is futile and pointless. It's almost downright arrogant to be so concerned with your own morals that you sacrafice the good of the world. No one person is the center of the universe. If telling a lie can save an innocent person's life, then that person should make the "sacrafice" and lie. A vegetarian should eat a piece of meat on a bet if that means that 2 other people will agree not to eat meat for a month.

Of course, there is always the slippery slope problem. If i can justify lieing in this instance, someone else will be able to justify it in another circumstance. and so it goes. Before you know it, the "universal truth" that "lieing is wrong" will become withered away into nothing. And, as a general rule, i want to believe in universal truths and natural law. For years, i've WANTED to believe in kant but couldn't reconsile my desire to believe that the "right" thing to do would be to lie to the SS soldior.

Here's the best i can do: the fundamental flaw is that he generalizes too much to find his universal truths. Why is the litmus test truth vs lie? Why can't the ethical question simply be "protecting an innocent life". It's all about how you pose the question. If you ask the question this second way, then the natural law would be to protect your jewish friend. Kant steps too far back. Yes, generally, the truth is to be preferred over lies. However, the world is too complicated to have simplistic rules like that. One can argue that "killing is wrong", but if presented with a situation where you have to kill someone who is about to murder a little girl in order to protect her, the answer becomes less clear.

And thus i've come to the conclusion that Kant is not the great thinker that I once thought. (thinker and thought in the same sentence? i'm not happy with that). It's the equivelant of someone who bases all their decisions on whether or not it is legal. "sorry, can't do that, that's illegal, and illegal is wrong." He's removing himself and his own thoughts from the equation. He's refusing to examine anything on his own, instead relying on these general rules that he can't deviate from.

A good test of one's belief system is to crate ridiculous hypotheticals. Often, people dismiss such hypos as "oh that could never happen", but that's not the point. If you can eliminate the extremes, it gives you a better understanding of what you actually believe in. Ok, you say you believe that killing is wrong, but does that mean that you wouldn't kill someone who.... After you go through all the rules, and the exception to the rules, and the exceptions to the exceptions, THEN you are left with your own personal truths regarding morality. Whether or not there is then a "natural law" is left open to debate. But, while i still believe in natural law, i don't think the search for it is all that important. Man, is probably incapable of beign objective enough to find the natural law in terms of morality. but it doesn't matter whether or not we can ever "know" if all lieing is wrong.

uh, i suppose i need a concluding paragraph or something, but i'm drawing a blank. whatever, you know where i was going with this, so let's just end it.

"be the House"  


This is my new mantra. Well, actually, i imagine people have assumed that that has been my mantra ever since i laid eyes on the all you can eat buffet. But this isn't about being as big as a house. It's a phrase that Billy Beane's right hand man, DePodesta came up with when he became assistant GM for the A's. In short, his goal was to give his organization the house edge. The house always wins in the long run b/c it has the odds in it's favor. Granted, the edge might only be slight, and on any given chance they could lose a single event, but in the long run, the house will always win.

By now, I'm sure you all have heard about the shift in what are considered the "important stats". Just as OPS is becoming mainstream, it's already outdated in certain circles. While the backlash against the stat-heads and sabers is strong, watching the paradigm shift has been truly remarkable. When steve is going around quoting neyer, you know things have changed.

Depodesta's latest analysis of his own circumstances and baseball in general was a fascinating read. Here is the link:

His points don't just apply to baseball; they can be used for all walks of life. I guess this is common knowledge, but i had never heard of the "naive question" before. Basically, all you have to do is ask "if we had never done 'this' before, would 'this' be the way we would go about doing it?". Too often, we do things a certain way just because that's the way it has always been done. So much inefficiency could be avoided if people were just willing to question everything. Unfortunately, we live in a society where the desire to just accept things the way they are is growing rapidly.

There was one paragraph in the article that absolutely blew my mind. Not because of any new revelation, but rather b/c of the very opposite. The following paragraph SHOULD be common sense. However, the fact that the VAST majority of people don't accept it as truth is truly scary...

"I was in Las Vegas for a weekend playing blackjack. A person at the table to my right had 17 and said they wanted a hit. The whole table stopped and even the dealer asked if he was sure he wanted a hit. Finally he said he wanted a hit. The dealer deals the card and of course it was a four. What did the dealer say? “Nice hit.” But I'm thinking, you're kidding me. It was a terrible hit. Even though it ended up working out, it wasn't a good decision."

Common sense right? But how many of us have later questioned a decision because of the results. A results based analysis is asinine. The best you can do is make a decision based on expected results. You attempt your best to refine you expectations based on objective criteria...the rest you leave to fate. I can't go into this any further, b/c either you get it or you don't. and my biggest fear is that you "don't" and there's nothing that can be done to convince you otherwise.

It should be noted that last night i couldn't sleep for numerous reasons. And while i was watching "espn news" for the xth time in a row, i couldn't stop thinking about how ridiculous it is that people evaluate a DECISION based on the individual result. I thought of this EXACT example (the blackjack. My personal example that i've used in numerous arguments {usually with a certain maria} is that making a 10 dollar straight up bet that the lottery ticket in my hand will win is a STUPID bet even if it turns out that it was the winning ticket. Her response of "well, if i won, how could that be a bad bet," usually results in me banging my head against the wall. Uh, do i need to close parentheseses here? i've lost track. oh well. )]}. This then led to a revelation at about 5 in the morning that i will have to write a separate post on. in fact, i think i'll do that now. So if you read the kant post first, maybe now it makes sense.

that is all.

Everything is an editorial  


I really shouldn't be responding to tuna's post, b/c there is no point in trying to save someone who is so brainwashed. He views every issue as "us vs. them", "republicans vs. Democrats". But, his arrogance is so frustrating, that I have to at least attempt to make my point.

Republicans are flat out hypocrites. They cry foul everything one of their own is "attacked" They'll blame the liberal media that has an "agenda" or freak out over a reference to Hitler (no, I'm not talking about Rush's use of the word Hitler Clinton, or femi-nazis). Their latest complaint is a newspaper critiquing Bush's SotU address. So, let's refute their arguments:

First, EVERYTHING is an editorial. It's impossible to report and not editorialist. Even if you try to cover an issue objectively (which rarely happens), the issue that you choose is an "editorial". Because you can't cover every issue, the ones you leave out are based on some subjective decision of what's important. The things not said are as much an editorial as what is reported as "objective".

Does fox news not editorialist? why was it called "supporting the troops" vs "anti war". is that objective? How come bush admitting that he had plans to invade iraq long before 9-11 not get tons of coverage? How about them having the "terror alert: high" stapled on their lower left corner at all times? Aren't they saying something with that? Is that reporting objective?

Anytime anyone comes out with anything anti-bush, the republicans shake with fear. God forbid people are exposed to the truth. And while we are at it, why do you even care tuna? I thought you said that the media has no influence on people and that they can search out for the truth on their own.

Finally, I'd like to point out the arrogance and contempt the writer had for the average american. Something about the comments "should be left for bloggers". It's a sad day when elected officials who are supposed to represent the people no longer respect said people. To mock the idea that average people can (and have the right) to discuss issues and have an opinion mocks the very concept of democracy itself. I think it's very safe to say that the internet is a much better source of information than anything i can find on tv (other than the daily show and the bbc). The writer's disdain for people having an opinion is similar to the guy who took over the simpsons following season 7. Instead of embracing the people who cared so much about the product, he created the comic book store to mock them. and we all know how that turned out.

sometimes the road to adventure is paved...  


is that how the new slogan goes? whatever, you get the point. I can't believe they are admitting that you don't need such a big car to get where you are going. At least in other commercials, they create plausible know, driving around on cliffs and whatnot.

soccer moms support terrorism.

Throw Lebron from the train, anything but a reserve.  


This has to be the worst "article" i've ever read in my life. It's bad enough where i'm going to have to insert comments, line by line. Here we go:

Well, I'm not going back to the link, so you'll have to trust me on this one. The title of the article from the link said something about lebron missing the cut for the allstar game, but the title once you clicked on the article said Kidd and O'neal lead reserves. So, already we have confusion, and we haven't even started the article yet.

NEW YORK -- LeBron James missed the cut Tuesday in voting for All-Star reserves, finishing behind Eastern Conference guards Paul Pierce, Michael Redd, Baron Davis and Jason Kidd.

In the first paragraph, we are given a list of Eastern conference guards that made it and one guard who didn't. So far, not TERRIBLE, per se, but a little unorganized.

"Being selected to the All-Star team, it wouldn't be nothing new to me," James said Tuesday before the 14 reserves were announced. "I've been on All-Star teams my whole life. That's just how I play the game of basketball."

Ok, so maybe this article IS about lebron not making the allstar game. I wont pass judgment on Lebron's use of grammar, but it will be tough to ignore the arrogance of the statement. I made the allstar team as a little leaguer once, does that mean being an NBA allstar would be "nothing new to me"? Big fish, little pond, lebron.

The league's 29 coaches selected the reserves.

Thanks for this little tidbit. But, in an article about all star reserves, shouldn't this be the lead in (if the article is going to cast doubt on the selections)? I mean, i ASSUME this article is about the snub that lebron got, so, shouldn't we establish who snubbed him? I realize this isn't the most earth shattering revelation, but announcing that the coaches make the picks should still be within the first 3 sentences. Not a seperate paragraph in the middle of the column.

Shaquille O'Neal of the Los Angeles Lakers was among the Western Conference reserves for the league's showcase event Feb. 15 in Los Angeles.

What? Why are we talking about the west? We've only gone through the guards for the east. And again, even though it's a boring fact, the date of the game should be in the intro. If your goal is to hook the reader, then i can see how all the "facts" could come at the end of the article. "Starters for the allstar game are picked by the fans. Reserves are selected by the 29 coaches. This year's game will be played on Feb. 15th in Los angeles." That's how someone NOT eligible for the special olympics would write the "notes" section of the article at the end.

Other All-Star reserves for the West are: Dirk Nowitzki of Dallas, Peja Stojakovic and Brad Miller of Sacramento, Sam Cassell of Minnesota, Andrei Kirilenko of Utah and Ray Allen of Seattle.

Well, at least we've talked about the same conference for two paragraphs in a row. First we had o'neal, and now we have the rest of the reserves. That's almost the whole team. That-a-boy, writer. Now, if only we knew who the starters were going to be...

The other East reserves are: Jamaal Magliore of New Orleans, Ron Artest of Indiana and Kenyon Martin of New Jersey.

Are you serious? We now get the rest of the EAST reserves? Three reserves from the east. If i was stephen hawkins, maybe i could then add these players to the rest of the east reserves that were mentioned IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH! And what was this article supposed to be about again? Lebron who?

Redd is averaging 22.1 points for the surprising Milwaukee Bucks, Pierce is the league's sixth-leading scorer (22.9) for Boston, Davis of New Orleans had the league's fifth-highest average (23.2), and Kidd has led New Jersey to first place in the Atlantic Division.

Ok ,a seperate pagraph on the stats of the allstars. That's interesting, i guess. But you know, call me crazy, but i think a better time to talk about these allstars stats were when you were actually talking them to begin with. Redd? who is redd. oh he's the guy you mentioned in the first paragraph. This guy is a real piece of work. He lists 3 reserves for the east, and then talks about the other reserves' stats. I'm getting a headache.

Starters for the league's 53rd All-Star Game, selected in fan balloting, are: Vince Carter of Toronto, Tracy McGrady of Orlando, Ben Wallace of Detroit, Jermaine O'Neal of Indiana, Allen Iverson of Philadelphia for the East; Yao Ming of Houston, Kobe Bryant of the Lakers, Kevin Garnett of Minnesota, Steve Francis of Houston and Tim Duncan of San Antonio for the West.

This is the paragraph that enraged me enough to write this rant. It instantly triggered a memory of a book report that i had written in the 4th grade. I found it several years ago and was stunned at my ignorance. The last sentence of the report was "The characters in this book were matt and jeff hardy, x, y, z, etc." (btw, are those the hardy boys names or am i just thinking of wrestling?). A normal person might just skim over the above paragraph, but I'm going to go through it line by line.

first, the "fan balloting" info is a fact that again should be in it's own introduction paragraph. The way i see it, you have two choices: either ignore all the obvious facts of the allstar game, or include them all in one shot. Now's not the time to be telling us how starters are picked. For that matter, wouldn't logic dictate that you talk about the starters BEFORE the reserves? I understand that the starters were announced last week so it's "old news" but a quick "btw, in case you forgot, the starters are..." wouldn't hurt.

Ok, here's a hypo. If you were going to make a list for others to read (and, in theory, comprehend), would you list the items and then define the list, or vice versa. I can tell that i'm not being clear....When you make a list, where do you put the "subject", at the top or the bottom? Now, go back and look at this guy's list. When does he mention that he's talking about the East? AFTER he's done listing them. That's bordering on criminal. And of course, the only time he's consistent in the entire article is now when he mentions "the west" at the end of the list. Go back for a second and look at the list of 5 vs 5 for the starters. They aren't even in order in terms of position!! Center-foward-foward-guard-guard. Is that so hard? At least then i could compare the teams and get a general idea as to who is better. I don't know whether vince or mcgrady is considered the guard of the east, but the west goes: Center-Guard-Foward-Guard-Foward. Uh, ok.

Minnesota's Flip Saunders will coach the West, and Rick Carlisle of the Pacers will coach the East.

At some point, i was going to argue for a table, and i guess now's as good a time as any. This entire "article" should have never existed. It's just a glorified representation of info that SHOULD be in table format. You can list the west vs the east with coach at the top, then starters, then reserves. You could list where each player comes from (i.e. Vince Carter - Guard - Toronto Rapters) instead of adding that in a run on sentence. You could also have a column for the vital stats of the players (instead of just throwing in a paragraph that says "hey remember that redd guy? he scores a lot"). Then, after the table, you could write an analysis. Maybe even have a mini column of "allstar snubs" That's when you talk about lebron and anything else your heart desires. This random sentence about the allstar coaches makes absolutely no sense in terms of flow.

James is averaging 20.8 points, 5.9 assists and 5.9 rebounds for the Cleveland Cavaliers, whose surge of six victories in eight games has moved them into contention for a playoff spot in the East.

Ok, i tip my cap. Obviously, this is some kind of practical joke and i'm a FOOL for writing about the flaws of this article. This is too absurd to be real. Nobody would ever just throw in lebron stats at this point. Well played, AP, well played.

James is 13th in the NBA in scoring and 12th in assists, averaging 24.1 points since Cleveland traded Ricky Davis to Boston in mid-December. James, Pierce, Allen and McGrady are the only players averaging at least 20 points, five rebounds and five assists.

Well this paragraph is interesting. Some more lebron stats, but qualified by only measuring the stats after a trade. why do i care? the trade has nothing to do about the allstar game. Did lebron and Davis clash? Was there no "team chemistry" (tm MD#)? Or is it just that lebron has to score more b/c Davis isn't there to carry some of the burden? Who cares, this has nothing to do with anything.

And why are pierce allen and mcgrady's stats mentioned? is it supposed to show that lebron was snubbed? Oh wait, that's what this article is supposed to be about, right?

Coaches had to choose a center, two forwards, two guards and two others regardless of position. They could not vote for their own players.

If you've made it this far in my rant, i'm sure you can figure out my complaints with this paragraph. It's like shooting fish in a barrel at this point.

"I'd be very excited about it, but if it [doesn't] happen it's not the end of the world," James said after the Cavs' morning shootaround in Auburn Hills, Mich.

I get it, someone wrote a good article and then cut it up and threw it on the floor and then just randomly put it back together.

Cleveland coach Paul Silas said he had expected James to make the Eastern team.

"He's put up the kind of numbers that warrants that. We're beginning to win and that's also a major factor," Silas said.

Other players having strong seasons who did not make the All-Stars include: Mike Bibby of Sacramento, Latrell Sprewell of Minnesota, Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton of Detroit, Michael Finley of Dallas and Zach Randolph of Portland.

What a great way to conclude the article. [sarcasm]. I'm disgusted.

a brain test  


here's part of their summary on me:

Your tendency to be organized and logical and attend to details is reasonably well-established which should afford you success regardless of your chosen field of endeavor. You can "size up" situations and take in information rapidly. However, you must then subject that data to being classified and organized which causes you to "lose touch" with the immediacy of the problem.

Your logical and methodical nature hamper you in this regard though in the long run it may work to your advantage since you "learn from experience" and can go through the process more rapidly on subsequent occasions.

"this close" to being a redsox fan...  


just so i could root for schilling (aka gerhig38)

heart of a champion  


It's 3:00 am and in several hours i'll be feasting in what may prove to be the defining moment of the 21st century. Ross' quacamole, Christina's 7 something or other dip, and mrs x famous taco dip. But, around 1:30 am i wasn't feeling too good at all. I chalked it up to the nerves that come with "the big game"....Will i be able to consume enough wings, how many mozz. sticks can i fit in my mouth at one time, and such and such. But by 2:00 AM i knew this was something else. As the pain got worse, I worried that I wouldn't be able to bring my A game. So, i did what i had to do.

It's been a long time since i've had to self induce vomiting. I don't know if my fingers are bigger than they used to be or what, but it wasn't pretty. I felt my throat spasm around my two fingers. When i removed them, only a small splat of puke came out. I was so disapointed. Then, the gates of hell were unleashed. I didn't much care for the reverb (read: splashing) that was hitting my face, but it was a necessary evil. As i was near death, i kind of enjoyed the irony of the smell of puke making me sick again and repuking. The circle, as they say, is complete.

and so it goes.

I'll be ready by gametime.