Hi, my name is *************and while I don’t live in Montclair, I do frequent many of the fine establishments that your town has to offer. I’m writing because last night several friends and I went to dinner at Mexicali Rose. I’m saddened to inform you that this restaurant goes out of its way to swindle their customers. As soon as we sat down, the waiter asked if our group would “like some chips”. I do not think we were naïve in thinking that such a request would be the equivalent of an Italian restaurant putting bread on the table. Thus, needless to say, we were stunned when the bill came and we learned that these three little baskets of chips, with an even small dish of guacamole and salsa, were an outlandish 7 dollars each.

Now, my complaint isn’t just a case of finding something overpriced. It’s the dishonesty of the situation that needs to be addressed. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the waiters are told to phrase the question in such a way so the customer assumes they are complimentary. He didn’t say “would you like to try our home made guacamole as an appetizer?” At least if it was phrased like that, the customer would at least be suspicious about the nature of this question and could inquire as to what the cost was. Instead, “do you want some chips” clearly is meant to confuse and misguide. The question is asked right as you sit down, and not after you get the menu (note: I’m not even sure if they are on the menu, as their “real” nacho appetizer comes with cheese and is around 5 dollars). I refuse to believe that there is a single person in the entire town of Montclair who would knowingly and willing pay 7 dollars for a small basket of plain chips. It’s also worth noting that they brought us three baskets at once without ever asking how many we would like.

This practice is an outrageous scam to basically steal money from their customers.

I’ve asked around, and other people I know have also been the victim of this scam. One person actually had the “nerve” to ask the waiter about the bill, and was eventually told by the manager to never come back to the restaurant. In another situation, a friend innocently asked if he could have some sour cream on the side of his entre, only to later find out that it was an additional $2.50

I, for one, will never go back to the Mexicali Rose. I hope that this letter will protect other hard working people in the Montclair Area from being the victim of this vicious practice.

Sincerely,

**************, esq.

About a month or so, i got dragged to a corporate american lunch at TGI Fridays (is that it's name?). While it pained me to sell out, the free apeitizer coupon that my mom had could not be overlooked. So, when we got there it was pretty empty, but then this gathering of soccer moms starts trickling into the table behind us. This was going to get ugly....

First, the very idea of soccer moms annoys me to no end. The excitement in their eyes made me nauscious. I could only imagine how they all discussed on the phone that it's been too long since they had their last "lunch with the girls".

Overly made up, overly bubbly, and with little kids in tow, these soccer moms exchanged pleasentries (sp, word?) and sat down. I was dreading even the idea that I might overhear some of their conversations. I looked for a sharp object to gouge out my ear drums if they even began talking about politics. There was one topic that i absolutely, under no circumstances, was going to tolerate though. God help them if they bring up desperate housewives.

Well, sure enough, halfway through their lunch (which included the "oh, let's be bad and get the chicken strip apeitizers" {real quote}), they did it. They crossed the line. They didn't just bring up desperate housewives, but actually had the audacity to pose the question as such: "which character on desperate housewives do you think you are most like?"

I woke up 2 hours later in a state of confusion thankful that my body shut down and protected itself by blacking out.

Every day that passes is one day closer to opening day. While this has gotten me excited, I had a moment of clarity just now thinking that Bernie Williams is going to be our opening day centerfielder. [shudder]

The yankees will most likely win around 95 games, and that should be good enough to make the playoffs, but is it really that hard to envision a collapse? How can the organization with the most resources (double or triple some teams), not have a smart person running the ship? I don't think all blame can be tossed George's way. As big of an egomaniac as he is, I don't think he's dumb enough to not be able to see the light if someone had the conviction to actually stand up to him. This team is a trainwreck, and ther was absolutely no reason for it.

This collapse is going to be swift and severe. My only hope is that they plan on moving Jeter to CF next year. With some money coming off the books, and Mel retiring, it might be possible to delay the inevitable for awhile.

Now that I've figured out how to add pictures, I might really start to take this thing seriously. I should just walk around with my camera and capture all the stupid stuff that goes with my pointless stories.

test

i was skimming through my posts b/c i'm debating opening this blog to the public (as of now, i think only 3 people read it and since none of said 3 ever post comments, i'm starting to think it's a big waste of time), but was worried that i may be offending some people with my rants. I noticed that my first rant on gilmore girls doesn't have the link that i tried posting. the "almost what i was looking for" was referring to a link by a writer who was complaining about the style of "talk fast to sound smart". it was a decent article, but not as angry as i wanted it to be. I'm not going to go back and find the link, but if there was any confusion over the title of that post, that's why.

that is all.

This post is really three seperate rants/issues all converging into one general theory. I don't really know how I'm going to go about organizing my thoughts. Hopefully, in a future form of blogging, we'll be able to incorporate the Matrix way of learning and just be able to instantly absorb all information. Because, really, these thoughts don't lend themselves to a nice and neat A-to-B-to-C way of thinking.

Starting from (what i believe to be) the top, I think human existence is dominated by a feeling of insignicance. The fear of mortality, of being alone, of not mattering all creates an overwhelming feeling of insecurity. Insecurity may be the only real feeling that one can possess. It might be the driving force in all of human action. The only difference is how each individual deals with their insecurity. The defense mechanisms that one develops, the vices that control them, and so on and so forth.

Now, from what I understand about Carl Jung's theory on the counter-ego / shadow generally only comes from the lyrics of a song. Granted, it's the greatest song of all time and people's interpretation of the song has litterally changed my life, but still, take everything I'm about to say with a huge grain of salt. Perhaps some day i'll have the time to read more about Jung's theory, but today is not that day. But, that being said, I think that his counter-ego only addresses the negative things about one's pysche. The negative stuff that we have to hide from our conscious to protect ourselves. Thus, the idea that people are self-destructive in an attempt to deal with their own securities is a pretty unoriginal theory. The girl who dates a lot of guys in order to make herself feel pretty, the person who intentionally treats people poorly b/c he fears being rejected, it's all textbook and cliched.

What I want to examine is whether any of the non-self-destructive (read: good) things about our daily lives are also a defense-mechanism to deal with our own insecurities. Thus, the ulimate question is posed as this: Is there anything "real" in human nature other than our counter-ego? Does anything cast Jung's shadow, or is the shadow the end all, be all, of all existence? Is it impossible to find meaning in anything?

Ok, so technically it's not an "ultimate" question b/c there are many subparts.

The seinfeld episode where the old lady, with the pony, dies was on yesterday. The gang (ugh, i hate referring to Kramer, George, Elaine, and Jerry as the gang, but i was too lazy to type out their names) was at the coffee shop, doing what everyone does when faced with death. "are we wasting our lives, what should we be doing, etc etc." Elaine asks if having coffee is wasting life. "can't people have coffee?" And of course, as was Larry and Jerry's intention, this scene got me to thinking along the Nietshce way of thinking.

If you start with the assumption that nothing really has meaning other than as a defense mechanism, then it's easier to explain why humans spend so much time focused on the insignificant. For example, I spend an extrodiary amount of time focused on Baseball. I derive great pleasure from it, and it's more of an obsession than a hobby. But, rationally speaking, i know it's insignificant. I was "destroyed" when the yankees lost to the redsox, but obviously i'm logical enough to know that it really had absolutely zero impact on my life or the world around me.

And i'm also rational enough to understand why i care so much about baseball. B/c in the end, i know it's just a diversion that i use to get away from the real problems of society. Being liberal is a very tasking existence. I know most of you will think that i go overboard w/ the emails, rants, etc etc but trust me when i say that how much I care vs. how much i SHOULD care are two hugely different quantities. Of course I get riled up when I learn of more injustices that plague us daily and how this country (and world) is in a downward spiral. but boy, aint that Jeter overated defensively?

And while it's easy to realize that my passion for sports isn't "real", the next question is whether any hobby/passion/interest that anyone feels is equally unreal. Is wanting to get married, have 2.4 kids, and the white fence real? Or is what people trick themselves into thinking what's important to them. How many people marry b/c they've really found their soul mate compared to how many people get married b/c their in their 20's and it's the thing to do? I forget the numbers, but it's something like 60% of married men and 40% of married women cheat. So, if i'm understanding things correctly, people view marriage as the institution that completes their existence and gives their life meaning, and then use infidelity as the way to fill the void that their empty marriage leaves.

Take any interest that you think is geniune, whether it's in music, someone else, having kids, sports, friends, knowledge, etc etc and ask if it's "really" important. There are extreme examples of course (someone with a huge stamp collection, someone with 20 cats, whatever), but our our interests any less absurd? So you like to listen to great music, and go to shows in the city where you discover original music? Does that really matter? And why does it matter? b/c during those 3 hours you are at the show you are happy? Is that really happiness or just the absence of misery?

I guess what i'm asking is, in order for happiness to be geniune, does it have to be based on something that is real (read: significant). B/c, in the long run, i don't find any real significance in anything. So, if it comes down to a "but it makes me happy" argument, isn't that the definition of superfical and insignifcant? And even if the thing that makes you happy is more _____ (can't think of the word. not 'complex'....hmm, maybe 'meaty') like raising a family, or being an activist, i'm still hestitant to make the next connection that it's important.

I'm starting to really believe in the cliche that there's no such thing as a selfless act. I think that some people are better at distorting their own selfishness. The person who spends so much time caring about something "noble" is still, when push comes to shove, spending their time and energy focused on something. And, getting back to my original theory, i think focusing on something, ANYTHING, is just a defense mechanism so one doesn't focus on their own insignifcance. B/c, and maybe this is just my own ego out of control, i really think that that's the ONLY thing that people really care about.

But what do i know?

i have a long post forthcoming, but i was preparing a salad before i got started. i just cracked open a new bag of cheddar cheese croutons.

they are like cheese curls.

let the good times roll.

Remember that song? You probably don't. but there was an argument several years ago over what was a better song, "it takes two" or "peaches 'n Cream". The logical argument was that the fact that It takes two is still relevant, over a decade later, means that it has legs while PnC would probably fade out (the argument took place during that two week period where PnC was 'hot').

Well, years later, I'm listening to a internet radio station, and that song pops up. It was the first time I had heard it since that argument. While I didn't change to a different station, I didn't exactly jump for joy either.

So, that being said, I think we win.

Perhaps I'm not allowed to speak on this issue b/c i don't drive (just like i'm not allowed to think that randomly following a highway on the side streets is a bad idea), but I absolutely loathe the fact that people think they can reserve their street spots just b/c they shoveled their cars out. Remember the big blizzard from a few years ago? The spot in front of my house that was, at the time, occupied by PJ's car was the ONLY spot in the entire neighborhood that was "open to the public" after we dug it out. Litterally, and i use the word litterally litterally, every other spot had a chair in the middle of it during the day.

Why? Why do people think they are entitled to PUBLIC PROPERTY just b/c they happened to clear the spot out. Now, if they had shoveled out of the goodness of their heart, then i could ALMOST see how they think they should have first dibs on it, but, there is no goodness in the hearts of Newark'ers. These people dug their own cars out of necessity. They were FORCED to dig them out, b/c otherwise, they, uh, wouldn't be able to get their cars out (duh).

So, for anyone who thinks they can lay claim to a spot for all eternity just b/c it happened to be the location of their car when a storm hit, you are wrong. I can't believe they can go to work all day and honestly think that at 1 pm, it would be "wrong" for someone to come park in that spot.

And let's not forget the fact that when they dug their cars out, they piled the snow either right behind, or right in front, of "their" spot, thus making it impossible for cars to park their either.

that's a bold statement, considering the unrealistic things we are forced to believe in order for sitcoms to "make sense", but this was just that far out there.

I'm talking about last week's episode of gilmore girls*

*(and yes, i've now started watching that show ONLY b/c it gets me so angry).

So, i've already ranted on the "dang jethro, they must be smart b/c they talk so fast" nature of the dialogue. But, beyond that absurdity, last week's episode involved the daughter (who i guess is now in college and writing for some paper or something) going to this underground club thing that other Harvard (i think that's the school) socialites attend.

Now, you may be wondering why i find college people going to an underground club so unrealistic. Well, it's not a club in the city where people rave and do drugs....Oh no, this took place in the woods, while people were wearing white tuxedos and those fancy dresses from the 30's. And they were carrying those umbrellas for the sun that people would hold in paintings (remember that famous picture called "middle class" or something). Is this stuff making sense yet?

Then what about the group of 5 or 6 guys who refused to speak a word that happened to contain the letter "E". There was a brief gag in the simpsons where Burns (and Bart, who was training to be his heir) would make the workers do this or else get fired. Lenny's "I am a good work....guy" was about 100x more realistic then these guys rapid firing long paragraphs of "fast = smart" conversation. So help me if even one soccer-mom saw this scene and was "impressed" by it. I will kill each and every one of them, plain and simple.

So, this club's annual _______ (not sure what they were calling it), consisted of random things like human target practice (the guy with the paint ball gun would say 'pull' and a kid would jump off a trampoline to get shot). There was of course the mandatory guy running around in a tuxedo AND gorrilla mask to add to "oh man, now i've seen everything" mentality of the show.

I just want to know how these kids got all this food and tents, etc into the middle of the woods. i didn't see a car in sight.

Oh, and the event ended with 6 people jumping off a 4 story high tower (made by these kids mind you) with an elaberate pully (sp) system. They all were holding umbrellas and it was meant to look like they were floating. They laughed, the viewers laughed, and i died a little inside.

This show is really really bad.

Picture this: a receiver is in the process of making a 40+ yard reception, and at about the 2 yard line, looks like he might come up just short of the touchdown. He then stretches out to just get over the pile-on. He fumbles the ball, it trickles into the endzone, touchback for the other team.

What is going on here? first and goal from the 1 has to result in a touchdown in probably 90% of the cases (i'm not looking up the numbers). Why risk such a costly turnover? Is it just to get the TD for your fantasy owners? It makes no sense, but EVERY receiver seems to do it. It's selfish and counter productive. No wonder it's CW.

let's see if this works.

nope, too much effort, so just go here

oh, i don't even have the link anymore. forget it.

it's not just the extra invites, that bother me, but the delay in rsvp'ing. how can people just wait and wait to rsvp. do the supplies buy themselves? are they waiting for a better option to present itself? it's shocking.

Does anyone really believe that starting a sentence with "no offense" absolves someone from the risk of offending? What the person is really saying is "i know i'm going to offend you, but i just don't care."

That's a poor lead in to this rant, but i really don't know how to express my anger and displeasure with the recent turn of events regarding the now-cancelled championship game party. Year after year i've expressed my desire to keep the numbers to a minimum. I have a 27 inch tv one ghetto couch from the 70's and a handful of other random chairs. I also have an interest in actually watching the games....that's why i don't throw superbowl parties.

Short of "you are not allowed to bring anyone", i don't know what else i could say to express my desire. But I guess my feelings don't count even though it's my apartment, my effort, and oh yeah, my money that's supporting this party. I guess it's not enough, as guests feel compelled to invite others just to make sure their enjoyment of day is improved. I suppose i should be thankful that they are gracing me with their presence and allowing me to feed them.

This isn't the first instance of selfish behavior that sickens me, nor will it be the last. But the thing that really heightens my anger is the fact that these people pretend to actually respect my wishes. "i understand that you are worried about keeping the numbers down, but is it ok if....."

well, if you understand that i don't want more people, then why are you asking to bring more people? you KNOW i'm not going to say "no, you can't bring this person". so, just come out and say it..."i'm not going to respect your wishes." That's what it comes down to.

You want a big party where everyone is hanging out and the game is just a pretense? fine, host the party yourself. That's not what i wanted. I wanted to have fun while watching the game. And you all ruined that. Being ungrateful disgusts me.

Let me get this straight: In order to make it in my profession, you need to work at a firm during the summers. You do this for no money. You do the grunt work that the "real" lawyers don't want to do. This isn't optional; if you don't do it, then you'll be way behind when you come out of lawschool. These firms rely on this cheap (read: free) labor, and probably couldn't exist w/o it. Now, how is this different than slavery?

Yes, we trick ourselves into thinking that the interns are gaining valuable experience and thus it's a give take relationship. However, i seriously doubt that experience and money are mutually exclusive entitites.

How did we get to this point? how did they trick us into this system of slavery? why are we trapped into working for no money when the fat cats get fatter?

What a shame.

primer may not be as brainy as bp, but i still think it's better. Reading dozens of real baseball fans discuss issues in an evolving way (though posting) is very rewarding. and their combination of genius and humor is by far unmatched.

when there is an article, they usually quote a blurb, and then have a little intro by the poster who found the article. here's today's gem

So far, the Carlos Beltran negotiations are only business for George Steinbrenner. And unless it gets personal, the Yankees will not compete with the Mets for a player who would fit their long-term needs as well as any free agent that has hit the market in recent years.

Levine: You’re taking this very personal. Brian, this is business and this man is taking it very very personal.

Steinbrenner: Where does it say you have to sign Beltran?

Cashman: Come on, Georgie…

Steinbrenner: Brian, wait a minute. I’m talking about a player that’s represented by Scott Boras. I’m talking about a greedy player that hooked up with a slimy agent and demanded too much money. That’s a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don’t we Brian? And they might like a story like that.

Cashman: They might. They just might.

Steinbrenner: It’s not personal, Randy. It’s strictly business

i want someone to really explain to me why a show like gilmore girls talks so fast and why people equate that to being a "smart" show. They say NOTHING quickly. does that make it witty? I flipped by it while Amazing Race was on commercial, and in the two minutes, i got so re-angry at it. The bantering back and forth was so forced and unrealistic. But i bet the writers patted themselves on their collective backs.

I've already commented on how much i love Carlos Delgado for sticking up for what he believes in and not standing for god bless america. That's why it pains me to read that Delagdo, though his agent, has told the O's (and other suitors), that, if asked by the team, he would stand for the song. I can't decide how much this bothers me. One one hand, at least i know he's politically aware and has beliefs that are unselfish. On the other hand, he's really selling out on those beliefs, litterally. As in, "I want a bigger contract, so i have to conform".

Should I hate delgaldo now? Or just chalk it up to yet another example of how having a minority view is not allowed in this country? I'm torn.

And since when do the Baltimore Orioles represent american ideals? From shouting "o's" at the end of the national athem, to trying to block the move of the expos b/c they don't want competition, the o's seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Oh, and reading the primates thread on this issue, i was SHOCKED to see yet another great example of why it's "noble" to refuse to salute the song. I can't believe i missed "seperation of chruch and state". I'll have to make sure to add that to the laundry list.

"worrying about your kids is sanity. and sometimes being that sane can make you nuts."

mind you, this is the quote that they think will suck people in to see their movie. Everytime i hear it, i get angry.

I was fiddling around with Firefox and found some pretty sweet extensions (plug ins). One of them is called mouse gestures. Basically, you can assign whatever you want to a "gesture" of your mouse. For example, while in firefox, you can have it where a right click plus moving to the left means "back".

we've gotten to the point where the old way to use a mouse is too much work. Fan-Tastic

1) The article that set me off:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=katcher/sports_seinfeld

[note, it used to say "no bread for you". After my email, he must have changed it to the correct "no soup for you"]

2) my email: wow, you butchered the most overused and cliched seinfeld line of all time!

Way to exploit the current renewed interest in

Seinfeld (b/c of the dvds) for your own personal gain.

While this article has nothing to do with sports, at

least you'll get a lot of hits riding on their

coattails.



Next time, though, you may want to take your head out

of your ass and get the quote right.  Seriously, even

the biggest mark knows it's "No soup for you".  I

believe even my retarded 4 year old nephew can walk

around and say that.



Page 3 is a joke, and you are at the forefront

throwing around screwed up punchlines.  Your mom must

be proud.



Happy Thanksgiving,



Dennis



http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheSoupNazi.htm



3) His Response:



Congratulations! You, the anonymous Dennis J., known around the world

as

"krofatigue," as are officially the winner of the Rudest E-mail Ever.

(And,

trust me, you beat some stiff competition over the years.)



The reason? It's Thanksgiving, dude. I missed a word. How bad is your

life

that things like this inspire such a reaction from you?



My mom must be proud, you say. She is. She raised a son who doesn't

send out

insulting e-mails on Thankgiving because someone made an honest mistake

--

botching one word out of 3,500. Can't speak for all moms on that,

though,

huh?



Paul



P.S. C'mon, you're not old enough to have a 4-year-old nephew, are you?

I'm guessing you've got the day off from high school today.



4) My retort

Paul,

You dismissed my earlier email as a juvenile and unjustified attack of your work; being overly critical of one incorrect word in 35,000. I suppose such a dismissal isn’t to be unexpected as I wasn’t going to go into the depths of why your article is worthy of such ire. However, now that I know you actually read your emails, let me explain:

First, a general assessment of espn.com and page 3.

I think it’s a great danger to view things such as your article in isolation. To do so would be to allow virtually anything to seep into society as anything can be justified as “hey, it’s not the end of the world.” However, your article is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with espn.com and page 3 (and, to a larger extent, society).

The ONLY motivating factor in society is money. Corporations exist only to generate money. There is no appreciation of the arts, general interest in benefiting society, or even an attempt to put out a quality product. ESPN is clearly the most “important” sports website because it’s the most popular. However, its content is two notches below mediocre. My appreciation of sports has not been increased in the slightest by espn.com. I can’t even stomach sportscenter. In fact, in an informal poll of “real” sports fans, I have been unable to find a SINGLE PERSON who watches sportscenter on any consistent basis.

Any freshmen who has taken an intro to microeconomics course would argue that if espn isn’t satisfying the demand for sports fans, then another company will step up. However, that is not the case. The hardcore sports fans, of which I am one, will ALWAYS be there. We’ll grumble and complain, but in the end, our love of sports will force us to keep coming back for more. Thus, unfortunately, ESPN is doing the “business appropriate” thing by catering to the casual fair-weather fans. Ratings and revenue are generated by drawing in as many people as possible. Thus, all genres are plagued by the desire of the corporations to suck in the casual fans. Sportscenter has less to do with sports now and more in common with MTV (which doesn’t even play music anymore!).

I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been “tricked” into clicking on an article at espn.com only to be bait-and-switched. I can honestly say that I’ve learned absolutely nothing about sports from either the website or the channel. Have you tried watching the NBA show (I forget the name, something about Fastbreak) with Steven A. Smith. It’s a disgrace to sports.

Page 3 is by far the most shockingly blatant example of such exploitation of the “art” of sports. If espn.com is insulting to real sports fans, at least Page 3 is upfront with their “screw you, we don’t care what you want” promotion of the “entertainment” side of it.

Page 3 exists SOLELY to keep people “stuck” on espn.com as long as possible. It’s all about generating revenue and getting those big bucks from advertisers. It both exploits average people and is insulting to real sports fans who wish to enjoy their hobby and become more intelligent on the subject.

Now, an assessment of your article in particular.

Your article was one of the “most sent stories” for several days. I resisted as long as I could, but in the end, my enjoyment of Seinfeld forced me to click on the link. As soon as I saw “no bread for you”, I realized that my initial reservations were correct. Your “article” (and I use that term loosely) isn’t so much a “writing” as it is a trick to sell advertisements.

Was there an original thought in your article? If so, please point me towards it. All I saw was you riding the coattails of the success of Seinfeld. Here is how your thought process must have went: “hmm, people like Seinfeld. If I write about Seinfeld, people will click on my article.” Well, if your mom is in fact proud of such “work”, then I’m happy both for her and you. But, I refuse to believe that she or you can objectively say that what you do is noble or even something to be proud of. You are a corporate sellout, pure and simple. It requires no intelligence or skill to do what you do. No original thought at all.

I’m sure you consider yourself a “writer”. You are not (well, at least not based on this one article. Perhaps you do real work on the side or something). You collect words and ideas from other people and create money for big business. You are one step above writing out hallmark cards.

I doubt you went to college with the aspirations of writing such mediocre work. Reread your article about Seinfeld and sincerely ask yourself if you are “proud” of it. In your defense of your mistake, you didn’t say “one wrong word in an otherwise intelligent article.” Instead, you pointed to the volume of the article, 35,000 words. Is that how you define your work? By quantity over quality? If so, that’s a shame. And, in addition to its mediocrity and pointlessness, you should also be ashamed of the fact that you exploited someone else’s work. You had nothing to do with Seinfeld, and yet you felt completely comfortable with exploiting it for your own profit. If you had written a review of the show, or somehow had an original thought, then it would have been ok to reference it. However, simply collecting the funny moments under the guise of being sports related and slapping together a nice little bullet point list is NOT original. It’s not even writing.

And seriously, “no bread for you” is more than just a one word mistake. Not all words are created equally in a real writing (that has originality and thought). It’s practically the title of your article, and you butchered it. Yikes.

Ok, I look forward to your defense of your article and/or profession (should you take the time out to actually respond). I’m curious as to how you can justify your work. Perhaps there is something I am missing. And, as for anonymity, my name is Dennis J*********, and I’m far from a High school student.

Have a great day,

Dennis

"I loved playing football, but the reasons I loved football were just to feed my ego," Williams said. "And any time you feed your ego, it's a one-way street."

What an intelligent thing to say. Unfortunately, it's completly lost on the sports world. That quote gets drowned out by the macho "he let us down", "he's a pot head who is a quitter", "what a flake", etc etc.

This guy is better than you (sports fans). He's above you, and football is beneath him. You need sports to fill a void in your life, but he doesn't.

If i quit my job to do something else, am i "letting everyone down"? Should i choose to come back, i don't see why i would need to "apologize to everyone". Uh, it's my life, i'll come and go as i please. and don't give me a "he left right before training camp". He was talking about leaving for a LONG time and people, selfish people who want to exploit his life for their own perosnal gain, kept trying to convince him to stay.

I wish there was a way to root for Ricky Williams on something other than the football field. I respect him as a human being.

I just got out of bed to write a rant, that's how much that opening line got to me. The amazing race is all about internal conflict among the teams of two, probably to the point of overkill. It may be a little too early to tell, but i'm thinking this show has jumped the shark. Having one heel team yell at each other the whole show is entertaining, having ALL the teams do it is boring.

But anyway, one of the nagging women actually told the guy (i think their team is called "formerly dating") to take off his glasses before a cannoing (sp) competiton so he can see better. Step back and think about that one for a second. She's so presumptuous (sp again) to think that she's in a better position to judge his vision than himself (grammar?) Has anyone had that done to them? I get it all the time and it's the textbook definition of "mind boggling".

You need a coat, it's cold = I'm cold therefore you must be cold.
You need two heaters in your apartment, not one = It was cold when i came into your apartment today. Even though i've never been in your apartment at night when the space heater is running, i'm going to just assume you need two.

oh i wish i could think of the dozens and dozens of examples that I've had to endure. It would make this post more coherent. Needless to say, the line "take off your sunglasses" will forever be embedded in my head now. For a moment, i felt that guy's pain. I knew exactly how he felt. She thought so little of him that she couldn't even trust him to judge his own eyesight!

http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos2/

i don't think for one second that artest's actions could be considered "self defense" from a legal standpoint. in theory, he probably broke the law. But i still don't think he should be prosecuted. (and yes, this will open a whole new can of worms since i tend to argue for full enforement of the law)

I must have watched the replays of the pacers/pistons fight a dozen times at the bar last night (on mute). While I strongly believe the Pacers were in the "right" as much as anyone can be who's involved in a fight, i was expecting the media reaction to be "there goes artest again". Well, much to my relief, the espn crew (i don't know their trademarked name, but the one with steve s. smith), were all in agreement....the fans were the ones out of line.

I'm not sure what the proper reaction is to having a beer/cup/bottle thrown in your face. I don't think i would react by punching the person, but i do know that i'm on the far end of the spectrum. I would expect that the vast majority of people, if that was done on the street, would react the same way Artest did.

The only question, then, becomes whether as a professional athlete, his actions must be judged at a higher standard. I don't think that they do. There's a line when it comes to fans vs. players. As an avid heckler, I DO think it's apart of the game. I know announcers discredit this theory, but i DO think that buying a ticket entitles me to certain liberties at the expense of the players. If all i cared about was watching the game, i could do that at home (for free). When you are in the arena/stadium, you are apart of the game. There's a level of interaction and participation there that warrants some level of heckling.

But here is where the line is drawn: No swearing, no personal references (there are exception to that limitation), and CLEARLY nothing physical.

These athletes are huge celebrities. In what other area of entertainment can you get that close to a celebrity? They allow themselves to be vulnerable to thousands of fanatic, sometimes drunken, fans. At any moment, they can be attacked. And somehow, we ask them to forget about all that and entertain us for 3 hours a night.

If and when a fan crosses a line, the player has the absolute right to defend themselves. And not just on the immediate/direct level. If artest doesn't defend himself against that one detroit fan, perhaps other fans in other arenas will take that as a cue to push the envelope even more.

Security should have done a better job to stop the situation immediately. Artest lacked faith in the security and took it upon himself. Of course there were numerous consequences of going into the stands that Artest didn't account for. And yes, he probably made the situation worse in the immediate (can i end that part of the sentence w/ that word? i can't think of what should follow immediate), but I still don't blame him.

He did what he believed what was right, he did what many others in his situation would do, and most importantly, i think that his actions will have a long term benefit on his, and his peers, safety.

Oh, and detroit is off the list of possible places for our new capital. They deserve their reputation.

- I also didn't like the piston's CEO sayign it all started b/c artest was laying on the table and thus didn't keep the table as a barrior between him in the fans. Like a bottle wouldn't be able to cross that imaginary line.

- I'm officially a pacers fan after this. I can't believe i rooted for the pistons last year.

When an actor is promoting a movie, they'll do something called a junket (i think that's the name, but i could be wrong). Basically, he sits in a chair and gets mini interviews with TONS of local stations all in rapid fire sucession. They all ask the same generic, boring questions, but it's "unique" b/c local reporter johnny lunchpail is asking them.

I would lose my mind within 15 minutes.

I'm dealing with something similar now that i'm "estranged" from my lawschool friends. Instead of seeing these people on a daily basis, it's now much less frequent. In fact, there were some people on saturday that i haven't seen since the bar. Every conversation went like this:

A) what have you been up to for the past two months? How is your job?
B) my job is _____. I do this ______. how about you?
A) my job is also ______. I've been up to _____.
B) [turns to c] So, what have you been up to?

rinse and repeat.

I can't take it. You want to know what i'm up to? try staying in touch with me. My job isn't my life. I'm not going to give 4 recaps a year of my life and still hold onto the pretense that we are still friends. Let it go, it's over.

What a hero. He gave up EVERYTHING to defend freedom. He gave up his life for what he believed in. Now, i seriously doubt he spent the time necessary in researching an issue to make sure it was worthy of such a sacrafice, but that doesn't matter. Oh no, with reckless abandon, he grabbed the nearest gun and said "point me in the right direction, sarge."

And of course, the complexity surrounding the issue warrants deep reflection and analysis. All of which can now be captured in a RED BRACELET. Wow, what am i supposed to do with my yellow one now? My mind hurts.

Lastly, i know there were a bunch of other people that gave up their lives for what THEY believed in...but i just can't put my finger on it. Tip of my tongue....something about flying planes....were they heroes?

this space heater i have is very strong. But, it's about a foot high. If it was pointed up at an angle, the warmth would at least be directed towards me. As it is now, i'm burning my ankles trying to get close to the heat.

I'm sure these people were thinking "well, heat rises, so it doesn't matter", but clearly this heater is small enough where it can only be effective if it's directly on you. I don't understand why it's not pointed up. Was it designed for midgets?

I've always been anti-english muffin. I've recently come to the realization that my disdain for them is based entirely on my love affair of bagels. Bagels are the greatest food on earth, and if i could have a bagel a day for the rest of my life, i'd die a happy person. But they are an endangered species now, as the bagel place by my grandmother went out business and i haven't found a suitable replacement. So, in an attempt to fill the void, i try to get into english muffins.

Comparing an english muffin to a bagel is unfair. However, they aren't half bad. Compare them to the lowly piece of toast or even a dry roll, and they are almost "good".

of course, making pizza-english muffins when they raisins in them probably wasn't the best idea in the world.

I wanted to watch a dvd, but couldn't decide which one. Then i thought "every week, i wind up watching a movie on tv that i own on dvd. It's not as good on tv with the commericals and editing, but i do it anyway just b/c i get sucked in." So, i thought i'd let TNT (or whatever channel i watch movies on), pick the movie for me. Just my luck, they were playing donnie brasco.

Then i got sucked into it (halfway through), and never bothered to put the dvd in.

god i'm lazy.

Why wont the yellow bracelets go away? I can see through people.

The bracelet is the unique status symbol that is intentionally cheap. It's a "look at me, i'm going to wear something cheap b/c i care about the issue." The average person would not feel comfortable wearing this with a real outfit (uh, lawyers at work) if they hadn't first seen celebrites do it. Come on, a yellow bracelet 24/7? Why?

And don't for one second tell me you care about cancer. Do something about it like Race for the cure. Those things actually contribute to fighting the problem. Donating a dollar does not. And, if the bracelet wasn't involved, would you even have donated that dollar? Nope.

The only good thing about the bracelet is that i can immediately spot the marks. It's like they are tagged as conformists. They'll continue to wear these bracelets for a few months and then move onto the next tickle me elmo, beanie baby or other fad.

I don't really have anything to add regarding the yellow magnets currently on cars that "support the troops". It's the same type of thinking, but obviously more dangerous.

to make the connection as to why i'm posting this article. Don't let me down.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/247430p-211917c.html

I wish i could go back in time and watch this movie w/o knowing that so much of the editing led to half-truths and misperceptions. Unfortunately i can't, and thus will never know if my disgust is genuine or the result of being predisposed. That being said, i didn't like the movie.

I can tell Michael Moore feels strongly about the issue. However, i can't tell what the issue is, or, more to the point, what his opinion is. I've got this much down so far: guns are bad, m'kay? Connecting the dots between how, why and what are a bit more complicated.

Facts: The United States has a lot of guns. The United States has a SHOCKINGLY high rate of homicides by gun compared to their peers.

That's about it. Oh, and sometimes crazy people have guns and/or innocent people accidently die by guns.

Moore does an absolutely poor job at making his point. His arguments contradict themselves. He spends a good portion of the movie complaining that America has too many guns and it's too easy to get access to them. He buys a gun at a bank and bullets at Kmart. Ok, that's all well and good, if your argument is that guns = deaths by gun.

Except that's not the case. Later in the movie (well actually sandwiched in the middle of the movie), he argues that the United States has a different culture....one that leads to gun homicide. Proof: Canada has 7 million guns among it's 10 million families, yet nobody (or practically nobody) is murdered by gun violence in Canada.

I don't understand how Moore doesn't realize that his Canadian example actually HURTS and contradicts his "too many guns in america" theory. You can't have it both ways. I suppose you could start out with the theory that we have a different mentality and then say that the extra guns don't help. But Moore didn't do that. He made it out like the supply of guns themselves was the problem and that if we limit the guns, we limit the problem.

He also did liberals every a great diservice by pointing to a few pyschos and generalizing that thats' why no american could have guns. 1) This group uses guns. 2) Tim McVeigh was in that group 3) that group having guns is bad. Sorry, that doesn't fly. I'm not going to take the blame for someone else abusing their freedom. I don't know what Moore's views are on the war on drugs, but i bet dollars to donuts (what does that mean anyway?) that he's for decriminalization.
Speaking of the "group", he spent a lot of time showing the milita's in Montana. While I'll grant him the fact that there is probably something "wrong" with their personalities that they live in such fear and feel the need to devote their time to such "preperation", i don't think that they are as danerous as he makes out in the movie. Is it that inconceivable that a group would want to prepare themselves just in case their government fails them? If Moore could have his way, all these Americans wouldn't have guns. But the government still would.

Would moore feel safe in a world where there could be no resistence to the government? I wouldn't. When the sequel to the civil war goes down, i want to make sure we are fully armed.

And finally, what really got me riled up was his accusation that Heston was insensitive to the vicitms of gun violence by going into those towns* (note: i think this was the stuff that was compeltely taken out of context by moore, but don't quote me on that). Heston believes in a cause and as such it's important to protect his cause. Towns that suffer shocking violence (columbine, the 6 year old's death, etc) might be more willing to infringe on Heston's cause. To pass gun control laws, and such and such. That's why it's important for Heston to go to those towns.

And more importantly, isn't it insensitive for Moore to use the victims specifically to get his point across? Do you think moore REALLY cares about the dead 6 year old? No, she's a means to an end. a means to an agenda. When he shows Heston the picture of her (and leaves it on his door step) he's USING the girl. Granted, his message and cause might be more inline with the victim's mother's, but it's still exploitation. Why doesn't Moore show the same restraint that he requests of Heston?

There's more, but i'm tired. Now i remember why i gave up blogging.

"joey" is bad. really bad. and it boggles my mind that netcop enjoys it. I'm convinced that he is an idiot savant and his one field of expertise is wrestling. All this other tastes are way off.

He loved friends. And not just the good seasons, but all seasons. He throught that Joey and Phoebe were becoming "more developed" as the seasons went on. He's not offended at all by how dumb and one dimensional they became.

I watched the 2nd episode of joey out of morbid curiosity. It was everything i expected, and less. First, as a general aside, everytime i've "had it" with reality shows, I'm reminded just how BAD sitcoms are. I can feel the punchlines coming, and they make me cringe.

The absolute worst joke on the 2nd episode was when we were russo-swerved to learn that joey's friend/neighbor is also the super, and was the one leaving the annoying notes. Now, i figured this out from the very beginning (and i'm by no means patting myself on the back for that one. it was just so obviously the "sitcom-haha-didn't see that" trainwreck that you have to expect). So, generally it's just annoying to watch a dumb character go through all the motions of "discovering" this not so subtle turn of events. And how do you think they solved the mystery of the note writer? Of course, she happened to write down all the hamburger places that she likes for joey. And yes, the handwriting matched.

Now, here's where things got UGLY. Just in case anyone forgot that Joey is the dumbest person on earth, they had to drive the point home just a little bit further. "I got it. That means that the super and jenn {or whatever her name is} must have had the same hand-writing instructor."

I actually got the vodka shudder/twinge after that joke. I felt dirty, but was too lazy to jump in the shower so i continued to watch. I was trying oh so desperately to forget that horrid joke, but, it became a reoccuring joke for the rest of the episode!!! I can't even fathom who thought that would be funny.

Then, i went to netcops page and he liked the joke!

Forget it, i can't go on. Joey is just as bad as friends. This type of "funny" is so disgustingly degrading b/c it's forcing the audience to remove all sense of reality. No human being on earth (or even those quasi-human beings that wander the streets w/o a home or are locked up in the looney bin) would EVER come to the conclusion that two idential handwritings would be the result of a very good handwriting teacher.

They should just go for it all, and give Joey superhero powers.

now that we all have gmail, what would be the point of posting rants here? especially when NOBODY adds comments to the posts?

Not sure if you are aware of this, but pj and I are fantasy baseball experts. In fact, i'd go so far as to say we are real baseball experts. And it burns us that Steve just doesn't except our word as gospel. He'd rather quote random guys who work for espn.com even though they have no idea as to what they are talking about. From a guy who is so distrustful of the regular media, we are perplexed why he continues to rely on them for sports.

Regardless, during an espn.com chat, pj and i were posting questions for our own amusement. We might be the only two people in the world to find these funny, and maybe it's a bit weird that we'd use such a huge nationwide forumn for our inside jokes, but we try and post the most markish sports comments from "Steve (Newark)".

I got one in that said something like "why dont you just admit that Brad Wilkerson sucks and you have no idea what you are talking about". The guy disagreed with that statement and went on and on about how grade wilkerson is and how hot he's been (btw, he's one of the two guys that my vodoo worked on).

Now, usually i get a big kick out of getting a question posted. But, this took on a whole new level when i learned that steve read the chat a few days later, saw the guy's answer and FINALLY decided to pick the up guy in his league. he didn't even notice that HE was the one who asked the question!

I'm not sure why i'm taking such pleasure in this, b/c honestly, i am slightly offended that he doesn't respect our opinions enough to admit that we know more than these prorfessionals. The chances of steve reading this chat were so small to begin with. Then, to actually see the question i posted as a joke and take it as seriously is even slimmer. THEN, to not notice it was us writing it. Oh man, it makes all the hours i've wasted posting questions in chats worth it.

so, the united states men's basketball team, the "dream team" if you will, is shooting poorly from behind the arc. How poorly? well, there is only one team shooting at a worse percentage....the russian women!! Uh, that's pretty bad.

oh, and why is the nfl now going to be even stricter in terms of not allowing defensive backs to touch the wide receivers? Did they even watch the games last year? If anything, you should allow MORE contact. I'm sick of teams just tossing the ball up there and hoping to draw a flag. Yes, scoring will be up, but at what cost? It's boring and it's impossible to play defense.

blech.

and i was awaken b/c the movie on tbs was that bad that it was destroying my sub conscious. I think it's called air speed or something. a girl is in an airplane by herself and soemoen on the ground has to talk her down. this is the cheapest set i've ever seen. on the ground, they actually have the walls blacked out so they didn't have to pay for a set. I can't describe it. The guy is sitting next to what looks to be a commodore 128 and it's all black around him.

the itialian looking dude (the bad guy in godfather 3, the father in "the last don) is in this movie. what's he doing in something this bad?

It's been so long since I wrote about that bar that i can't recapture my anger. Just accept the fact that it was a corny bar that did not deserve the love that it got from part of the group. But, my main problem was that even IF it was the greatest bar in the world, going so many times in a week was just completely unjustified.

We went there on the 2nd night and it was apparent that we'd be making a late week run at it again. I didn't care for that decision, but could accept it, as the first night we were in OC, the place was packed and we assumed that the same would be true the next saturday. So that's 2 nights out of the 7 day week. Completely acceptable, given the circumstances. It's the middle night that came out of nowhere that really irked me and inevitably led to the tainting of the third night.

Without getting into the gory details, suffice to say, there were two "groups" within the house. A lame and annoying catfight basically seperated the house and created uneeded tension. Hanging out with group "A" during the day, I figured i'd might as well go to dinner w/ group A and then hopefully everyone could just meet up at the same bar later in the night. Of course, this meant i'd have to miss out on the greatest of all dinners: the prime rib / seafood buffet. Is there a bigger sacrafice one can make than to give up unlimited hunks of beef? I think not. But, as corny as it sounds, i considered the day to be a bonding experience and wanted to complete it w/ going to dinner with the group. So, as everyone left to gorge themselves at the trough of prime rib freedom, i waited [and waited. and waited. and waited.] for these other people to get ready.
Ok, i think i need a siderant within this rant. It's a combo rant on being late and taking a long time to get ready (maybe i should have written that the other way around). There are few things i find more disgusting, egotistical, and inhumane as spending insane amounts of time to get ready. I can't even fathom the amount of arrogance it takes for someone to sit there and honestly think that it takes them x HOURS to get ready. I hate to break it to you, ladies, but you aren't that important. Your existence does not define the universe. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west regardless of how perfect your mascare looks. What is the point of this vanity? Who are you trying to impress? Trust me, the 20 year old boys would come up to you anyway even if everything wasn't "just so". Any decent guy wouldn't care about the miniscule differences that you spend so much time trying to fix. That leads me to believe that it's not the decent guy you care about impressing, but the male counterpart who equals your shallowness.

Anyway, i could almost tolerate the hours of preperation that nobody cares about IF said people actually started on time. As in, if it takes you three friggin hours to get ready, then start the process three hours before we are supposed to leave!!! But oh no, that would actually require consideration for your fellow man. And that can't happen. No, what actually went on in OC was a select few complaining about "we have to leave early tonight so we can spend a super duper amount of time at Seacrets" and then THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE being the last ones to be ready. Do people not realize this irony?

So anyway, as inevitable as death and taxes, so too is the fact that this group was always late. And this night was no exception. Hmm, maybe i should stop writing in red b/c the mini rant is over. But, to recap, being "late"'when other people are involved shows a complete lack of respect for that person. There's no such thing as a person who is always late. Rather, that person is just someone who refuses to consider other people over themselves. Clocks exist. Figure out how much time you need, and then count backwards from when you need to leave by. It's not brain surgery!

i'm going to stop for now, but i'll be back in a few....

does anyone really know what it's like not to sleep? It's a cruel fate. Currently, I'm going through a cycle where I don't have a problem falling asleep, but then i wake up in a panic within 20 minutes. I'm having a reoccuring nightmare that is beyond ridiculous (it's not even "scary" per se). Then i wake up completely confused trying to figure out if i'm in OC or not. I would say no less than 10 times in the past week I've waken up trying to figure out how many people are staying in this room with me. Then i realize it's my apartment in newark. Then i realize said apartment is NOT in OC. Then i realize it's only 20 minutes from when i tried to go to sleep.

This feeling of not quite asleep and not quite awake is brutal. The actual "going" to sleep makes me tired, but then the panicy waking up makes me alert. Or at least quasi alert. I feel too tired to sleep, if that makes sense. I want to dig a hole and crawl into it. Hours mean nothing to me at this point. Next time i look at hte clock, it will be 4 am and i'll think i have the whole day ahead of me. Then it will be 7 pm and i'll wonder where the day went.

I need to win the lottery. I can't exist in a normal 9-5 world.

[and yes, i'm writing this at 11:30 pm. leave me alone]

Before the ocean city trip, i had two concerns: 1) nobody would want to go out and we'd spend the week drinking in the house. and 2) we'd go to a "good" bar the first night, and love it so much that we'd waste the rest of the week going back there.

Now, luckily, OC didn't turn into the debacle that the skiing trip apparently was. The people I went on vacation with actually wanted to enjoy life and such and such. However, on a 7 night trip, we somehow managed to go to this corny bar/club "seacrets" a whopping 4 times!!!

The best way to describe Seacrets was that it was "like Disney World wrapped up in a bar". Why is that the best way to describe it? B/c not only did i say that (as a negative), but someone actually said that as a positive. That's right, apparently people want to go to a bar that reminds them of the cliched corporate interpretation of what a beach bar should look like. It's like going to Italy and looking for an Olive Garden to eat dinner.

It's hard to describe the physical layout of Seacrets, but here it goes. When you first walk in, there is a huge area where bands play. I was mildly impressed with the fact that there were two mini stages for the bands, so as one was finishing the next band could start right away. The corniness factor kicks in immediately, though, when you look down and realize the floor is all sand. Lame. Then, there all fake palm trees under this tent to give the "atmosphere" of a beach bar. The only thing that was missing were the mechanical jamberee bears that we found all so entertaining at eight years of age.

The trickery of Seacrets continued as there were tons of small bars scattered around the pathway. I will fully grant that this "complex" was enormous for a bar/club, but it was all smoke and mirrors. Under no circumstances would anyone go to these little bars scattered around the water. They were litterally a little shack w/ bar stools around it. Oh, actually, people would actually stop at these bars if they were bored out of their minds and wanted to get away from the "seacrets scene". I know b/c Dan and I couldn't wait to leave the niteclub area the first night.

But regardless, the point of these bars was to show off how big the place was w/o actually putting the land to any good use. "oh look at how big this place is, we should spend the entire week here exploring". And by exploring, i mean of course going to the club and dancing there for 4 straight hours.

Ok, as I'm sure you've gathered by now, there was a night club as the "2nd" attraction. It was decent, relatively speaking. There were several very corny gimmicks that certain people just ate up. First, there was confetti that fell down every few minutes. At best it was a mildly entertaining visual the first 20 times it happened. At worst, it was painfully annoying as the stuff got caught on your shirt and fell in your drink. 2nd, there were gigantic balloons that would slowly decend onto the dance floor. This led to the inevitable need to punch the balloons back up in the air. I have to admit that I enjoyed doing this as well. Then again, I'm the type of person who can spin a roll of masking tape up in the air in my apartment for 3 straight hours and not think twice of it.

The final gimmick was by far the most overated. The floor "bounced". The way it was described, you'd think we'd be on a trom-bumb-balino. However, the "bounce" was basically what you would find by walking on those metal doors that lead to basement entrances on the street. Yes there was some give and when the whole crowd did it at once, you could actually feel it. Big deal. Next.

[to be continued. i need to go to school now.]

Is there an athlete worth rooting for more than Carlos Delgaldo? You have to respect anyone who refuses to salute the flag. His political views are so inspiring. But, his greatness is even apparent on the field.

In last night's game, he tried to break up a double play by plowing into Mienkewitz at 2nd base (yes, he was playing 2nd). The redsox were all crying like the girls that they are. Delgaldo just put his head down and walked to the dugout.

Later in the game, when Delgaldo came up again, he got hit. Did he charge the mound? No, he put his head down and ran to first while everyone out went nuts.

Carlos Delgaldo: my hero.

I've been meaning to write something since the bar's been over. I feel bad for all of you who have been checking this site in these past two months. Actually, substitute the word "bad" for "freaked out". What is wrong with you people? I told you I wasn't going to post.

I'll try and think of something to write tonight and post again. I feel like i need to pick something extra rage-inducing to make up for lost time.

Later

it seems like i can't watch a game without seeing something really dumb.

top of the 9th, giants score three runs off of dotel w/o getting an out. first and second still with no outs. guy bunts them over to 2nd and 3rd. i can live with that.

now you have durham up with one out. i'm already thinking "man, i bet the giants wish they had bonds batting third instead of cleanup."

that's the first mistake. then oakland one ups them by intentionally walking durham!!!

walking the bases loaded....already ranted on that. but now it's twice as bad b/c it gets that much closer to getting bonds up. you should NEVER want bonds up and should do everything you can to avoid it. this game is over, i'm not even bothering to watch.

i hemmed and hawed on saturday night whether to write a rant on SNL. it sunk to an even new low in terms of lack of comedic value. I can't even explain how unfunny it was. donald trump was the host. in every skit, he was donald trump. his costume changes consisted of changing his tie. one skit involved "amerosa" getting hit with stuff in the head. for about 5 minutes. with no punchline.

but alas, i chose not to rant on this. i'm just too busy to be wasting my time on rants on tv shows. but, and this is a huge but, what i saw tonight was just mindboggling.

"the casino" is supposed to be a show about two guys who took over a casino and the stuff that goes on with running it. here's the only problem: IT'S FAKE.

something was a little off within 2 minutes of it. the cameras were all in the right place a little too much. then i actually started listenign to the dialogue. it was so corny and fake. i can't really describe how bad it was. There was a "high roller" who was losing tons of money. and when the cards would come up, all of a sudden there was a camera giving an above shot of it. Then at a club, there were about 10 cameras all positioned perfectly to get close up of the people dancing.

everyone needs to see this show. As you are watching it, no that people are sitting there too dumb to realize it's fake.

don't have time for full rants, so i'll just discuss the subjects and you can fill it in yourselves

- not fouling the other team when you are up by 3 is beyond dumb. what's really sad is that i really think that the reason coach's don't do it is b/c they don't want to be second guessed. kobe makes the shot and then lakers win in ot, brown can say "hey, it was a nice (but lucky) shot and we just got out played in OT". If he calls for the foul and (the even less likely scenerio occurs) they lose {those () don't make the sentence flow, i know} then everyone points their finger at brown and says "why did you do that". very sad really

- does everyone realize that the only reason we have 9th inning closers is b/c sutton got hurt in '82. I've read that before, but even joe morgan commented on it recently and i find it mind boggling.

- everyone is talking about how the red's manager is doing a great job, and will probably get the MOY award. they are also talking about the reason for success has been the great team chemistry. I haven't heard this kind of gushing since the '03 royals. BTW, how's the team chemistry there this year?

- roberto's is dead. No more 2 dollar subs. no more 7 dollar pie. new management. I'm both sad for the loss of a dear friend and somewhat pleased with myself b/c i contributed to his death. go figure

- if it wasn't for the 2-1 wednesdays, i would ban carvel. they charge 35 cents for toppings. that's pretty ridiculous, but some of the toppings could be good. what i don't understand is that sprinkles are on that list. can you imagine paying 35 cents for sprinkles. I should hang around outside there and kill any person that orders them. they don't deserve to live.

- gagne for lieber.

- rich harden = craig wilson.

- 6 beers for 20 dollars.

i really don't want to be ranting during these two months, but i couldn't let this one slip by w/o comment.

cubs up 4-1 in the top of the 9th. two outs.

ball hit to center field, alou misjudges it at first, then comes charging in. At the last second he pulls up and gets it on one hop.

the announcer makes a big deal about how great it was that alou at least prevented it from getting by him.

why????

that run means nothing. the cubs need to get one out before giving up three runs. a single is basically as bad as a homer at that point. The only benefit from keeping it in front of him was that with a guy on first, it's possible to get the force out at second.

now, what % of balls in play are of the nature where you can make the out at second but not at first? 3%? it would have to be something like up the middle where the 2nd baseman dives towards the bag to stop it. Very rare.

I imagine that the chance that alou had of catching that ball should he have dove for it is much much higher.

oh, the same announcer then went on to say "i have to keep trying to explain this to baseball fans. outs 25, 26, and 27 are just DIFFERENT than any other out". Yeah, i guess a random bloop single proved that.

1) before today's game, freddy garcia had received a total of 13 runs of support the entire season.

2) before today's game, no team had recorded a save against the redsox at fenway.

now, while trying to find good reviews of the greatest movie of all time (windy city heat), i've found basically two camps.

A) It can't be real. nobody would actually believe that. it's too over the top.

B) it has to be real. Eddie (is that his name?) can't be in on the joke b/c he's not a good enough actor to pretend to be "real".

as for A), that's not "proof". These people make these statements like it erases all doubt.

It's B) that bothers me more though. Assuming, arguendo, that the "joke is on us" and he's in on the joke, then why on earth would he assume that his bad acting is "real"????? Maybe he really is a good actor. in fact, i imagine playing a bad actor is pretty easy. The cliche that always annoyed me is when people would talk about lisa kudrow and say "oh, it must be tough for her to play dumb b/c she's so smart in real life'. come again? is saying "i don't get it" or "huh" really that hard a concept to master? By that definition, there could be no such thing as acting. litterally, people could only play themselves.

this movie HAS to be real. i think i would cry if i learned otherwise.

are you not aware that i'm studying for two bars?

see you in august!

A good indication of a person's character is how they react when getting punked. Of course they all laugh after they know they were punked, but that's just saving face. Oh no, what i'm focused on is how quickly they become beligerant towards the punker.

to the surprise of no one, sapp became very upset from the very beggining. Obviously, the punker gets more and more ridiculous as the scene goes on. At the beginning, the guy wasn't even THAT bad. It could have easily been "real". And sapp was just so arrogant and pompous towards the guy.

i don't want to go on. i dislike the guy.

why is it that i root for defensive teams? on some level, defense is a good sign of "effort" instead of a skill. Of course, all things being equal, i would objectively like to root for a team that is overachieving through effort instead of just being super talented.

but i'm starting to wonder if my obsession with defense is no different than CW's desire to see small ball. To get a Win, you need to score more points than your opponent. that's it.

I'm sitting here watching the pistons destroy the nets, and the announcers keep excusing kidd's horrible shooting with "well, he does so many other things to help them win. he doesn't need to score." Is this true? would we be as accepting as someone who was lights out shooting but couldn't play defense for his life? If not, why not?

Allan houston is terrible at defense. but i don't think it's a lack of effort in his case. He's just not athletic enough. But i hold it against him. I wrongly blame him for his lack of defense. It's a double standard, i know, but i can't stop.

sportcenter or some espn basketball show, i'm not sure...

dan patrick: "fact or fiction, tonights game will be the last time we see THIS kings team play together"

leiger: "fiction. sure, they might tweak their line up a bit. a role player here or there, but the core will be the same. webber, bibby, stoiakavich (SP) and miller, they aren't going anywhere"

other guy" "i disagree. they've spent tons of money (blah blah blah) and they haven't even made it to the finals. if they don't win this year, i could see webber and/or christie being traded. you at least have to LOOK at trades should they not make it to the finals."

patrick: well, then if they win tonight but then lose to the lakers, will that keep the team together?

leiger: No, this team is going to get broken up if they don't make the finals.

WHAT??

Moderately interesting news segment on child labor in India. How kids are forced to work like slaves and whatnot while the rich kids go to school.

at the very end, peter jennings says:

"There is hope though, as in the region of _____, where litteracy is nearly 100%, kids don't work as much and stay in school more."

ugh, i'm not getting the sentence exactly right. he was saying that litteracy will save everything. that it will cause kids to work less and instead keep them in school.

now, wouldn't a rational person think, "hmm, if the kids are in school and not working, they will have a higher litteracy rate"

how could peter have it the other way around (and especially have the latter two things independent of each other?)

Susan Hawk is one of those annoying femminists who goes so far over the edge that they actually become sexist. You know the type...she'll go out of her way to say that women are better than men at things, but if someone points to something that a man can do better she starts flipping out. Just as a point of reference, she actually said that it was sexist when she heard someone say that men could beat women at tennis.

Well, this "femminist" became a complete hypocrite last night when she revealed that she got major plastic surgery done. Lipo, eyes, and breasts, just to name a few. First, let me generally say that people who take pride in their "new" look is a bit disturbing in and of itself. She didn't do anything to earn this improved look (not only did she not work out or change her lifestyle, but a tv show PAID for the surgery). Second, and more importantly, this isn't even "her" anymore. There were parts altered (and added!) to her. how can she take pride in this? "hey look at me, i'm not myself anymore". Disgusting.

Now, for the hypocritical part. As a femmonist, i imagine she takes issue with the fact that women are objectified and judged on their looks. As a brute, i imagine she didn't care for this fact. But, now that she's better looking, all of a sudden she enjoys the fact that her looks are important. She relished the applause that she was getting last night. All of a sudden, being objectified is ok b/c she's on the "plus" side of that evaluation.

It just sickens me to no end. There's no such thing as a femmonist anymore (except for me, i guess). There's no such thing as ANYTHING anymore. Magic Johnson becomes a spokesman for AIDS after he gets it. Should we respect him for that? How about caring about something that doesn't directly affect you? How about making a sacrafice for something you believe in. If Susan Hawk really believed that objectification of women is wrong, then when she was offered free breasts she should have said "no thanks, i find it degrading".

I'm tired of so called femmonists who want it both ways. They whine and moan when they affected by the negative stereotypes of women affect them, but seem to have no qualms about using the positive ones to their advantage. These same women who whine and moan about not being able to get equal pay for equal work (or just a general respect in their office) never seem to be able to buy their own drinks or do any type of manual labor. "why do guys always stare at my chest?" - uh probably b/c you wear revealing outfits. Shut up, you sicken me.

bottom of the eighth, 2 outs, expos up 3-1. Bases loaded and the pitcher spot coming up.

he lets livan hernandez hit.

a hit ENDS the game. instead, livan strikes out and now has to go into the 9th with only a 2 run lead.

I could easily have chalked up the recent events to ignorance and moved on. However, it is the ignorance of the ignorance that is inexcusable. The arrogance of the ignorant people in this league is so shocking that I feel as though it’s my duty to try and explain to them why they are so ignorant. So, away we go…

April 20th, circa 10 am – Kush (I don’t even know his first name. That fact will be important later), IM’s me telling me how he’s about to pull off a blockbuster trade with Jen. He does so in a joking manner, and within the bounds of “fun competitive spirit”. Considering that he has the 2nd best team in the league, obviously I do not want his team to get better. So, as I have done before (and as any good gm would do), I try and see if I can offer a better deal to the person he’s about to trade with (in this case, Jen).

April 20th, circa 11 am – My opening line to Jen is along the lines of “I better stop this trade any way I can, even if that means you getting mad at him” I can’t remember the exact wording of it, but it was clearly an opening joke and playing up the same competitive spirit that Kush started the conversations with that morning. I then followed up with something like “If you only knew what he was saying about you, you’d trade with me instead. See, right here he says trading with you is annoying” Yes, I pasted a line. Just like lines were pasted by certain people to my sister where I was calling her a “nerd” or something equally offensive. Had I known that I was dealing with a completely insecure and paranoid person, I wouldn’t have made the initial joke. However, I didn’t, and Jen then demanded to know what was said about her. After attempting to defuse the situation by explaining that it was just joking around and nothing serious, she wouldn’t shut up so I just sent her the rest of the inoffensive lines. After that, she said, “Ok let’s talk trades” and the deal was worked out for chavez/jeter.

April 20th, circa 11:30 am – Kush says “thanks for getting my girlfriend angry at me”. I try to explain to him that it was not intentional and she’s just taking things the wrong way. Jen then IM’s me cursing at me, and saying I was evil and that she never would have done the trade had she been aware of what I was doing to her. I can’t remember her exact wording, but it was shockingly delusional.

Now, I’m going to have to fill in the time between 11 and 11:30 b/c that’s where the ignorance sets in. Here’s what Jen has to believe in order for her side to make sense.

1) She has to assume that her own boyfriend considers her annoying
2) That not only does he think she’s annoying, but that he would share that with people.
3) That he would share that with me, someone he doesn’t even know, has never met, and who’s first name I don’t even know.
4) That I would then take that confidence and break it by telling her.
5) That I would do so in the context of fantasy and try to use it to my fantasy advantage
6) That I would think that it would actually work. And that she would then dislike her current boyfriend and just trade with me.

All of that has to be true in order for her theory to hold water. Here’s a much simpler explanation: I was joking around by sending that line in the exact same way that someone sent similar lines to my sister. Did I go around accusing people of trying to break up my family? No, mainly b/c I’m not a delusional nut who thinks the world revolves around them.

There should be a general competitive spirit that comes with fantasy. You should want to beat other teams. I was trying to enjoy such a spirit when I was trying to block kush’s trade and better my own team. It wasn’t an attempt to get Jen to actually dislike Kush or get mad at him. If the standard by which fantasy decisions are made is “which GM do I like more?” then this league is doomed.

So, whatever, a completely irrational person called me evil and had this conspiracy theory that I was intentionally playing on real emotions to my fantasy benefit. The funny part is that she said that I “admitted” it with my opening line. Call me crazy, but if was really going to try and manipulate someone, I wouldn’t joke about it at the very beginning. “Hey moron, I’m about to do something, get ready.”

But, like I said, I can tolerate ignorance and although Jen was completely wrong about my intentions, I didn’t really care. I know that my integrity remains in tact and that it was a misunderstood joke, not something evil. Then things got ridiculous as she arrogantly IM’s me with “just to let you know, your little scheme did not work and good triumphs over evil.”

And that brings me to:

April 20th 12:49 pm – My trade gets vetoed.

I recently went back to the league settings to make sure the standard for trades was “league vote”. Nowhere in the yahoo constitution does it say the standard is “whiny 20 year old girlfriend is sad, so trade gets vetoed.” If people want to question my integrity, perhaps they shouldn’t abuse their commissioner’s powers. Why was this trade vetoed? Was there a league vote that I was not aware of in those 40 minutes? If so, how many teams vetoed? And what was the standard that they used? It clearly wasn’t based on anything fantasy related, b/c the talent on both sides of the trade was essentially even. Was the trade vetoed b/c I’m a “bad” person? If so, that’s subjective, unethical, and not apart of the fantasy experience. It’s also flat out incorrect.

So, the commissioner abuses his power to make his little girlfriend happy. How sweet. And how unethical. How am I supposed to run my team the way I want when he’s just making decisions on his own personal tastes? Now that I’m “public enemy #1”, I guess I should never expect to even get a trade offered in my direction. Never mind the fact that two players, Chavez, and Jeter, SHOULD have been on my team and no longer were. It was an accepted trade. An accepted trade has to be vetoed by the RULES, not because someone is irrational and misunderstood a joke.

So after this debacle, I pretty much lost all respect for this league (or at least the two parties involved). However, since I only know these people through my sister, I was going to allow the ignorance to go unmentioned just to avoid making waves. But, then the commissioner goes ahead and vetoes another trade involving Jeter. Again, no explanation as to why the trade was vetoed, what teams agreed, or what standard he is using. But guess what happens? Of course, he eventually winds up getting the player (Jeter) who was involved in TWO unfairly vetoed trades.

What’s the point in being in a league where one person can abuse his power and unfairly manipulate the playing field. I was accused of trying to manipulate people, but I think it’s time that others look in the mirror. Jen took such arrogant satisfaction in telling me that the trade was vetoed…that good triumphed over evil. I don’t see how clicking on a button makes anything more right or wrong. Yes, he vetoed a trade, but he was able to do so not because he was “right” but because he was “powerful” in the fantasy sense. He could probably beat me up too, does that make his position anymore right?

Whoever had a problem with my trade (and who knows, maybe people did veto it on their own accord in those 30 minutes and w/o prodding from certain people) did not have a problem from a talent standpoint. I was giving up pedro among other players. In a league where Nomar for Nomo can actually make it through, obviously there doesn’t seem to be a problem with lopsided trades. No, the veto of this trade was done for personal reasons. Thus, it was a compromise of integrity and I find it insulting and disgusting. I have no desire to play in a league where someone can just wield power without any restraints…especially when that person has proven to lack integrity.

If he wants to win so badly, I’m going to help him. I’ll guarantee that every time he plays me, he’ll get a 10-0 win. Then, I’ll just dump whoever into my roster when I’m playing other teams. Even without checking or updating, I should at least get a few cheap wins and ruin other people’s chances.

And for anyone in this league who is going to complain that “I’m ruining it for everyone”, I have a question. Where were you when these other trades were vetoed? Is it fair that certain teams are not allowed to run their teams as they see fit? That certain teams are allowed to trade and others aren’t? That it’s one person who’s allowed to make such decisions.

If people’s stance is “he can do it b/c he has the power, he’s the commish”, then fine. But guess what, I have power to control my team. And until he figures out how to officially kick me out of yahoo, then I’m going to do my best to fight fire with fire.

To anyone not involved in this debacle, I regret any decrease in enjoyment that my participation caused. To Jen, I apologize for upsetting you with my joke, but clearly it was not intentional. Maybe it’s my fault for not appreciating how sensitive people can be. Especially younger people. And for you commish, I’m sorry that you can’t see the error of your ways. You can threaten me with “no future invitations” but why would I want to be in a league where you abuse your powers. Enjoy winning the league. Enjoy, too the fact that you compromised your integrity in doing so. I did nothing intentionally wrong but was punished nonetheless. Really fair.

That is all. Thanks for making me a martyr.

404.1 Personal Cooking Appliances. Personal appliances such as gas or propane camp stove, portable barbecue or hibachi, may be used under the following conditions:
a). Placement in an area that will not scorch, burn or otherwise damage lawns or table tops.
b). Placement in an area at least 30 feet from any flammable material such as grass, weeds, wood chips, brush or buildings.
c). All burning fuel such as wood or charcoal is thoroughly extinguished before being disposed of in an existing fireplace, fire pit or barbecue grill. It is unlawful to dispose of coals in garbage cans or refuse bins.
Looks like from all the research that i did, that it is unsafe to throw coals out in the garbage. This makes sense, as even splashing water on them does not guarantee that they will not remain hot internally. It would be crazy to throw a cig. in the garbage.

The IDEAL way to get rid of coal is either 1) soak them in water for 24 hours and then put them in the garbage, or 2) submerge them in water and then put them in a metal tin sealed tightly. Since neither of these options were available, i feel like the side of the parking lot was the best solution.

but what do i know.

People incorrectly think that their morality only becomes tested when the stakes are high. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's quite likely that when something is big enough, you might do the "right" thing just out of obligation or guilt. Integrity is doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's the little daily activities that trully test what kind of person you are.

With that being said, I think the logical conclusion is that how a person conducts themselves while waiting in line defines their existence as human beings. Recently, i had the unfortunate displeasure of witnessing people completely disregard their fellow man in an attempt to satisfy their own personal greed. Try as they might to justify such horrible behavior, there is simply no justification. Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. These people are part of the problem.

When the bbq was about to start, i immediately got in line. I was in a rush b/c my last class ever was starting in 10 minutes. The line was brutally long and filled up right behind me. Hungry, sitting out in the heat, and watching the clock, the line was obviously annoying. But, what was 100x worse was watching the occassional person forgo the line and just take whatever they wanted. They were so shady about it too, just happening to want to say hello to one of their friends who was at the front of the line. Here's a news flash, in such a limited environment, everyone basically knows everyone. it's the equivelant of when PJ points in one direction right before he hits you with a pillow in a drunken stupor. You can see it coming from a mile away.

Anyway, these line cutters come up with all types of excuses: i was hungry, i couldn't wait in line, everyone is doing, etc etc etc.

Of course, we were all hungry. Wanting something doesn't justify taking something. There are lots of things i want. The question is whether you are entitled to them. And if you don't wait in line, you aren't entitled to it. How is it that these people think they are too good to stand in line? I had a class to get to, while i saw some of these line cutters then sitting out in the sun lazily enjoying their food. But it's the "everyone is doing it" part that really bothers me.

Obbviously, not every one is doing it. Because if they were, there wouldn't be a line. There would be complete chaos. No, just the selfish and inconsiderate people are doing it. And guess what, the people that were going to wait in line see this and get frustrated and maybe they cut as well. Now your decision to cut has not only hurt all the people in line who now have to wait longer, but it has also encouraged other people to act equally inconsiderate. Furthermore, for someone in line to say "everyon is cutting", they are obviously noticing the shadiness of the behavior. Now, maybe it takes a rare person to sit and get so angry that they stew about it for a week and then rant about it in a blog, but i imagine that a "normal" person's view of the world drops just a bit. Maybe down the line said person decides not to go out of their way to help a person. Not to give a horribly cliched "pay it forward" interpretation, but i REFUSE to believe that these encounters with selfish people don't accumulate. Often, we just push it down deep into a little ball, and occassionaly release it by punching out an umpire. I can't imagine caring so little about the people around you that you can "hurt" them for your own personal gain. How can these people be so painfully unware?

So, i waited an extra 2 minutes for my burger. Big deal. But where does it stop? Can you just litter b/c who cares if there's some garbage on the floor? Everyone does it. The garbage can was ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. Look out for number one, i guess. society comes in a distant second.

If i'm a bitter person, it's only b/c for 25 years i've had to endure people cutting me in line.