Monday, July 07, 2014

Soccer - The Silly Game

And here we ago again.  It's been four years since I even thought a thing about soccer but the World Cup comes along and I foolishly give it another shot.  And based on ratings, apparently others did too.  Of course, they may have for the same reason as me.  The NBA Finals had just ended, football (real football) is a couple of months off, baseball is early in a long season and nothing else was on except a weekly NASCAR race.  If ESPN hadn't canceled the Great Outdoor Games, I would be watching that because yes, I do find dogs jumping in lakes and lumberjack sports more entertaining than soccer.  I'll wait to for a random Major League Soccer game to pull in good ratings before I'm impressed.  There is an old saying that soccer is the future of sports in the USA and always will be.  Oh but I do like how the Latin America female fans (especially Brazil) act like clothing at the game is optional.  I would say it must be a Catholic thing but my fiancĂ©e might get pissed.  She's probably pissed at the previous sentence.

Well, every other time I try to watch soccer, I end up not caring about it because it's low scoring, ties end with penalty kicks in the "knockout round", it's low scoring, there is too much flopping, it's low scoring and the calls are incomprehensibly inconsistent.  So what happens in the knockout round?  Out of sixteen teams, only like three managed to score two goals in regulation.  None scored three.  Three games were 0-0 at the end of regulation.  Oh, and two games went through regulation and the extra 30 minutes (plus stoppage time) and were still tied.  So we go to penalty kicks.  So what does the commentator say when a goalie actually blocks a shot?  "He guessed right."  WTF?????????  A game is decided because the goalie flipped a coin?  And they were proclaiming the Brazilian goalie the hero for stopping three shots.  He guesses right on one.  Another was kicked right at him.  The last hit the goalpost.  I'm really friggin' impressed.  And the only reason Brazil made it to penalty kicks is Chile had an own goal.  Which was credited to the closest Brazilian player who of course celebrates like he just cured cancer and solved world hunger.

Then Mexico lost because a player from the Netherlandsdid a ridiculous dive and was awarded a free kick near the end of the game giving them the victory.  But Mexico shouldn't complain too much.  They got away with two fouls on the same guy on the same play in the box (I think it's called the box).  And since I watched only the US games, the Mexico game (so I could laugh at my warehouse staff when they lost) and bits and pieces of the other games, no telling how many flops, fake injuries, bad calls and whiny players I missed. 

Seriously, this is the beautiful game?  We’ll ignore the sad reality that fixing games is so common place that you have to sign a contract with a country’ssoccer federation to do it.  But on the field, someone intentionally bit someone else in the middle of a game.  And flopping is so bad that the guy who did the biting pretended to be hurt.  Flopping and diving are way too generous a term for what these guys are doing.  Flopping is exaggerating contact to draw a foul like you see in the NBA.  Soccer players take it to a whole new level.  They get touched and act like they were shot by a sniper.  But they'd be stupid not to do it.  They get away with it.  And it's not like the NBA where suckering the ref may get you a couple of free throws.  These penalties have huge consequences.  The Netherlands got a win out of it.  When teams are struggling to score two goals in a game, a free kick is huge.  And some stupid rule says if you get a free kick, the person fouled doesn't have to take it.  The team kicking gets to pick their best person.  That's insane.  I'm sure Dwight Howard would love for James Harden to take his free throws for him. But it's even bigger than that.  These guys are begging for yellow (or even red) cards.  One red card or two yellow and the guy isn't just tossed.  His team is playing a man down the rest of the way. I'm sure Peyton Manning wouldn't have even more success if he was facing a defense of 10 men.

All these stupid soccer rules come together to make me not like the sport.  I want to see points scored.  World Cup means few goals.  Because their rules suck.  The red card/double yellow card is a joke.  I've said it before and I'll sayit again.  It's utterly retarded to have a team play a man down over penalties.  Especially when yellow/red cards get awarded (is that really the correct term) in such a haphazard way.  I saw a slide tackle that was all ball, no contact with the player.  The commentator said "I could understand if they called a yellow card there."  I can't.  It's stupid.   The guy who bit someone didn't even get called for a penalty. The dutch player got absolutely mugged in one half with no call and then he (actually his teammate who is a better kicker) gets a free kick for nothing in the second.  But what does playing a man down really do?  It means the team down doesn't do shit, and the team ahead doesn't really do shit either.  The team down is just protecting themselves.  The team at full strength knows they have the whole rest of the game with a man advantage.  Why?  Because you lose a man, you've lost him for the entire game.  Change the rule.  Make it like hockey where you're a man down for a period of time and then you get back to full strength.  Some of the most exciting hockey is during power plays as a team with a man advantage takes advantage of it.  In soccer, .........why work at it?  You've got the rest of the game to try, and it’s really hard for the other team to score against you. There was one team down a man in a tie game at the end of regulation.  Everyone in the studio during the break said they should spend the 30 minute overtime just trying to keep the other team from scoring and get to penalty kicks.  Yeah, that's competition.

But another stupid rule is the three substitution rule.  You can substitute three times total.  That means making a change for strategy reasons, injury reasons or because two teammates are fighting.  Which means if you have used your substitutes and another player breaks his leg, you’re at a man disadvantage unless you can convince the injured player to tape it and just lay out on the field.  So a coach is probably going to err on the side of caution and not substitute unless a player is dead.  The other problem is what it does to the players who have to go the whole way.  For one, I think a lot of players play half heartedly for long stretches during the game because they know they’re going to be out there a long time (but they have no idea how long).   Save your strength for later.  I’ve been told for years that they are in great shape and run all the time.  They may be in great shape, but I have never seen a soccer game where they are “running all the time”.  They’ll jog after the ball.  Kick the ball back and forth for awhile while the other team stands around.   Lay on the ground begging for a call. 

I think this is part of why players exaggerate their injuries to the point they’re laying on the ground for 2-3 minutes pretending to be at death’s door.  It’s a de facto rest break complete with water bottles.  And everyone is in on the scam.  The medical staff isn’t dashing onto the field to check them out unless there is blood.  They kind of saunter out there.  In fact, the most hustle I saw coming from the medics was on the sideline when a non-player broke his ankle celebrating a goal.  What’s real cool is that FIFA is criticized for letting a guy completely knocked out continue playing, but a toe gets stubbed and they’re bringing a stretcher (contrast with American football where any leg injury short of a compound fracture and the player limps off with the help of a couple of trainers).  Then the guy with the stubbed toe runs back onto the field straight from his stretcher.

 So how do you make soccer better?  More scoring would help.  But barring that, more attempts at scoring.  Hockey (closest sport to soccer) isn't much higher scoring, but a big difference is how many shots they get.  Tim Howard was record setting with 16 saves in his last game.  With two scores and 30 minutes extra, that is 18 shots on goal in 120 minutes of play.  NHL goalies average up to 30 saves a game.  Meaning they average fighting off much more attempts than soccer's highest in about half the time.  I think soccer should take some ideas from hockey and other sports.  Hit floppers with hefty fines like the NBA does.  But more importantly, substitute more like hockey.  Not exactly like hockey where they sub a lot and the ice is not so large and I can never tell where the puck is.  Look at the upside.  Coaches wouldn't be afraid of using up their substitutes so they could make strategic changes based on match-ups.  They would be more willing to take out a player who was dinged up or not playing well or on the take.  Wouldn't players be more apt to go full speed while they're on the field knowing they don't have to fake injuries or lollygag to get a rest break on the field?  Full speed should mean more attempts to score.  Besides, what is the downside?  Soccer groupies can't brag (lie) about how their players run the whole game?  If I was interested in watching endurance challenges, I'd watch a triathlon. 

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Shows I Should Like More Than I Do

This isn't a list of shows I don't like.  That could fill an encyclopedia.  These are shows that based on certain criteria, I really should like them more than I do.  Some I like and still watch.  Some I really like and won't miss.  Others I should like but just stopped watching because I had problems with them.  And it's not shows that ran too long (The Mentalist should have stopped after killing Red John) or ones I would never like (2 Broke Girls because I prefer my comedies to be funny).  It's shows that had something going for them, but I just think I could like them more if they fixed their problems. 

Many have characters that I just can't get beyond.  I liked CSI early on.  But I really can't stand that gapped tooth wench.  It just wasn't worth putting up with her to watch that show.  So I stopped. 

Blacklist is a new show.  It has a lot of potential.  Mainly James Spader.  Actually, it's all James Spader.  Granted, the fake husband killing people did give it an uptick, but when Spader is not on the screen, the show typically drags.  Is that really what you want to base your show on?

How I Met Your Mother.  Based on early views, I should like this show.  It had some funny moments (like the Fiero episode).  Some good characters.  But.............the focal point is that Ted guy.  He was a douchebag.  Why would I care how a douchebag finds his wife? 

Dads.  So much to like about this show.  Low brow humor.  A guy from Animal House.  Martin Mull.  Seth Green doing Seth Green stuff.  Mexican ethnic humor.  A hot Thai actress wearing a schoolgirl outfit in an early episode.  But on the other hand.........who am I kidding?  I love this show.  I'm bummed out that it won't see a second season.

NCIS.  I like police procedurals.  I like Mark Harmon.  I just could not get into this show.  Every time I tried, the sheer implausibility of it just wrecked my brain.  And I expect some implausible stuff.  I'll accept superscientists doing police lab analysis and finishing DNA tests in about an hour.  But trying to convince me that a Mossad agent wants to quit that and join NCIS is stretching it a bit.  By bit, I mean to Jupiter and back.  Then, in another episode, Harmon's boat gets found with two bodies full of bullet holes.  Guess who they think is the best person to lead the investigation.  The boat owner himself.  But don't worry.  No one really thinks Harmon is responsible.  They think his long time friend and mentor is involved.  Have they ever heard of conflict of interest?  But the all time brain bleeding moment was this clip.  You have someone hacking into a computer.  And two people are typing on the same keyboard as if they could stop it with each using half a keyboard.  Do they have any clue how computers work?

Agents Of Shield.  I'm not a comic book nerd, but I do like them.  So I had hopes.  This one is actually getting better as the season goes on.  But when it takes adding Bill Paxton as a major character to your show, it could be problem no matter how much I liked him as Chet in Weird Science.   There were just character problems early on.  I liked three of the main characters - Coulson, Ward, May (another Asian actress in skin tight outfits).  But those Harry Potter science twins were mind numbingly boring.  The computer hacker just didn't fit.  Even worse, the battle hardened Shield agents who have seen plenty of death and destruction suddenly became little babies at the thought that their little hacker (who was a short timer on the team and never an agent) might die. 

 Sons of Anarchy.  Great show when it came out.  Not sure it has held up recently.  Began to feel like I was watching it out of habit.  There are certain things I can accept in a show like this.  It's really not plausible that a pretty boy biker metrosexual like Jax would become President of an outlaw biker gang (see any documentary about outlaw biker gangs and you'll see ugly is often a prerequisite for leadership), but chicks like him so making him the main character brings in that demo.   One problem with the show now is killing off Clay who I found the most interesting person on the show.  The show was at its best when there was an interplay between Jax's family dynamics, internal issues with the club and problems with outside forces.  Unless someone thinks Juice can provide the internal conflict that Clay did (and that person would be wrong), killing him off is a huge loss. 

The other problem is how the morality (or lack of) of the characters just changes.  Evil Clay practically became a doting grandfather in seasons 2 and 3.  Jax ends season 3 with a rededication to the outlaw MC life, but by the start of season 4, he's back to whining about getting out of the life.  Then a bunch started becoming pacifists.  Piney wants to "change" but the showrunners seem to think everyone will forget that Piney set up his old Army buddy's militia group to be blown up and then was then the big pusher to do a murder for hire to help out the Irish.  Opie blows up the militia but can't shoot one person for the dirty leprechaun bastards.  So Bobby (End The Cycle of Violence) takes care of that.  Now, shooting a complete stranger for money doesn't make you a bad person.  Well, maybe it does.  Then Chibs and Tig turned on Clay and are big supporters of Jax (who was of course willing to set up Tig to be killed.  Thanks Jax).  Now Tig only turned on Clay because Clay fooled him into thinking a gang member shot him instead of Opie and Tig runs over the gang banger's girlfriend and kills her which devastates Tig.  Or would seem to if it wasn't for the fact that Tig (and Chibs) went to murder a teenage girl who could be a witness against Bobby for his murder for hire.  Does this all make sense now?  No, because it seems like the writers just make crap up as they go along.  Hell, maybe it is better that Juice is becoming a sociopath so there is at least one halfway interesting character.  If the series ends with a bloodbath and everyone dead, maybe I'll think it's okay.

But the one that flummoxes me the most is The Walking Dead.  Really good show.  Can't argue with that.  I watch it every week and also watch The Talking Dead on after it.  But it's just got some stuff that bugs me.  It's rather amusing to see recaps of episodes talk of how shocking and brutal it can be.  Because if you've ever read the graphic novels that the show is based on, the show is about as brutal and shocking as a Disney musical compared to the books.  And some of the episodes tend to be boring.  But things that really bug me about the show are either situation related or character related (although there isn't a lot else besides situations or characters).  Some things happen that make no sense.  I'm not talking about the dead coming back.  I can suspend reality for that (but I can't suspend reality enough to think the actors playing Rick and Maggie have southern accents).  I'm talking about things like the bus fleeing the prison and then apparently just stopping in the middle of the road with everyone now a zombie.  How did that happen?  Did they die of carbon monoxide poisoning?  Even if one person turned and started biting, wouldn't at least one person have opened a door to flee?  Then you have Michonne walking around with two walkers on ropes because that somehow masks her presence.  She's still a few feet away from them.  Why would that be any different than just walking with a pack of them?  Is it magic rope?  Didn't they make it clear early that walkers smell non-walkers?  Speaking of which, why are they so often surprised by walkers?  Can't they smell those rotting bags of flesh?  I'm not talking about in a city setting where at this point, the whole place must smell like death and you fart to clear the air.  But in open fields or houses, they act surprised to stumble across one.  The moment you walk into a house, one whiff should tell you if a dead person is in there.  Personal body odor should not mask the smell of a dead body.  I'm not saying that just because of my personal bathing habits along with a crawlspace full of dead hookers.  I don't have a crawlspace.   

The show has some great characters.  It also has some really annoying ones.  One nice thing about the show is while it follows the graphic novels to an extent, it has time to flesh out the stories a lot more, extend plotlines, takes new detours and it mixes up how the characters act and what they do.  And adds characters like Daryl.  That way, you don't really know for sure exactly what is going to happen or when.  Shane lasted much longer on the show than the book while some like Dale got bumped off much earlier on the show.   One downside is when it doesn't quite mesh.  In the book, I can see why they followed Rick as he made the hard decisions, but in the show, not so much.  He was made leader the moment he showed up but didn't really do all that much to earn it.  In fact, in the book, a lot of the hard decisions he made were things Shane did on the show.  Rick did lose his shit in the book too, but he was never so wishy-washy like he gets at times in the show.  But making the characters so different at times has some downsides if you've read the books because you might like a character from the book and hate them in the show.  Lori was about the only one who was pretty much the same in both.  Annoying.  But fortunately they killed her off rather early.  Andrea and Dale were fine in the book but irritating on the show which means I was happy they got killed off.  But so did Shane who I actually found a lot more interesting than most of the others on TV and was glad he stuck around.  Which gives me hope that they might kill off Glenn or Maggie (or preferably both) early.  Those two are the most selfish bastards I've ever seen.  After the prison escape, they act recklessly to try to meet up again.  Which would be fine if they were on their own, but they seem to think it's perfectly alright to involve others in their mission of love or glorified booty call.  But the others aren't even against them meeting up.  They just want to be cautious about it.  Normal rest breaks, sleep in a safe spot, don't go through tunnels full of walkers.  But Maggie and Glenn are determined to risk their lives (and everyone else's) to meet a day or two earlier.  Which leads to Glenn leaving Abraham, Eugene and Rosita (damn, she's hot) to drag some guilt ridden moron woman into a zombie riddled train tunnel while following Maggie's trail because he can't wait a little longer to detour over the mountain.  If you're that hard up, just spank it.  The worst part?  Abraham and company find a min-van, get ahead of them, find Maggie and end up having to save Glenn and stupid girl from the other side of the tunnel.  Meaning Glenn nearly got two people killed, let his group waste ammo saving his stupid ass and actually wasted time in finding Maggie because he's an ignorant bastard. 

And that is what annoys me most about this show.  They are so stupid so often.  Off the top of my head, let me think of all the stupidity.

1. Protect your camp from zombies that feel no pain with cans on string noisemakers and tents?  Can't see anything going wrong there.  I guess parking your cars in a circle and sleeping inside it would be too much work.  Then you get to a farm that has had some walkers come around (and you know they can form packs), I guess trying to reinforce some kind of fence line was just too hard in the hard Georgia sun.  Hell, I would have dug a trench or moat around the house.

2.  Did anyone think to get a dog?  Yes, it would eat some of your food, but dogs have a good sense of smell (which see above about how lacking it is in the humans).  They are more alert.  They would warn you long before the zombies get into your camp. 

3. Maybe if your secret sex hideaway is a local pharmacy in town with the doors broken open, the smart thing to do would be check for zombies every time you go in.  Since they obviously can't smell them.

4.  Andrea pulls a nice trick by taking a long range shot at a walker.  Which turned out to be Daryl.  It's a double stupid because Daryl was surrounded by other members of the group going out to check it out meaning if she missed, she might have hit one of her buddies. 

5.  Shane and Rick go to drop off a prisoner well away from the farm and take the time to round up some supplies including filling a few gas cans from a gas truck.  Think about that for a minute.  They had a gas truck.  Needed gas.  Filled a few gas cans from it.  Why not take the whole truck?  Afraid it might look like a walker and Andrea shoot it?

6.  Lori spent every episode being pretty much useless in every situation not involving washing clothes.  So, obviously even though Rick and Glenn have gone to get Hershel at a bar, it was sheer genius for Lori to go out alone after all three.

7.  So you finally get a safe situation inside a prison.  You've got multiple fences and concrete walls and guard towers to protect you from zombies outside.  Yet, even though you know that anyone who dies turns into one, you don't have a night watch inside in case someone, you know, dies of natural causes?  Yes, waiting until someone dies of the flu and eats half your group is obviously the way to go.

8.  Even Daryl (the supposed smart one) opens the door to yell at a dog letting in a pack of walkers.  Meaning that he was in a house without any walkers, but couldn't smell a whole pack of dead bodies on the front porch.  AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!

Then there is the king of stupid.  Dale.  I actually feel sorry for Dale because his character isn't irritating in the books (and he gets laid there).  He's a bit of a crank, but in the TV show, he's...... a nag.  They act like he's a moral conscience of the show, but he's not.  He's just an annoyance.  And dumb.  To begin with, what's his fetish for his RV that breaks down constantly?  I understand the advantage of an RV, but this one doesn't seem to lock and keeps blowing a radiator hose.  Here's a thought.  When Glenn goes to town, ask him to run by the dealership and steal a new RV.  Hell, take six and park in a rectangle to make a fort.    Then Dale begins to worry about Shane who is kind of a crazy would be rapist so that isn't really a dumb response.  But he takes their load of guns to go hide them in a swamp so that Shane can't access them (ignoring the fact that Shane has a sidearm which is all he'd need to kill Rick).  A brilliant idea because items of made of wood and metal do so well in swamp storage.  And you know who else can't use the guns?  The rest of the group if an emergency happens.  And if Dale gets killed (which thankfully happened), no one else would have known where they were.  Guns are kind of important in the zombie apocalypse.  But before he could do much else stupid, Dale gets killed.  Actually, the way he died showed how stupid he was.  They know walkers can get on the farm (they pulled one out of a well).  Yet, he decides to walk across a field in the dark by himself.  Right by a walker.  Who he couldn't smell.  Or shoot apparently.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Back (again) - Thoughts on some movies from the past

I always like my blog if for no other reason than I could point to it when one of my mindless predictions come true.  And it's unlikely anyone will point out when I'm way off base.  But I fell off updating it.  Not sure why.  I'll blame Ancel for monopolizing my free time.  Or it might have been booze.  But something happened that made me want to write on it again.  I was watching Commando and became confused about something that was happening in it.  Which led to questions in other movies popping into my mind.  Which I need an answer for.

Now, Commando is one of the all time great (cheesy) action flicks, but something just wasn't right.  Sure, I can believe Arnold survived jumping into a three foot deep swamp from the wheel of an airplane taking off, making it through several explosion and car wrecks without a scratch and then killing off a private army by himself.  I can even believe Nick Tortelli as the ruthless dictator.  And Rae Dawn Chong in a skimpy stewardess outfit is believable anywhere as long as you can ignore the fact her father is Tommy Chong.  What I don't understand is why Arnold's former friend/nemesis Bennett (so evil he only had one name) spends the entire movie wearing a chain mail shirt (that wouldn't stop a thrown pipe).  Was he expecting a sword fight?

Then there was the movie The Warriors.  I'm not questioning whether or not the Warriors could have kicked ass.  Cochise could kick anyone's ass and James Remar (Ajax) would still frighten me today.  But I frighten easily.  No, my question is specifically, where were the other Warriors?  I understand that only nine gang members were to go to the big gang conference, but when the Warriors were on the run back to Coney Island, didn't anyone bring a quarter (probably still a dime in 1979) to call for some backup?  It's not likely a gang of only nine members would have been big enough to be invited to a gang convention.  The wuss gang, the Orphans, had 30 and they weren't even considered for an invitation.  The Warriors couldn't even get any help for the beach showdown after they got back to Coney Island.  And they think they're the best?

I think this question was asked in MAD magazine's parody of Top Gun, but they didn't go far enough.  I don't mean how Tom Cruise got into the Navy before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  After graduation, why did the Navy ship the Top Gun grads off to the aircraft carrier for the emergency military situation?  The carrier would have probably had a full complement of fighter pilots , and if not, there were more veteran graduates of the school which had been open since the Vietnam War.  Sending Iceman would have been plausible.  He was the top grad and available (and I loved him in Top Secret), but who in their right mind would have sent a potential burnout like Maverick into a war zone when he hadn't even completed a training mission since Goose's death?

Demolition Man is my favorite movie with both Sylvester Stallone and Sandra Bullock.  Would have been better if she had gotten naked.  Worse if he had.  But they left me with a question that was never answered.  In the future, Stallone's character was confused because they replaced toilet paper with a three shell system.  How do you wipe your rear with seashells?  And why three?  And what kind of sick bastard came up with this idea?  Also, only Sandra Bullock seemed to know what toilet paper was.  Why didn't anyone else?  This wasn't Buck Rogers in suspended animation for 500 years.  Stallone was only frozen for 36 years, so maybe the under 30 crowd was post-toilet paper, but there were plenty of cops over 36.  Actually, there was a cop there that he had actually served with.  Did he just forget how they cleaned up after dropping a load in their younger days?

On the Original Latin Kings of Comedy, how did Paul Rodriguez get to be the final act?  Sure, George Lopez was the only other comedian on the show that I knew, but they all have to be funnier than Rodriguez who has somehow made a career in comedy without actually being funny.

American Beauty won an Oscar for Best Picture.  My only question is:  why?  Actually, my other question is why did I watch that crap?

Little Miss Sunshine didn't win an Oscar, but was nominated.  Not sure why.  Half the gags were ripped off from National Lampoon's Vacation (such as traveling with dead relatives).  But my question is how the parents managed to not be arrested for child endangerment?   Why did no one have a problem with the fact that they were putting their young daughter in the care of her heroin using grandfather with a porn fetish?  Who just so happened to teach her how to do a Madonna strip tease for her pageant talent portion?

In Debbie Does Dallas, Debbie is trying to raise money for a trip to Dallas to try out for the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.  So, why did she already own a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader outfit?  I'm basing this on the IMDB entry and box cover only.

The Karate Kid.  By that, I mean the real one with Matsuo "Arnold" Takahashi from Happy Days.  Not the Will Smith's kids vanity project which is completely misnamed since he was learning kung fu, not karate.  Which tells me Will Smith is racist for assuming people won't know there are different Asian styles of martial arts.  But I digress.  The Karate Kid (real one) is like Commando in that I'm accepting of the completely implausible.  I'm not sure Ralph Macchio could beat Elizabeth Shue in a fight, let alone Billy Zabka.  No, what gets me is that the Cobra Kai dojo is supposed to be some kind of Nazi indoctrinated karate school.  So, why is one of the lesser Cobra Kai members played by Larry B. Scott (about 1 minute in) who was also Lamar, the............ javelin throwing black guy from Revenge of the Nerds?

Of course, then there the question of why Johnny got a horrified look on his face when Creese told him to sweep the leg.  Are we forgetting that earlier in the movie, Johnny ran Daniel-san off a cliff on his bike and was going to kick a barely conscious boy in the head?  Suddenly, Johnny is worried about hurting his knee? 

In A Fistful of Dollars, why did the Baxters run out the front door where all the gunmen were?  Was there no backdoor?  Which is not a question asked in Debbie Does Dallas.

In Pretty Woman, I can look beyond the basic plot point.  It’s a fantasy of every little girl to be a prostitute who meets a rich man while hooking.  And it's the fantasy of every whoremonger to rent a session with a hooker who looks like Julia Roberts.  I would have been happy with her buddy played by Laura San Giacomo because I liked her in Quigley Down Under.  However, my problem here is strictly economics.  Richard Gere asks Julia Roberts how much a whole night with her will cost.  She says he can't afford it.  Really?  She charges $300 for a night.  I realize her normal crackhead clientele can't afford that, but in spite of her being a street walking whore, Roberts’ character is portrayed as smart in this movie.  She got a ride to the hotel in a Lotus.  She’s in the penthouse suite with him.  Does she really think he can’t afford 300 bucks?  His socks probably cost more than $300.  

Then there is Back To The Future.  Which has two major questions that I'm sure many people who have watched it may have already noticed the problems.  Remember when Marty remembers that he's in a time machine and can get back early to save Doc Brown?  Except he goes back 5 minutes before and is still too late?  Hey, dummy.  You remembered you had a time machine.  Did it ever occur to you to go back an hour earlier and slash the Libyan's tires?  Oh, and then explain to me why George McFly didn't seem all that bothered by the fact that his third child looked exactly like the dude that his wife went to the Fish Under The Sea Dance (we won't discuss where you come up with such a ridiculous name as that for a high school dance) with. 

Monday, September 03, 2012

How about them Cards?

Not sure what I liked better - beating UK or watching UL's miniature quarterback Will Stein basically grab the trophy out of Steve Beshear's hands after the game.  Oh, right, that's easy.  Beating UK.  UL had some issues on defense especially getting lined up on defense and not realizing UK was going to throw bubble screens all day.  UK's defense was garbage.  Little pressure on the quarterback.  Gaping holes in the line.  Receivers wide open in the secondary. 

Man, I wish this auctioned locker had been on Storage Wars.  Just to see Dave and Darrell claim that it was worth a lot of money if they bought it or brag about "sticking it" to someone else if they didn't.  But more than likely Barry would have bought it, never called the cops and keep all the body parts.

A little bummed out about a few things from the UL/UK game Sunday.  One is that we ate at Beef O'Brady's instead of tailgating because it was raining.  And Beef O'Brady's added pizza but removed the garlic, roast beef sandwich that I always used to get.  Second, the rain stopped when I got to my seat.  Which overall was nice, but I ended up sitting in a poncho for awhile waiting to see if it would come back.  Ponchos and humidity don't mix well.  Third, I was pretty sober.

Interesting story on how cell phones are filthy and covered in bacteria.  Which makes sense.  However there is one quote from a microbiologist that really stood out.  "I see people talk on their phones on toilets."  Where exactly does that happen?  Should I be concerned that there is a microbiologist wandering about town checking what people do when they go take a shit?

UL's offense was unstoppable.  Well, Charlie Strong stopped it by taking Teddy Bridgewater out in the third quarter.  When a guy hits 19 of 21 passes, he's probably tired, but still............. The thought among UL fans is Strong is good friends with Joker Phillips and didn't want to make him look bad so he'll get fired.  If UK doesn't do something on defense, it ain't gonna matter.

If you're into royal family news, it recently came out that Prince Harry (of England, Great Britain, all that other stuff) had a big party in Vegas with nudity and cocaine and a possible prostitute.  I realize that the royal family is known for their chaste behavior, but the way I figure it, what's the point of being a prince if you can't drink, do blow and hire whores.  Actually, I just can't understand this fascination with royalty.  It's a bunch of over privileged brats who fell out of the right womb or married one who did.  Big friggin deal. For some reason, crass behavior doesn't seem to deter affection for royalty.  It seems to enhance it.  Even in the US with our fake royalty - the Kennedy family.  I guess it is an upgrade to drive a woman to suicide rather than leaving them stuck in a car under water. 

As I mentioned, there is one line of thought that Strong called off the dogs to help his old buddy Joker keep his job.  I'm not sure it will help.  At most, I see three wins for UK at most.  And considering how poorly UK fans felt about the squad before the season began, I can't see it getting any better after they shat on themselves in Louisville.

I'm surprised that I never thought about combining the Kennedy family with the Kardashians, but it really makes sense especially considering the Kardashian's obssession with the letter "K".  Oh, and the fact that Kim is an utter whore.

The question is "does Joker deserve to keep his job?".  As a UL fan, I think so.  If I was a UK fan, I would want his ass gone.  Seriously, what has he done to deserve to keep it?  The arguments that I've heard is that he deserves more than three years to be successful and his first two years were better than his predecessors Rich Brooks and Guy Morriss who had success after a slow start.  Which is complete crap.  Morriss took over a team going on probation after Hal Mumme was fired.  Brooks took over a team that was on probation after Morriss left.  Joker took over for retiring Brooks who was at a high point (for Kentucky) with several bowl appearances in a row.  And Joker was not a fresh face newcomer when he got the job.  He was head coach in waiting for a couple of years so he was very instrumental in the recruiting even before he was the head man.  And I think he's replaced all but two of the other assistant coaches from Brooks' last year.  And assuming they only win three games, he will have regressed each year as head coach.  Not sure why anyone would think he's going to improve much after that.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Damn. Been awhile.

I didn't realize it had been so long since I'd updated.  Must have been in an alcohol infused haze the entire time.  Well, I'm still in an alcohol infused haze, but just feel like writing again.  Especially since one of my favorite things (to bitch about) just happened.  The Olympics.    Summer this time. I actually liked watching the games this year even though they had some of the many things I hate about the Olympics.  Like NBC's coverage.   A Chinese athlete cheating.  Way too much diving which is really stupid.  Socialistic policies that shut out the fourth best athlete in the prelims because she comes from a sports power, but allow a completely unqualified person in a combat sport event because it would give a false impression of Middle East tolerance. 

And yes, I do think the Chinese swimmer was cheating.  Granted, the Chinese don't have a reputation for cheating in sports if you discount recent history (the only time they were winning).  Hell, they got blamed as the driving force in badminton teams trying to throw games to get an easier route in the second round.  Man, I lost so much money on those games.  Bastards.  I could use an expert to justify my belief that the swimmer was a doper, but I don't have to.  Common sense tells you someone does not have that much of a crazy jump in performance.  And it's laughable to hear Olympic officials say "she passed her drug tests here."  Every athlete you hear about failing a drug test passed several before finally failing.  Only the stupid get caught.  What they don't like to mention is that steroids don't stay in your system, and if you use them for years while training, you can get the results without them actually being in your body when you show up at the Olympics.  Considering what the Chinese do with children who show any athletic aptitude, why the hell would I doubt that they would pump them full of drugs?  And you thought US parents living through their children was bad.  The fact that children are treated as state property and torn from their family doesn't seem to fit the "Olympic spirit".  And my belief in Chinese cheating isn't racism.  I thought that Irish chick at the Atlanta games was cheating when she was suddenly blowing people away.  Granted, she was a ginger and had no soul.

But in spite of that, I still like the summer Olympics.  I don't know if it's because I get to see those sports that I can't see at other times.  Hmmm.  Maybe it's the chicks.  After all, many of the female gymnasts were legal adults this time.  And more shockingly, they were built like adults instead of emaciated stick figures.  Yeah, but to be honest, not many curves on the beach volleyball players.  And their fashion sense was certainly destroyed by the bra-over-long-sleeve-shirt look.  And while the female swimmers were an overall reasonably attractive lot, it became less so when they were in the body suits, goggles and caps that made them look like asexual drones in some dystopian movie.  But on the other hand, I really did have an unhealthy fascination with that 6'4" South Korean outside hitter.  She knocked the shit out of everything.  I think I watched every South Korean women's volleyball game of the Olympics.  And fell in love.  Maybe not really.  But maybe really.  I'll let the readers decide.

The big question of the time was caused by Kobe Bryant saying the 2012 men's Olympic basketball team was better than the 1992 Dream Team.  Was Bryant right?  Not really.  The 1992 team was better, but I do think people who think the 2012 team couldn't beat the 1992 team are crazy.  Granted, the '92 team had Michael Jordan who was so much better than Lebron James.  James took nine seasons in the league before winning a title while playing for a large market team like Cleveland.  Jordan had to drag a small market club in the third largest city in America to a title, but he did it in only seven years.  Using drunken math, that's like a decade sooner.  It is really tough to compare the squads.  You can't look at the 2012 team's struggles and compare it.  International ball is much better now than in 1992.  Who were the best international players in 1992?  Arvydas Sabonis gets my vote but he was hobbled by leg problems at the time.  That leaves Drazen Petrovic, Toni Kukoc (young) and Dino Raja.  Wow.  Compare that to pros like Manu and the Gasols and other NBA players in the international game.  But while the '92 team was filled with Hall of Famers, that doesn't mean they were Hall of Fame caliber at the time.  Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were shells of themselves.  The 2012 team is a lot younger, but they have a lot of talent.  The 1992 team is probably better if for no other reason than height.  No offense to Tyson Chandler and Anthony Davis, but they can't hold a candle to David Robinson and Patrick Ewing right now (maybe later for Davis).  And the 2012 team had one power forward - Kevin Love.  Compare him to Karl Malone and Charles Barkley.  Doesn't really compare.  But at point guard...........I don't know.  John Stockton is much better than Russell Westbrook or Deron "Overrated" Williams or Chris Paul.  But since Johnson didn't have much left, Stockton was the only point guard.  Plus, I would much rather run my offense through "point forward" James than "point forward" Scottie Pippen.  Maybe I'm crazy or drunk or both (and we all know that is true), but I think the 2012 team would give the 1992 team a game every time just with the sheer athleticism.  But the '92 team would finish with a better record. 

As I'm writing this, I'm watching a preseason game between the Titans and Cardinals.  A Titans kick returner had a very nasty his leg.  And a team spokesman felt the need to announce that he wouldn't return.  Because you're never sure if a broken leg in a preseason game should get checked out.

A secondary question from men's basketball was whether NBA players should be allowed.  My initial thought is "yes".  As is every thought after that.  Why not?  This is supposed to the best of the best (not counting Saudi judo fighters who can't tie their belt).  Why send lesser teams?  Just like Olympic soccer will always fall behind the World Cup, Olympic basketball is not as big as the NBA finals.  I love the college game, but that's guys who have been together for at least an entire season.  Not just thrown together for an international competition.  If you're going to throw a group of guys together to play, make them the best.  I think it's pretty cool to see Lebron James and Kevin Durant play together.

The sport I think is stupid to include pros in the Olympics is tennis.  What's the point?  It's still primarily an individual sport.  Hell, tennis tournaments already make a big deal about a player's nationality.  Unlike seeing Lebron James and Kevin Durant playing together, I get Roger Federer playing Andy Murray in the final.  Sure it was so much different from Wimbledon a few weeks ago when they played the final.  I'm not sure how, but in theory, it was different.  At the Olympics, they get a medal.  At Wimbledon, they get a trophy or plate or something.  I've never really paid attention.

In non-Olympics news, West Virginia University placed first in the top party schools.  Guess Oxycontin abuse and banging your sister is a party in some places.

I was surprised to see Mississippi State was being investigated for recruiting in football.  You cheat to go 21-17?  Plus they didn't pay Cam Newton the money he wanted.  But neither did Auburn if you believe the NCAA (I don't).  I wasn't really surprised to see a basketball recruit to a certain school get investigated. 

And in a semi-sports related story, Augusta National added two chicks.  Supposedly this is important.  And I guess long overdue.  I guess.  I saw several sportswriters make the same joke about August finally joining the 20th century (or 19th).  Ha ha.  See, the joke is that we're in the 21st century now.  These guys are hilarious.  The fact that they were using the same lame joke is no reason to think they were all unimaginative.  It's so cute that sportswriters think they're actual writers.  Know what century I live in?  The I-Don't-Give-A-Shit century.  I didn't give a shit when they didn't want to let women become members.  I don't give a shit now.  It has absolutely zero affect on anyone but a miniscule subset of the nation.  Wow.  A couple of rich and politically connected women are being allowed to join a golf club that would never let me in.  I know because I apply all the time even though I don't play golf or have very much money.  Or that may have been for Solid Platinum's VIP access (which I didn't get either).  I can't remember. 

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Sex, Politics & Weiners

Ah, those politicians and their inability to keep it in their pants. Some big sex scandals. Let's jump right in with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, I guess you could say this isn't really a political scandal as much as Hollywood decadence. After all, Arnold fathered an illegitimate child with the maid fourteen years ago. Long before he became governor of California. Then he was out of office (and apparently out of politics) when it came out what had happened. But I think I'll talk about it anyway because the woman he knocked up was kind of ugly. Which leads to fun discussions about the fact that apparently those are the kind of women that Arnold liked. Ugly chicks. Because he doesn't want to chance them being prettier than he is. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I think it was less because they were easier and so flattered enough to be boned by a wealthy, famous person that they were willing to keep it a secret. After all, this woman hid a love child for over a decade. And continued to be his maid when she could have earned some boucoup child support.

That said, I don't quite have much respect for Arnold anymore. I wasn't surprised this came out. After all, there have been rumors about him for a long time. A man seen as a serial groper would also seem the type to bang the maid, impregnate her and do nothing about it. And I'm not really buying the story that Arnold was unaware until Maria Shriver figured it out. There seemed to be a bit of a resemblance. So at the very least, he should have strongly suspected. Should have suspected enough to maybe ask. Would that have been too hard? Shriver and everyone else had an excuse to be in denial, but Arnold had a little more info on it. Namely, he knew he was banging the maid. And let's look at the scenario. You're doing the Mexican maid with the Mexican husband. She turns up pregnant. The boy has blonde hair and blue eyes just like an Austrian child might have. Just like you. And even though the boy is around quite a bit, you never suspect? Nope. Not gonna believe it. If Arnold never asked, it's because he didn't want to know. And that is why he has lost my respect (which I'm sure is crushing him). If he had any inkling (and he had to have) that child was his, he should taken responsibility for it. For God's sake, at least stop making the mother of your child be your actual maid.

Now, I don't care for children. They are disgusting creatures that cost money and don't really produce any economic benefit. Well at least for me. But, that child is about the only I feel sorry for in the whole saga. Well, Arnold's other kids are bystanders who have to suffer the family embarrassment. Actually, I'm kind of glad the maid continued working for the last fourteen years. Something wrong with being monetarily rewarded for sleeping with a married man. I can't even feel sorry for Maria Shriver. There have been too many stories and rumors for her to act like she didn't suspect his infidelity. And defend him to the last breath in his gubernatorial race which makes me believe she was okay as long as he was going to get political power in California. Then it blew up in their face. But why should she have been surprised about it. She's a Kennedy (and made her career off that). That is a family almost proud of their caddish behavior with women. Only an idiot like Rosie O'Donnell would think Arnold doesn't fit in with that Kennedy legacy. Arnold may have been boning the help, but unlike Shriver's cousin Michael, he didn't start when she was 14. But you might point out a person can't choose their family, but I was about to vomit every time I read a news excerpt that mentioned her recent rough times included the death of her "beloved" uncle Ted. Yeah. Old Uncle Teddy. He knew how to treat women right. Drown 'em.

Actually, the most fun with this type of story is they do news roundups on the all day news stations and need filler so they show clips from other news shows. Not real I consider The View a news story but I caught a clip of Barbara Walters asking why men can't keep their pants zipped up. Would that be the same Barbara Walters who once had an affair with a married man? A married man who also happened to be a sitting Senator? I think she should be able to answer that question pretty easily. Because sluts like her put out for them.

But the Schwarzenegger story came out pretty quickly and then kind of died since he was out of office and had no immediate projects. But then came Anthony Weiner. I was so sad when he resigned over this because he was truly the gift that kept on giving. A college coed gets a picture of an underwear-clad erect penis sent from a Congressman's twitter account which he follows with a post that he was hacked. The regular media report it as a hacking even though Weiner does not go to the authorities about this federal crime because he doesn't want to waste the police's time. Others don't think that isn't the real reason (not helped when Weiner is willing to waste the police's time running off a reporter). Weiner says he is done talking about it. Then he really begins to talk about it. Always smart to lose your cool and call a reporter a jackass. I love that video clip. The best part how Weiner refuses to give a simple yes/no answer, but keeps trying to tell this analogy about hecklers in a crowd (I bet he spent at least two hours in front of a mirror the night before practicing that exact speech as a default answer to any question). I think he got mad because after all that hard work, they correctly understood it was irrelevant to the question of whether or not a married Congressman was sending dic-pics to college girls and wanted a real answer.

Then he is forced to admit it because as it always seems to happen when a sex story breaks (think Tiger Woods), more women come out of the woodwork. With more than a simple underwear shot. Some was pretty explicit. And so soon after his marriage. Even then he didn't want to resign. Probably because he has no skills or ability for gainful employment that doesn't include political connections. Which may be as pathetic as sending dick pics across twitter. But he eventually resigned. And the best part of that article is reading that Bill Clinton is livid at Weiner's behavior. Seriously? Bill Clinton? Mad at someone messing around on his wife? But what may have made Weiner resign? You may want to scroll down in his initial press conference admitting to his deeds. Where he says the women were all of age - "at least to the best of my knowledge." Well, except that 17 year old high school girl that Weiner was sending direct messages to. Oh, they all say there was nothing explicit in the messages. Sure, because Weiner would never do anything reckless like that. But the fact that he was emailing a high schooler was a bit too much. So he resigned.

What made this most interesting to me was how the press behaved. I have seen many people (usually celebs or sports people) who put something indelicate on their twitter feed and them claim they were hacked. No one ever believed them. Yet, when Weiner said it, it was taken as gospel. Or they attacked Andrew Breitbart for reporting it (Cenk Uygur was my favorite because it was all so wrong). I even saw some reporters on a roundtable saying the fact that Breitbart first reported the twitter pic was a reason not to report on it. Sorry. That's complete crap. The moment Weiner tweeted that he had been hacked, there was a story there. Either a congressman was sending pictures of his junk to college girls online or a congressman's account was hacked. Both would be stories.

But once it became obvious that something was going on, we got the excuses. The first was "It's his personal life, so it doesn't matter as long as he does a good job. And we only reported on Republican sex scandals because they were hypocrites unlike Democrats who don't preach family values." Well, a good job is subjective but for all the talk about Weiner being a rising star, he wasn't known for much legislatively. I follow politics as much as anyone so I knew who he was, but not for any piece of legislation that he pushed. Even his wiki page lists some things he was for, but he didn't sponsor or write the big stuff. Well, except trying to get more supermodels to work in New York. That's important work there. Weiner's value to his party was based on him being an ass. He could rant and rave on the floor of Congress or rip Republicans on news shows and get away with it because he's a New Yorker and they're rude anyway. But that's why Democrats finally told him to go. He was useless to them. After getting caught doing this, who is going to take him seriously after that? And no hypocrisy? Yeah. I remember all those ads the Democrats ran opposing family values. Anthony Weiner's campaign bio listed "cybersexing with strange women I meet online." And his wedding vows ended with "and I promise to only commit adultery with women I meet online and won't start until next month" (and for those who believe it's not adultery, try running it past a divorce judge because it counts). I'd be pissed if I was a Democrat. Because they seem so grumpy, but also because the press is telling them that they are immoral. All Congressmen play up their happy family image. And they don't have a private life. Not in this sense anyway. If their constituents are okay with sexual indiscretions, that's fine. I personally find it rather bizarre that I'm being told that a member of Congress is being held to a lower level of behavior than I would expect from a local school principal. But that's up to them. However, telling me it's not a story is crap. I want to know if my Congressman is messing around like this.

After all, if doing a few porno movies means you can't teach anymore, then why should you be a Congressman? Teaching means you can screw up five or six classes worth of people a year, but a Congressman can screw up a lot more. Actually I don't see a problem with former porn people teaching at the lower levels of education which may seem counter intuitive. As I've said before, elementary school children shouldn't even know what that means. Obviously at the high school level, how much respect can a high school teacher get if her students know she did porn? None. Plus, you've got a bunch of horny high school students thinking their teacher is willing to sleep with anyone. Which I think I said before when this woman was fired from a school in Kentucky five years ago. But I can't find it on the blog. Must have been on the fantasy football website with all the naked pictures I used to run.

Speaking of porn, this is a sad tale. Well, maybe not sad. Pretty pathetic actually. The girl from some show called Teen Mom has been offered a role in a porno movie. The moment I saw this story, I said it was sad and despicable. Well, first I thought "what the hell is Teen Mom?". Then I thought sad and despicable. Well, after I saw the picture of the girl. Who would want to watch that?

And finally, one last porn story. Chyna wants to do another movie. Enjoy your dinner after hearing that.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Ah, Libya and other stuff

I kind of ignored the Libya story because while it has some amusing moments (for example, Barack Obama has launched more cruise missiles than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner), there really didn't seem to be much to it. For all the problems with Libya, it is a jerkwater craphole even by middle eastern standards. As much as I like the idea of Khadafy catching a bullet, I didn't really care that getting involved was complete amateur hour (mostly by the Europeans), but now we have the mission creep where helicopters are being engaged. That means this isn't just a cost issue, helicopters are much easier targets. We could start seeing allies getting killed and if the helicopters don't work, next step could be ground troops. This whole situation has been handled ridiculously. Look at the quote where Obama says we're going to "finish the job", but we don't even know what the job is. We want him to go but every time we hit a location he may be at, we're told that killing him isn't a goal. Well, that's just stupid. Say what you will about Bush and Iraq, at least he let it be known that we were there to eliminate Saddam Hussein. Because unlike Obama and Cameron and Sarkozy, he probably noticed that a no fly zone didn't do squat about eliminating Hussein. They actually thought this was going to be short. And obviously it isn't. It's been proven over time that it's really hard to bust a dictator loose just with some bombing. Unless you have a solid ground force, he'll just wait you out. And the Libyan rebels have proven to be less than stellar soldiers even with NATO bombings. Which means the NATO bombings could have actually made things worse. The rebels aren't strong enough to beat Khadafy's forces and he's not able to finish them off. Now Libya is in a civil war which is could get bloodier the longer it goes on.

So why did we get involved? Well, they said to protect civilians. That was a joke then because there was no evidence that civilians were being massacred. Or massacred to a surprising level. This is the Middle East. Killing civilians is a hobby. Now, we're being told Obama and David Cameron would like us to think that they are supporting Arab uprisings but a bunch of dead Syrians may disagree. This happened for two reasons. One is oil. Surprise, surprise. All that criticism in the past about wars for oil and it's Obama who gets involved in one that is truly about oil. But it's not oil for the US. It's for England and France. They screwed up. France and England jumped in early and opposed Khadafy. Then the Arab League was all for it until they weren't. Of course the French and British were for it. They took the opposition side when they were on the outskirts of Tripoli. Gee, I wonder if it was because they thought Khadafy was going down and they wanted to get in good with the future rulers because getting oil from Libya is a short (cheaper) trip. But they were stupid. Khadafy hadn't used his mercenary army or air force. Suddenly Libyan government forces were kicking around the rebels. And Khadafy was talking about shipping oil anywhere but France or England. Gee, wonder if that had anything to do with the sudden desire to get rid of him. The other reason is they did it is because they thought it would be easy. Libya isn't Iran or Syria (who is allied with Iran) who are doing pretty much the same thing to their civilians (guess Syrian civilians rate lower than Libyan civilians). The rebels had been on the outskirts of Tripoli. No one outside of Venezuela and some poor African countries he gave money to liked Khadafy. The Arabs opposed him (although that diplomatic coup was based on Khadafy once trying to kill the Saudi Crown Prince). Easy? Not quite. Let's not be too stupid here. Khadafy has no incentive to leave. The only countries that would take him in are other poor jerkwater countries. He knows they might eventually sell him to the International Criminal Court.

But if the rebels win, isn't it worth it? Good chance it isn't. One of the biggest concerns has been that we don't know who we're dealing with among the rebels no matter how many people want to call them "pro-democracy". We have no idea if that is true or not. We do know some things about them. They like to summarily execute captured soldiers which may not be a good thing. Oh, and one of their military leaders was once held at Guantanamo after being captured in Pakistan. But no concerns. We've known for years that the rebel strongholds were actually one of the top recruiting grounds for al Qaeda in Iraq. Ooops. Of course the reaction to the Arab uprisings by diplomats in the West has been laughably naive. They really seem to think because the protests are against thuggish dictators that they are being led by pro democracy liberals. Sorry. Not the case. Just because Hosni Mubarak was a dick doesn't mean his absence is a good thing. Guess who is aligning themselves with the military rulers in Egypt and is considered the best organized political group in Egypt? If you said the very anti-western Muslim Brotherhood, you win a falafel. And it doesn't appear that the military is all that reform minded to begin with. Might explain the upsurge in anti-Christian attacks in Egypt. But it's not just Egypt. A lot of people think Iran is behind a lot of the protests in Bahrain. But I'm sure Iran has the best of intentions. It gets even better in Yemen. There is a possibility that al Qaeda could end up in control there. Wouldn't that be awesome.

I'm sure some might think that having an Islamic government isn't a big problem. Some sound thinking there. In Saudi Arabia, a woman was arrested for driving a car. Then re-arrested for posting a video about it. The scary thing is the ruling monarchy is actually one of the more moderate elements there. But some might argue that Saudi Arabia isn't a good example because of how Islamic it is. It's not a moderate Islamic country like ........say Indonesia. Nothing says moderate like caning a woman for "being in close proximity" to a man. No word on whether she drove to meet him.

Here is a heart warming tale about a man letting a 10 year old girl drive his car. Because he was apparently too drunk to which means he was sort of responsible. In a half assed way. Too bad it all fell apart when the car was hit by a train. Don't worry. No injuries. Obviously the man was totally irresponsible here. Letting a woman drive his car. What was he thinking?

But is 10 years old too young for a push up bra? Not if she's shopping Abercrombie & Fitch. Although in their defense, they don't sell the ones for 7 year olds anymore. At least not on their website. I'm not sure which is worse. That the company thought it was a good idea to sell something like that. Or the fact that it took people complaining to remove it. Which means idiots were buying these for their kids.

Ah, a story from my youth. A story about that poster of a woman playing tennis and lifting her skirt to show her butt. I remember it well. We would go into Spencer's Gifts just to see it. Probably where my perverted behavior all began.

I'm sure some might see me as being overly critical about the foreign policy direction of our country. And you would be right. But Obama did one good thing in the midst of all the stupid. He approved a mission to kill Osama Bin Laden. I'll give him credit for that, but it became absurd the level his flunkies in the media went in lionizing him by saying it was a "gutsy call". The most pathetic was the woman who essentially claimed Obama was just as brave in authorizing it as the guys who actually went in on the job. Seriously? Comparing a potential political embarrassment to flying into an armed compound with the potential to get killed? Actually the only reason this was considered "gutsy" is because of who the President is. I can't think of any President who would not have made this decision. Believe it or not, there were other special forces raids into Pakistan predating Obama. The fact is Barry is the only one that there was any doubt about doing it.

And the aftermath of the whole raid shows just what a bunch of clowns are part of the national security apparatus now. Everything was done wrong. They were in such a hurry to get the story out that they couldn't even get it right. Which caused them to look stupid as they backtracked to tell what really happened. There was conflicting reports about whether or not we'd get to see the photo of his body. How do you not make that decision beforehand? Here's a thought. Why not hold off making the announcement for........even a week. He's dead. That's not going to change. Get your story straight. Make sure every question can be answered. Maybe get the Pakistanis on board with your story so they don't rush headlong into the arms of China. Then we can't even dump the body in the sea correctly. Supposedly it was done in proper Islamic fashion (who cares? I would have dump his body in a pig sty and let the hogs eat him) even though it wasn't. And it was done to make sure there wasn't a grave for radicals to make a pilgrimage to, and that's working about as well as expected. But we also got a lot of intelligence information. We know because they couldn't wait to announce how many thumb drives and laptops (and porn) were found. Guess they never thought keeping that a secret would be a good idea. Maybe we could waited a little longer than a week to announce his death to go through this treasure trove of data. I doubt al Qaeda was going to immediately announce his death, and as decentralized as they had become, it would have taken time to get everyone notified. Maybe time to find and kill them too. But I'm sure they didn't stay around their hideawaysafter watching CNN.