Bowl Games

I haven't put anything up lately. It's because it's football season and I put the time into a site devoted to my league. In fact, I had these picks on my fantasy football site two weeks ago, but I haven't given that address to everyone who has this one. And some people probably are better off not seeing the fantasy football site, so I'm putting my bowl picks here.

Bowl Picks. Winners in italics.
New Orleans Bowl (played in Lafayette, LA) - Southern Miss vs. Arkansas State - Arkansas State won an overtime game over 1-10 Florida Atlantic by the score of 3-0. Take Southern Miss.
GMAC Bowl - UTEP vs. Toledo - This is a game that I think could be a fun one to watch. Anyone besides me know that Carson Palmer's little brother Jordan plays for UTEP? Still, I'm taking Toledo in a close one. UK fans should watch since I think Toledo coach Tom Amstutz would make a good replacement for Rich Brooks (assuming Brooks doesn't win 5 games next year and gets a four year extension).
Las Vegas Bowl - BYU vs. Cal - Cal has only played one bad game this year. I've got to go with the hippies over the Mormons.
Poinsettia Bowl - Colorado St. vs. Navy - How often does Colorado St. see the triple option? Navy runs all over them.
Fort Worth Bowl - Kansas vs. Houston - Could be a snooze fest, but I'll go with Kansas. I think they've been playing better to end the season.
Hawaii Bowl - Nevada vs. Central Florida - Bear with me on this one. Central Florida loses the CUSA title game and goes to Hawaii while Tulsa wins it and goes to Memphis? Doesn't seem fair. Oh well, Central Florida wins to continue the George O'Leary reclamation project.
Motor City Bowl - Memphis vs. Akron - DeAngelo Williams is back. Take Memphis.
Champ Sports Bowl - Clemson vs. Colorado - I don't care if one of them was Texas, Colorado has lost its last three games 130-22. Take Clemson.
Insight Bowl - Arizona State vs. Rutgers - Rutgers is making its second bowl ever and should get the win over a weak Sun Devil team.
MPC Computers Bowl - Boston College vs. Boise State - Boise St. is playing a de facto home game against a BC team that is pissed off that they went 8-3 in the ACC and still dropped behind lesser ACC teams to end up in the only bowl game where the weather could be colder than in Boston. Personally, after BC stabbed the Big East in the back, I find it funny. Oh yeah, don't take a team that is unhappy playing in their bowl.
Alamo Bowl - Michigan vs. Nebraska - Bet this bowl never thought these two storied teams would end up in its lower-tier game at the same time. Both are 7-4, but I think Michigan is a better 7-4.
Emerald Bowl - Georgia Tech vs. Utah - Georgia Tech is simply a better team.
Holiday Bowl - Oregon vs. Oklahoma - Oregon should have been in a BCS game, while Oklahoma shouldn't be in a bowl game this good.
Music City Bowl - Minnesota vs. Virginia - Neither team really thrills me, but Minnesota runs the ball well.
Sun Bowl - Northwestern vs. UCLA - This is a tough one. I don't like UCLA at all. But I'm not sure I like Northwestern any better. I'll take Northwestern in the upset.
Independence Bowl - South Carolina vs. Missouri - Missouri sucks.
Peach Bowl - Miami vs. LSU - Look like crap in the SEC championship game, and may not have JaMarcus Russell, so I'm picking Miami over LSU. However, I do think LSU got screwed by the bowls. Why are Alabama, Auburn and Florida in better bowls?
Meineke Car Care Bowl - South Florida vs. NC State - I wish I knew the temperature was going to be. If it's average or above average, I would take South Florida, but if it's really cold, then NC State. I'm guessing milder weather. South Florida.
Liberty Bowl - Tulsa vs. Fresno St. - Since losing a close game to Southern Cal, Fresno has slumped. Tulsa is playing well. Take Tulsa.
Houston Bowl - TCU vs. Iowa State - Interesting. TCU (located in Fort Worth) is playing in the Houston Bowl while Houston is playing in the Fort Worth Bowl. TCU is on a 9 game winning streak, but should be undefeated. Iowa State is a mediocre team from a mediocre division of the Big 12.
Cotton Bowl - Texas Tech vs. Alabama - Team that likes to score against a team that can't. I know the adage is that defense wins championships, but I'm not so sure Alabama has the offense to win a bowl game.
Outback Bowl - Iowa vs. Florida - I would take Florida is they were playing in Gainesville, but they aren't.
Gator Bowl - Louisville vs. Virginia Tech - I wouldn't be going to Jacksonville if I thought UL was going to lose. Besides, we beat North Carolina worse than they did (said with crossed fingers).
Capital One Bowl - Wisconsin vs. Auburn - While I can see an emotional Wisconsin trying to win one for retiring Barry Alvarez, I still don't see them beating Auburn.
Fiesta Bowl - Notre Dame vs. Ohio State - Notre Dame hasn't beaten anyone. Take Ohio State.
Sugar Bowl - Georgia vs. West Virginia - The key to beating Georgia is running well which is forte of West Virginia. Of course, West Virginia struggles against scrambling quarterbacks which DJ Shockley hasn't done as much as I thought he would. Still, it's a home game this year for Georgia.
Orange Bowl - Penn State vs. Florida State - I'm still not sure how a four loss Florida State managed to get into a BCS game.
Rose Bowl - Southern Cal vs. Texas - Well, both teams tried to make a point by running up the score on their opponents the last week of the season. I still think Texas has a better defense and will win.

PC in sports

There have been some recent sports stories that deal with political correctness that I have found the reaction to running the gamut of sad to laughable.

Air Force head coach Fisher DeBerry recently got into some controversy when he said that one of the reasons his team is struggling is the lack of team speed which he attributed to the lack of minorities. He pointed out "Afro-American kids can run very, very well". Really? What gave it away? The fact that all the top sprinters in the world are black, whether or not they are from this country? The fact that I can't remember a white NFL cornerback not named Jason Sehorn in my lifetime? The fact that the wide receiver and running back positions in the NFL and major college football are hugely black, even though only 13 percent of the population is? For whatever reason, blacks simply run better, and due to their stringent requirements, military academies have a much smaller pool of players to recruit, so team speed is a problem. What is completely stupid about this story was most commentators seemed to think what he said was discriminatory against blacks. Exactly how? He blamed his recruiting for the lack of minorities. He never said blacks weren't smart enough to get into the academy so that argument is bogus. So, it looks to me like the people who should be offended are white football players who have just been told they are slow. Of course, too many sportswriters aren't smart enough to see that. Plus, offended white players isn't much of a story.

On a related line of thought, during the World Series, Joe Morgan lamented the fact that the Astros didn't have a black player on their roster. That was news to me since I was sure I saw a black guy (Ezequiel Astacio) give up a homerun. Apparently, he's a Latino, even though he looks black. Apparently, even if you look black, you aren't unless you come from the US. As a whole, blacks only make up 9 percent of Major League rosters. My response is: so what? How many blacks in baseball are enough for Joe? Should I be concerned that blacks are slightly underrepresented (as a percentage of population) in baseball when they are vastly over-represented in the NFL and NBA? I'll worry about this when Joe shows some concern about the lack of whites in the other two sports.

Race wasn't the only story. A big story was WNBA player Sheryl Swoopes coming out of the closet and admitting that she's a lesbian. A lesbian in the WNBA? What's next, lesbians on the LPGA tour? The idea that there are a lot of lesbians in professional women's sports has been around for years, so a professional women's basketball players coming out is not that surprising. Yet, many commentators said that this shouldn't be taken as proof of that assumption. They're right. I always assumed that the WNBA probably had a higher percentage of lesbians than the population, but I never thought it would be half. Yet, look at this quote from Swoopes. "But the talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true. I mean, there are as many straight women in the league as there are gay." Looks like I was wrong. Actually, I don't care whether or not there are a bunch of lesbians in the WNBA. It can have all straight women or all homosexual women. I just don't find it that entertaining, and I'm not alone. Indoor football can make it on it's own, but the WNBA stays in business only because it's subsidized heavily by the NBA. That's where the laughable comes in. Some sportswriters were saying that the "lesbians in women sports" stigma may be going down, because a "big star" had come out. "Big star" in the WNBA? Isn't that like being the best damn accordion player in polka?

Another gender bending story comes out of English golf. The British Open golf championship is now open to all players, regardless of gender. Which I'm fine with except that the Women's British Open can only have female players. Sounds like discrimination to me. Male golfer Jean Van De Velde thinks the same thing and is saying he is going to send in an application for the Women's Open. He's being ridiculed, but I think he has a point. I thought the same thing when women were playing PGA events here. If a female player enters a PGA event, a male player is out. Unlike a female player who can't get into the PGA event, he doesn't have an option to play the LPGA event that week, and the LPGA has higher payouts than the minor league golf tours. I just think if you have a women's tour that doesn't allow men, then the men's tour shouldn't allow women. Actually, I've made the point in the past, women professional sports are illegal in this country due to job discrimination laws. Men's leagues don't prohibit female players (the Pacers gave Ann Meyer a tryout back in 1979), but women sports do. And before you point out that the laws don't apply in cases of competitive sports, you're wrong. Remember Casey Martin (recently announced retirement from golf) who sued to gain the use of a golf cart on the PGA? If the Americans With Disability Act applies to professional golf, then workplace discrimination laws should also. To be honest, I disagreed with the Martin decision, and I don't think the LPGA should be forced to allow men (not that it would happen regardless of the law) in their events, but I also think Van De Velde has a point.

World Series

Well, the World Series starts tonight, and I'm really looking forward to flipping over to check the score every 20-30 minutes while watching the Auburn vs LSU game or Penn State vs Illinois or possibly Oregon State vs UCLA. I still can't get too excited about baseball. If there's nothing else on, I'll have it on in the background, but I really don't care. I'm just sick to death of the stupidity that reporters and columnists show when writing about baseball this year. Saint Louis won a game on a ninth inning home run to pull their series with Houston to 3 games to 2. Even though Houston had the three wins, every pundit or sportswriters were now acting like Houston didn't have a chance. Do they think these guys are so fragile that one homerun is going to kill them? I realize Houston was in the same situation last year and lost the NLCS, but come on. What does that have to do with anything? Last year they went into game six with some guy I never heard of. This year they had 20 game winner Roy Oswalt who had already shut down the Cardinals in the NLCS, so why would I not give the edge to Houston in that case?

I spent some time trying to decide who I want to win the Series. I don't have anything against anyone on the White Sox. I don't have anyone on the White Sox that I really like either. I do like Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio on the Astros. So, normally, I would pull for them, but I won't. Because they have one of my least favorite players in Roger Clemens. I didn't like him when he played for the Red Sox. I was disinterested when he played for the Blue Jays. I hated him when he played for the Yankees. So, there is no way I can root for him to win another series. If he pitches well (or pitches poorly but they win), I'll have to read another set of stupid articles talking about "adding to the legend" of Clemens. This morons already did it once when they were talking about him when he pitched three relief inning s against the Braves in that 18 inning game. One wrote how he pitched the three innings on two days rest. What a load. He pitched on the sixth and the ninth so it was three days. Plus, he was shelled in his outing on the sixth and only finished five innings. Am I supposed to be impressed that he pitched eight innings in three days?

I've been hoping for years, and maybe one day it will happen, but right now, sports journalism (I use that term loosely) is so baseball centric that I have to put up with this kind of crap.

The Chicago White Sox

I've always heard about the "East Coast" bias in sports reporting. Basically, the theory is that sports team's east of the Mississippi get a lot more attention than those out west. While it's overstated (see LA Lakers in the NBA), I do think it's somewhat true. Of course the main reason is that too many sporting events on the west coast don't end early enough to make the news on the east coast. Actually, I don't think it's such a bad thing for them. Someone told me last year's Southern Cal team was basically an NFL team, but so much of that was based on them beating down Oklahoma in a bowl game. He never saw USC trail a crappy Stanford in the fourth quarter last year. People had the impression that USC was an unbeatable juggernaut because they hadn't actually seen them play.

But I digress. The reason I bring up the "East Coast Bias" is because I don't think it extends to the Mississippi River for most sports (exception is college football which is mostly centered in the South, Midwest and Great Plains). I think it's not just primarily on the coast, but way too infatuated with the Northeast. Baseball shows this clearly. Why aren't the Chicago White Sox the lovable underdog that is finally due for a World Series? You know, like the Red Sox were last year? Supposedly people were rooting for the Red Sox because they hadn't won a Series since 1918. Well, that was a year after the White Sox last won one. I never understood the whole Red Sox fascination of last year, because the idea was that people were tired of the Yankees, and the Red Sox were the antithesis of the Yankees. Bullcrap. Their payroll may not have been as high as the Yankees, but it was still a Hell of a lot more than any other team in baseball. Everything that was bad about the Yankees was present with the Red Sox. Yet, every baseball story is still about the Yankees and Red Sox. I for one hope the AL Championship is the Angels versus the White Sox. Piss on the Yankees, and piss on the Red Sox.

Academic Research

I let things fall behind a bit here. Been a little busy.

There was something in a section of the local paper that I normally wouldn't have read, but then I saw the word "stripper" and had to take a look. It's a little story about some sociology/women's studies professor writing an academic tome about the life of strippers. I like strippers as much as the next degenerate male, but I came away with a reinforced belief about the lack of fiscal responsibility in higher education. Why? This woman interviewed 37 strippers and "a few bouncers, deejays, waitresses, and club owners, as well as "clients". Let's assume a few equals three of each. That's about 52 people. She's been working on this book for eight years. That less than seven per year. She's working real hard. I wouldn't think much about it if she was working on it a side project, but she's actually had academic grants for five of those years. It doesn't say how much she got, but I find another part illuminating. It mentioned that most of the interviews took place in Lexington, but she went to other cities for "perspective". Did she drive to Louisville or maybe Atlanta? How about Chicago? Bet you can find strippers there. Nope. She went to Hawaii and San Francisco. Am I the only one who thinks she was taking vacations on someone else's dime?

Now, it didn't say what kind of grants she had, so they could have been non-government, but my feelings just the same. That's money that could be used for other, better things. So, when anyone tells me that higher ed doesn't get enough funding, my first thought is that it gets plenty of funding. Unfortunately, it spends it too much of it on stupid things.

On a side note, I wonder if I can get a free lap dance if I say I'm doing "research".

New Orleans

I wasn’t going to write about the New Orleans hurricane problems, because people will think I’m blaming the victims. However, someone then asked me if I thought George W. Bush’s response was too slow, so I decided that I would write about New Orleans. To begin with, contrary to popular belief, I do not take up for George Bush on everything. I disagree with him on immigration policies. I think he should have vetoed the completely ridiculous highway bill that Congress recently passed. I didn’t like the Medicare drug coverage because it included everyone instead of basing it on need. I also don’t think baseball is that interesting. However, to say that he was late in the game for Hurricane Katrina is silly. For one, no part of the federal government is built for speed. If that’s what you’re relying on, you will be disappointed. Actually, I’m not sure what constitutes a long time for federal reaction. When the city was flooded, who do you think the guys in orange suits hanging underneath helicopters to pick people off their roofs were? It was the Coast Guard which had been positioned to move in from day one. The military mobilized before the hurricane even hit, but the logistics of moving the Navy and Army will take about 3 to 5 days. Also, I went to Homestead, FL less than a week after Hurricane Andrew hit 1992 for a relief trip. I wasn’t that far behind the National Guard. Remember this – Katrina hit on Monday, but the levee breeches didn’t really begin flooding the city until Tuesday. Yet, the first buses started the evacuation of the Superdome on Wednesday. And by Saturday, 30,000 people were evacuated from the Superdome, and another 25,000 from the convention center by Sunday. That means in the same amount of time it took to get the Guard in Homestead, they had convoyed into a flooded and crime ridden New Orleans and evacuated thousands of people. The federal government wasn’t any slower in this disaster than others. It just looks worse because there were circumstances that other natural disasters don’t have to deal with. Mainly, 80% of the city under water because you were dealing with a city that never should have existed that way. I loved visiting New Orleans, but it doesn't make sense to have half a million people in a city with most living in a bowl between a big lake and a big river and under sea level.

Another factor is that with the federal system of government means natural disaster issues are primarily the province of state and local government. That’s not just in tradition. It’s often by law. George Bush was in contact with the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana two days before the storm hit to urge them to call for an evacuation. However, by law, that call had to be made by them, and in fact, the city of New Orleans has a hurricane emergency plan that was unfortunately virtually ignored. It stated that school and metro buses would be used to help evacuate people who couldn’t get themselves out. They also had a second evacuation once they realized the levees were breached and the city was flooding on Tuesday. Yet, there’s an AP picture of a couple of hundred school buses not that far from the Superdome that could have been used, but weren’t. By Wednesday, local officials were trying to round up buses from out in the state. Not only was the resource ignored, but by not using them, they were left to be flooded which means they will need to be overhauled or replaced. I’ve been to New Orleans so I know where the Super Dome and Convention Center are, and the streets around them were not washed out yet on Tuesday morning when I watched the news. If they had used those buses, they could have gotten many of the people out. Barring that, once the state decided to open the Superdome as a shelter, they needed to supply it and secure it. I’ve heard about 1000 excuses from New Orleans’ idiot mayor (who has since moved to Dallas and bought a house) about why they didn’t, but he’s obviously failed in his duty. What’s even worse is that we’ve since learned that the Red Cross was ready to take relief supplies to the Superdome after the storm passed on Monday, but state officials stopped them because they wanted the people there to leave. FEMA has been highly criticized, but by law, they are set up to “assist” state and local government during a disaster. They do not take the lead. The mayor and governor abdicated their responsibility to their citizens, because they just wanted to wait for the feds. Well, Florida gets hit with hurricanes pretty frequently, but they don’t have near the problems, because they take care of their own and let the feds come in later.

One of the biggest issues was security which is once again, by law, a local responsibility. That is where the local failure was most acute. While the Coast Guard was being videoed rescuing people on roofs, New Orleans police officers were on the news stealing shoes and DVDs from Wal-Mart or they might have been former police officers still in uniform because about a third of the force quit. I wasn’t surprised by that because NOPD has never been known for its professionalism. When I was in Homestead, I was never told to watch out for snipers. Yet, in New Orleans, the police had no control over the criminal element, but that isn’t surprising either. When I was down there, they pretty much let you know that you were safe in the tourist areas, but they couldn’t protect you elsewhere. So, if they can’t control the criminals in good times, why would I expect a hurricane to make things different (although they began confiscating guns from the law-abiding which made sense because then they could no longer defend themselves against the criminals that the police wouldn’t arrest)? The police were even chased out of the convention center. When they went back and caught someone breaking the law, they just took them to a different part of the center. They didn’t even throw them out. The lack of security kept the Red Cross out and caused FEMA to leave the Superdome. Evacuations were halted, and air ambulances stopped coming in for the sick because they were getting shot at. When local control fails, the National Guard gets sent in, but they need to be under control of the governor who has to request them before they get sent in. Louisiana’s governor didn’t even send a request to other states until Wednesday, and when you factor in the deployment time, they were actually quite fast. As long as they are under state control, Guardsmen can do law enforcement duties, but the president cannot send in federalized troops for law enforcement because of Posse Comitatus laws. Unless the governor of a state asks them to, but when the offer was made to Governor Blanco of LA in order to put the active duty troops and the Guard under one command, she didn't want to give up control of the Guard. In fact, it’s still considered iffy whether or not Bush sending in active duty troops was completely legal. It’s pretty obvious that the governor did not use her National Guard troops effectively, but I'm sure if Bush had used the Insurrection Act to federalize the Guard without Blanco's permission, the Democrats criticizing him now wouldn't be accusing him of usurping her authority. Yeah, I'm real sure of that.

And now I think I will blame the victims. I’m not talking about the ones who couldn’t leave because of lack of transportation or infirmity. I’m talking about the ones who chose not to, and got stuck. When government officials up to the President of the United States tell you to go, you go. There’s still people who refuse to leave. I saw one guy say that he didn’t leave even when the flood waters were rising because his car was a five seater, and he had a wife and five kids. Well, two were very young, but he didn’t double stack some kids because he thought the state police might stop him. Is getting a ticket worse than trying to flag down a boat from your roof? I don’t consider him a bad person, but that was a bad decision. If you couldn’t get out of town, but lived in a shack in the bottom of the bowl and didn’t move to higher ground when the flooding started, you made a bad decision. Unfortunately, I have a feeling there was a large group that stayed simply for the opportunity to loot, so I have no sympathy for them. In fact, there are a lot of people who deserved to be shot. Shooting at helicopters, police, telephone repairmen. Give me a break. I’ve been hungry, tired and frustrated, but I think I could refrain from turning into an animal in two days. I know I could refrain from trying to sexually assault someone. Thanks to these lowlifes, help was slower in coming.

Great College Football Weekend

I remember some chump telling me that college football wasn’t worth watching. Of course, same loser also told me that Styx was the greatest rock band ever which could be true if by rock band you only mean Styx and Nelson. As for college football, this past weekend certainly proved him wrong. Sure there were some clunkers, but for the most part, it was one of the best days of college football viewing I’ve seen in a while. Obviously, the best game was Texas beating Ohio State by three. Neither of the teams wanted to lose as they slugged it out until the whistle. Vince Young moved to the head of my mythical Heisman ballot with his performance. Yet, during this game, I’m also flipping over to the Arizona State/LSU game that would also go down to the wire as LSU throws a 39 yard touchdown pass on 4th and 10 with just over a minute left. Not only that, Alabama is scoring the last 20 points of the game to beat Southern Miss 31-20. Not to mention trying to keep up with the NASCAR race which will determine the last of the ten teams that will be in the points chase. My channel changing finger is worn out.

And it started way before then. The Marshall/Kansas State game began at 10:30 in the morning, and Marshall drove to the Kansas State 21 yard line with 9 seconds left and trailing 21-19. Non-aggressive coaches would have simply attempted a 38 yard field goal for the win, but Marshall knew that the only way to have a game losing interception was to throw a pass. Which they did. But no time for worrying about that. Notre Dame is going into the Big House and knocking off Michigan. And making them look bad. I don’t really like Notre Dame, but I don’t Michigan either, so I’ll take it. At the same time I get to watch Oklahoma try to dump another game to a mid-level conference foe. They don’t, but still look like crap. Later in the afternoon, North Carolina invades Georgia Tech (who was coming off a beat down of Auburn at Auburn) and almost pulls off the upset. Steve Spurrier takes a mediocre looking South Carolina team to Georgia and falls short by only two. The amazing thing is that South Carolina keeps it close with defense. Finally, Oregon State kicks a field goal with 1:03 to go to beat Boise State. And this was all just leading up to the evening games.

However, as I said there was some clunkers. Oklahoma looked really bad. They needed 220 yards from Adrian Peterson, and yet were only beating Tulsa by 2 with just over 3 minutes left. This was a week after losing to TCU. TCU celebrated that win by losing 21-10 to SMU who was coming off a loss to Big 12 bottom-feeder Baylor. Of course, that begs the question, since Oklahoma lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to Baylor, is Oklahoma now the bottom feeder of the Big 12? And while it didn’t happen on Saturday, Pitt’s loss to Ohio on Friday showed that Dave Wannstedt doesn’t need the NFL to fail as a coach. I also can’t wait for the big UK/Indiana slugfest this coming weekend. Both teams were trailing in the fourth quarter to Division 1-AA teams. Every year UK hangs around with someone they shouldn’t to make people think they are really improving. Then they crap in their mess kit again. It wouldn’t bother me except this year they play UL tough, and now they’re going to screw up our strength of schedule.

College football

Here are my picks to win the six BCS conference titles, plus a little bit about those that won't.

ACC
I think the conference championship will come down between Virginia Tech and Miami. Even though I don't have the high confidence in Michael Vick's little brother Marcus that ESPN's college analysts do, I still think their defense and special teams is strong enough. They get Miami at home and don't play Florida State. Miami's got a stout defense, Devin Hester on special teams and no more Brock Berlin, but their conference schedule is tougher. The only other team I really see challenging those two is Florida who should win the Atlantic Division, but I think they'll lose the conference championship game. The rest of the ACC is typical ACC. Duke will suck. Wake Forrest will scare some teams, but still manage to finish last in their division. North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech will shuffle around between 3 and 5 in the Coastal Division. NC State, Boston College, and Maryland will do the same for 2 thru 4 in the Atlantic. Tommy Bowden will be fighting for his job (again) at Clemson by week 4.

Big East
I think this is clearly a two team race. Pittsburgh is a good team with a lot returning talent, but I think Louisville will take it. I may be biased, but I think UL has the players to make up their losses to the NFL, plus they get Pitt at home. West Virginia will probably be a perennial contender most years, but they are in such a rebuilding mode, I'm not sure they'll be able to hold off an up-and-coming team like Rutgers for third. Of course, until their defense begins to match their offense, Rutgers is capable of imploding every year. UConn seems to have become a real solid program, but replacing Dan Orlovsky at QB could be hard. Ditto with South Florida, at least as far as having a solid program. Syracuse has some tradition, but they have some big changes in coaching philosophy going on, so I don't see anything coming out of there this year. Cincinnati lost a lot of players, so even though they have a good coach, I think they'll really struggle.

Big Ten
I could easily see one of four teams winning this conference - Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, and Iowa. I'm a little bit concerned with the number of close games that Iowa and Michigan won last year. Add to the fact that Iowa has to play at OSU and Purdue and I toss them. I think Michigan's defense is a bit too susceptible to a mobile quarterback running hog wild on them, so I'll toss them. While I think Ted Ginn Jr is an amazing talent at wide receiver, I'm still not sold on Ohio State's offense, so forget them. Purdue doesn't face Ohio State or Michigan and play Iowa at home. Bingo. As for the rest, I could see Michigan State making a jump if they can keep QB Drew Stanton healthy. Wisconsin and Minnesota are both pretty solid bowl teams, but no threat for the Big Ten title. Joe's got to go at Penn State. Their defense was really good, but their offense last year was atrocious. Northwestern lost a lot of starters from a mediocre team, so I see a dropoff. Indiana hired a good coach, but they are still Indiana. Ron Zook drove Florida damn near into the toilet in two and half years, so why should I think he can make Illinois good.

Big 12
In the North, I think Colorado has the most talent and was a decent team last year. So, they'll win the North again over Iowa State which is turning into a decent program. I think Nebraska will actually take a step forward, which at this point means a winning season. Kansas is actually a team on the rise that could make some noise. Kansas State is really slumping, and I don't see that changing, but a winning record wouldn't be impossible. Missouri is fun to watch when Brad Smith is on, but I don't see them doing much as a whole. In the South, I like Texas to win the division and the title game. They are the most talented team of the whole conference and have a star in Vincent Young. And they will get by Oklahoma who I think could actually drop behind Texas A&M and Texas Tech. The Aggies will have their best team in years behind Reggie McNeal, while Tech has a high powered offense and a defense that is actually improving. Oklahoma will have Adrian Peterson, but I think there will be quite a drop off on offense without 12th year senior Jason White. I think Baylor will move ahead of Oklahoma State this year. Baylor has improved over the last couple of years, and Oklahoma State is bringing in a coach to completely change their offense which could lead to some growing pains.

PAC 10
While I don't think Southern Cal will win the BCS, I do think they'll win the PAC-10. Mainly because I see at least two conferences losses for the other teams. Cal is the closest thing to a second contender, but I'm not sure if they're good enough. Arizona State finished the season on a high note, but they looked like crap in most of their big games last year. While Oregon State lost their QB, they've got a lot of talent returning from a team that finished strong last year. UCLA should have a strong offense, but their defense will keep them from moving up. Last year may have been a momentary blip for Oregon, but I'm not too quick to put them back into the mix for the PAC-10 title. Washington State isn't the WSU of a few years back, but they could finish mid-pack and make a bowl. Arizona is a team on the move, but they started so low that it could be a long climb. Washington finished 1-10 last year, and 10 losses is 10 losses. Stanford blows.

SEC
In the West, LSU is obviously the most talented, but I think Alabama could sneak in and take. Their defense is great, but their whole season will probably hinge on how well they keep Brodie Croyle healthy. LSU does have the talent to contend, but I'm not sure new coach Les Miles is the type to make the quick jump to the top. People conveniently forget that Auburn was considered an underachieving team before last year, so I won't be surprised to see them drop off quite a bit with the losses to the NFL that they suffered. Arkansas is an interesting case. Houston Nutt's team was rebuilding last year when they went 5-6 in his first non-bowl season, but he's apparently on the hot seat. He's a good coach, and while I don't think they have the talent to win the West, I think they can screw it up for someone else. The Mississippi schools aren't very good, so mediocrity would be a plus for them. Unlike Miles, I think Urban Meyer is a coach who can step in and immediately contend. With the talent he has at Florida, I think he can win the East and the SEC title game. I'm not buying Tennessee as a national title contender. They choked at home against a weak Notre Dame, and for God's sake, they almost lost to UK. And Vandy. I think Georgia will be pretty good, but definitely a step down from the past couple of years. South Carolina may be a year or two away, but I wouldn't count out Steve Spurrier hurrying up the timeline. UK and Vandy fight for the cellar again.

Random Thoughts

I read where an American Indian tribe wants to build a 70 foot walkway that will jut out over the Grand Canyon. It will also have a glass bottom. I want throw up just thinking about it.

Apparently, Gretchen Wilson was asked not to pull out a can of Skoal while singing a song called Skoal Ring. The attorney general of Tennessee apparently thinks it would be a tobacco ad forbidden by the tobacco settlement. Singing the song isn't considered a tobacco ad, but showing a can of Skoal is? I think either would be stupid, so therefore I think AG Paul Summers is stupid.

I heard on one of the local radio stations that the Rolling Stones were "better than ever" at their first show of the new tour in Boston. Frankly, I don't believe. While I'm certainly aware that playing concerts at their age is impressive, I can't believe the show was better than when they were in their prime.

It's been reported that John Allen Muhammad, one of the DC area snipers from a couple of years ago, is on a hunger strike. Where's the drawback to that?

The UN has offered Zimbabwe $30 million in assistance to help all the poor people that he kicked out of shantytowns. Zimbabwe's "President", Robert Mugabe, is refusing because he doesn't want to look "needy". Do you think Bono still believes African poverty is the result of rich nations not giving enough?

I was flipping through the channels the other day, and the movie that was on ABC Family in the late afternoon was Cruel Intentions. I guess that's a family film if by family film you mean a movie about a guy who wants to bugger his step-sister.

Bearcat basketball

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the University of Cincinnati fired Bob Huggins. I certainly don't understand the way they did it. Huggins had some problems. Most cite his DUI arrest or player arrests or academic problems with players. Well, not only can I find those problems at other universities, I don't have to leave the state of Kentucky. A couple of years ago University of Louisville assistant coach Ralph Willard got a DUI, and a week after pleading guilty, he was the acting head coach while Rick Pitino was in Cleveland seeing a specialist. Academic problems and off court misbehavior have been an epidemic at the University of Kentucky under coach Tubby Smith. When the team is nicknamed Team Turmoil one season, you know you got problems. I would need a lot of fingers to count the number of UK players that have been in trouble with the law of late. And last year, UK was the NCAA tournament team with the worst graduation rate. Yet Pitino and Smith are not seen as running a renegade program. And Huggins certainly hasn't been as bad as John Chaney. He tried to choke an opposing coach in the 80s, broke into John Calipari's post-game press conference screaming he was going to kill him in the 90s and bragged about sending a goon onto the court to hurt someone leading to a player breaking his arm this year.

The real problem I have with it is the fact how it happened. UC was nothing from the 60s until Bob Huggins got there. UC would not have been invited to the Big East if not for him. He would routinely stay at UC even when other schools or the NBA came calling. Unfortunately for him, that loyalty was not a two way street. After 16 years of building that program, and they fire him in August while he's out of town because the school president thinks that he's the reason they aren't a top flight academic institution. Nick Lachey of all people gave the best response to that. How does Bob Huggins keep the academic departments from succeeding? If everyone else at the university does their job as well as Huggins did his, they might move up. Frankly, I think UC's president is a vindictive little bitch who fired him out of a little hissy fit. She talks about "character", and some call her courageous. For what? Waiting until he's out of town, and then firing him? After all he has done for that school's athletic department (only part that makes money), what a low-rent classless way to end his tenure.

If the DUI was the reason, why not fire him last year? Besides, I'm willing to bet they won't take tenure from a professor who gets a DUI. There have been fewer player problems and higher graduation in recent years, so if that's the reason, he's being penalized for crap that is years old. And it's not just Huggins being punished. That bitch stabbed a bunch of players in the back. The timing of it means the players have very little opportunity to transfer over it. That alone makes me suspicious of her waiting until now. Forcing the veterans to stay means a chance the team can stay successful. Because if the basketball program drops, she may have won the battle, but will lose the war.

Thoughts on the Pro Football HOF

It was nice to see Dan Marino and Steve Young get inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Unfortunately, some buttmunches in the press decided it wasn't good enough to write about their great careers. No, some felt the need to write that neither was as good as Joe Montana. I say crap to that. Joe Montana is the second most overrated quarterback in NFL history after Joe Namath. He won four Super Bowls, but so did Terry Bradshaw. If playoff success is the key, than Otto Graham is the greatest QB of all time. He led his team to ten pro football championship games winning seven. That was in 10 seasons. I think the 49er offense was well designed for Montana, but I'm not real impressed with a quarterback whose leading receivers his first five years were tight ends and running backs. Sounds like he dumped it off a lot. I would personally rather have Marino than Montana. Did he win four Super Bowls? No. He didn' t win any, but I think the personnel around him was a lot worse. The only time San Francisco's defense finished outside the top ten in scoring defense was the strike shortened 1982 when they were 20th. Ironically, the 49'ers went 3-6. The Dolphins were 7th in 1984 when they made the Super Bowl in Marino's second year. In the next 15 seasons, they finished in the top ten twice. They finished 17th or worse ten times. Montana had Wendall Tyler early in his career. Not that well known, but he had been a two time 1000 yard rusher with the Rams (including leading them to the 1980 Super Bowl) before joining the 49ers. Then one of the best all around running backs, Roger Craig, joined the team. In fact, Montana had both Tyler and Craig for four years. Who did Marino have? I would say that Mark Higgs was the best running back to play with Marino, and his best season was 915 yards. In fact, Karim Abdul-Jabbar was the only running back to have a 1000 yard season with Marino, and he only averaged 3.6 yards per carry. At receiver, Montana had Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Freddie Solomon and tight end Dwight Clark. The best receiver Marino had was probably Irving Fryar who he only had for a couple of years. Otherwise it was Mark Clayton and Mark Duper. How many HOF votes do you think they'll get?

As for Young, I think if the roles had been reversed, Young would have four Super Bowls. The biggest reason was the opposition. Young had to face the Dallas Cowboys dynasty of the 90s. This was the last great group of players before the salary cap kicked in. Jimmy Johnson built a great team, and Jerry Jones' money kept it together. Who did Montana's 49'ers have to climb over? The Giants and Redskins won some Super Bowls, but they kept switching their quarterbacks and running backs. Not much continuity there. The Bears had one of the greatest seasons ever when they won the 86 Super Bowl, but then Walter Payton's retirement and injuries to Jim McMahon derailed them. Supposedly, Montana was really clutch in the playoffs. Well, in back to back first round losses to the Giants in 85-86, the Montana's 49ers scored 3 points in each. Plus, the 49'ers of the 90s were not able to keep players together like they had in the 80s. Where Montana had Tyler and Craig, Young had to rely on head-case Ricky Watters (poor man's Roger Craig) for three years. Other than him, Young's 49ers were led in rushing by great players like Derek Loville, Keith Henderson and Terry Kirby. However, the biggest reason that I think Young doesn't take a backseat to Montana is what happened when Montana left. In his first real season as a replacement for Montana in 1992, Young led them to a 15-3 record. He lost one first round playoff game through 1998 (his last real season). In fact, from 1992-98, the 49ers won at least 10 games every year. If Montana was so important, why wasn't there a drop-off in performance, especially when the 49ers started losing their best players due to salary cap problems in the mid to late 90s? Oh, and Montana went to Kansas City in 1993 and led them to 11 wins which was one better than what Dave Krieg and Steve DeBerg took them to the previous two years. Real impressive.

What reality spawned these shows?

I had never planned to write about reality shows. I don't watch them but I don't find them somehow offensive. The only ones I like are the parodies of other reality shows (i.e. My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance). I just think television has shown itself completely incapable of producing good shows. There are so many crap ideas for television shows that good shows like Law & Order and C.S.I. both have two spinoffs, and all the spinoffs suck. Actually, I can't really say that about C.S.I.: New York. C.S.I.: Miami was so bad that I refused to watch the New York version. Since most non-reality television shows pretty much suck anyway, I understand why networks want to put reality shows on. They're cheap to produce even if you do give out a big prize, because you don't have to pay actors. Why shell out more money for a bad sitcom when you don't have to? Still, I feel compelled to comment on a couple of them that I haven't watched (saw ads), but the premises seem really bad. The first is the show to find a new lead singer for INXS. Now, I liked INXS back in the 80s. I liked them going back to their first hit, "The One Thing", but they haven't been relevant since about 1988. Plus, the main source of the bands popularity was lead singer Michael Hutchence who either killed himself or died in a bizarre sex act. What a great friggin' idea. Let's wait 16 years after anyone would care and then have a contest to replace the only irreplaceable part of a band. Why didn't they just hire Gary Cherone? I'm sure he's available. Yet, somehow this isn't the worst idea for a reality show. I saw an ad for a show called Fat Chance which is apparently a beauty contest for heavy-set women. And I use heavy-set politely. It's going to crown one of them "Ms. F.A.T." which stand for fabulous and thick. Who the Hell is the target audience for that? Is this some kind of self-esteem thing? Beauty contests portray an ideal. I'm a fat guy, but I certainly don't think it's an ideal that anyone should aspire to. It's certainly not healthy. In fact, I think it's a bad idea to try to convince people that it's OK to be that big. And these girls aren't just overweight. They are really big.

I do not like Terrell Owens

What a crock. Terrell Owens and his agent Drew Rosenhaus are a match made in heaven. I've never seen two guys so completely in love with themselves. These dumbasses were giving an interview to Chris Berman (who embarrassed himself by referring to Owens' playing in the Super Bowl as "heroic") after Owens managed to get himself thrown out of camp for cursing head coach Andy Reid. Yet, most of it consisted of talking about how great Owens is. And Rosenhaus is wearing shirt with a Superman logo on it. Might want to give that ego a little rest there Drew. Oh, and they said the Eagles didn't have to worry about Owens not coming back next week, because "he is a professional". Sure. Asswipe announced that he was going to camp but would be unhappy. He basically admitted that he might be disruptive in camp. Then he gets "hurt" and can't practice. But he can get into a fight with the offensive coordinator and tell him not to talk to him unless he says something first. That should make the offense run smoothly. Then he gets into a fight with Reid because Reid and gets sent home.

How professional is Owens? Am I the only one who thinks that Owens maybe faked his injury? A pulled groin is often one of those "how does it feel?" injuries. He gets to camp so he isn't fined, but he doesn't have to practice. He's made a real ass of himself since he got there. Bet he thinks they may cut him or trade him. I also bet if he's let back into camp on Wednesday that he becomes disruptive again. He may get the chance to hold out without being fined if they keep sending him home. Rosenasshole thinks Owens should be one of the ten highest paid players in the league. Really? I can probably name ten running backs that I would pay more than him. Ole Drew also said that executives (unnamed of course) around the league told him that Owens was underpaid. Assuming that Drew wasn't lying (big assumption), so what? I read a lot of insider reports on the NFL, and I don't read about all these teams trying to trade for Owens. In fact, most say they don't have much interest. Maybe it's the fact that since Steve Young's last full season in 1998, a team with Terrell Owens playing (not on the bench Salisbury) has won exactly one playoff game. And that one had to gall Owens since his arch enemy Jeff Garcia threw for 331 yards and three touchdowns.

I really hope the Eagles stick with what their president, Joe Banner, said. Owens plays for the Eagles or nobody. Actually, I hope it's nobody. I just don't see what the attraction is. As I said, he's played in one winning playoff game since 1998, and that one was followed by him being shut down by the Bucs in the next game. He's a good receiver, but I don't think the distractions are near worth it. Will the Eagles struggle without him, especially with Todd Pinkston getting hurt? Maybe. However, remember this. In 2003, they went to the NFC championship game with their two leading receivers being Pinkston and James Thrash. Neither had more than 575 yards receiving. The year before they made the NFC Championship game with Thrash leading the team with 635 yards. Not to mention that they were in the Super Bowl before Owens came back. The Eagles win with defense, and an offense that makes good use of tight ends and running backs. That is why getting Brian Westbrook into camp was much more important than Owens. The more I think about it, the more I hope he never comes back.

Braindead NCAA

I'm glad the NCAA finally decided to take time off from figuring out how to not investigate the University of Tennessee football program and concentrate on something really important. Politically correct mascots. Oh, they weren't brave enough to enforce an outright ban on Indian mascots. They just won't let schools that have them bring their mascots to NCAA tournament gamesor where uniforms with an Indian logo on them. Nor will they allow those schools to act as hosts of tournament games. Of course, in true NCAA fashion, the rule is being selectively enforced as the Florida State Seminoles are on the list even though the Seminole tribe of Florida is fine with it, but the North Carolina-Pembroke Braves won't be because 20% of the students are American Indians. The NCAA is also pretty gutless. As Ray Ratto pointed out, if Indian mascots aren't offensive enough to ban them completely, then the NCAA shouldn't be going half-steps.

However, the real problem is this idea that they are "offensive". With the possible exception of the UC-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs whose mascot selection I'm convinced was the result of booze and pot, mascots are picked for a variety of reasons. They could have to do with what the school is known for (MIT Engineers) or something local to the University (Nebraska Cornhuskers) or to the schools history (Washington & Lee Generals). Or it's for the image it projects. Since they are in competition, most schools want a rather fierce mascot. My team, the Louisville Cardinals, picked their mascot because it was the state bird, but on the logos and mascot, they gave it teeth to make it tougher. Look at most of the mascots from the animal kingdom. Most are of the predator variety, and the non-predators are still big and dangerous like Bison, Mustangs and Rams. That's the same reason that Indian names came to be used. Warrior image. The same reason as old European fighters like Vandals, Spartans and Trojans are used. I'm just curious why only one group of people find mascots named after them insulting. Cowboys sure don't, but even religious and other ethnic groups don't. As a non-Catholic Christian descended mainly from English and Scots, I don't have a problem with Emory and Henry College having the nickname Wasps. Greeks don't complain about the Spartans. Scandinavians don't bitch about the Vikings. Irish don't complain about Notre Dame or the Boston Celtics. They embrace them. They didn't even get mad when Notre Dame's leprechaun was a black guy. Quakers are fine with the Penn Quakers. Actually, teams with religious oriented mascots are usually religious affiliated schools - Ohio Wesleyan Battling Bishops (Methodist), Wake Forest Demon Deacons (Baptist), and Yeshiva University Maccabees (Jewish). That's not to mention all the Crusaders, Friars, and Saints that are nicknames for Catholic Schools.

Is it because some are deemed a slur? I know plenty of people who think the term Yankee as a slur. Is it because Indian mascots look silly? Take a look at the San Diego Padre. Or the goofy ass farm boy who is the Nebraska Cornhusker. Or even worse, the hillbilly in the coonskin cap that runs around as the UT Volunteer. If naming a team the "Indians" is so offensive than why is Jim Thorpe, the greatest athlete of the early 20th Century (and an American Indian), still revered by other American Indians. He founded and played for a team called the Oorang Indians back in the 1920s. This is all just more PC crap that got old a long time ago. Teams with the name Warrior (think Marquette) dumped their nicknames even though Warrior is a generic term that doesn't have to specify an ethnic group. But God forbid someone thinks it can only mean Indian warriors, so change it. I realize many American Indians are unhappy with their lot in life and think this issue is of some importance. Funny. I would have thought American Indian leadership would be more concerned about the high rates of poverty, unemployment and alcoholism in their community. But I guess all that will clear itself up once the Florida State Seminoles become the Florida State Retirees.

More Baseball & Steroids

Holy crap! Rafael Palmeiro just got suspended for taking steroids. How is that possible? Didn't he stand up to Congress and tell them he "never" used steroids? Could he have been lying? Could the others have been lying? Hey, maybe he didn't use steroids then, but got the name of a a good dealer from the other palyers at the hearing. The only thing that surprises me is how surprised members of the media are. Not that he got caught (he makes enough money, he should be able to get better masking stuff), but that he was using. Please. The NFL has had much stricter testing for steroids, but you know a lot of them are using. The Olympic testers are supposed to be the best in the world, but a bunch of people get around them. For every scientist trying to keep up with steroids, there's probably five coming up with new ones or figuring out ways to hide old ones. Besides, cheating in baseball is more common than cheating in football recruiting in the SEC. When a guy gets caught using a corked bat, it's laughed off. Baseball fans waxed nostalgic about the 1951 pennant race when the Giants made up 13 games in six weeks to tie the Dodgers before winning on Bobby Thompson's homer, but they don't want to meniton the fact that the Giants set up a telescope/buzzer relay system in their clubhouse to steal signs. Oh, and these sportswriters who abhor cheating elected Gaylord Perry into the Hall of Fame even though his signature pitch, the spitball, was illegal. Actually, I shouldn't be surprised that sportwriters were. They are notoriously stupid.

Commentators are even stupider. Sean Salisbury was asked who was more important to the Eagles, Terrell Owens or Brian Westbrook. He said Owens. Why? They didn't make it past the NFC Championship game without Owens in 2003, but they made it to the Super Bowl in 2004 with Owens "on the roster". Must have been one Hell of a cheerleader to lead the Eagles to the Super Bowl from the sidelines in street clothes. And Salisbury seemed to forget that an injured Westbrook didn't play in the NFC championship game the year before either. But he did play in the last one. Since both missed the playoffs in 2003, who was more valuable in last year's NFC Championship game - the guy who played or the guy who didn't?

Remakes and sequels

I'm not going to sit here and whine about Hollywood doing remakes and sequels out the ass because they can't create anything original. It's not like they've ever really been that original. They used to make serial westerns from old dime novels with pretty much the same plot. Even movies that seem original come from outside sources. The Internet Movie Database's Top 250 are headlined by The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Two novels and a short story. Scenes from the play Cyrano de Bergerac were first put on film in 1900 which was the same year that a Sherlock Holmes movie first came out. Of course, Shakespeare never said his plays were original ideas. He just took existing stories and made them into plays. I don't mind sequels if they are good. Star Wars did well with sequels (until The Phantom Menace and before the Revenge of the Sith rebound ), but Fletch should have stayed at one movie. I also don't mind turning a TV show into a movie. Why not? It's a long episode, and you can add things that you can't on TV. Like gratuitous nudity. You shouldn't do it if it's going to suck. Like Lost In Space. I also don't necessarily have a problem with remakes if it's done right. The Magnificent Seven was a remake of a Japanese film about samurai, but that doesn't mean I like it any less. Actually, that's an example of a remake done right. The plot really didn't change, but the time and place did as they moved from feudal Japan to the American west. Another time a remake is a good idea is The Evil Dead and The Evil Dead II. The Evil Dead II is technically a sequel, but it's really a remake with better production values. So, it's enjoyable and led to one of my all time favorite sequels - The Army of Darkness.

Unfortunately, Hollywood is taking good movies and remaking them as inferior films. There were two this year that I haven't seen (one is new). The Longest Yard I may watch when it hits cable. I don't know. I just can't see Adam Sandler as Paul Crewe or James Cromwell as the Warden or Chris Rock as Caretaker or anyone doing it as well except maybe Burt Reynolds as Nate. In fact, seeing the previews, I have to agree with a review that I read (can't remember who, sorry) who said Reynolds (at almost 70) still looked more like a football player than Sandler. The other is The Bad News Bears. This was one of my favorite movies from childhood, but I doubt I'll ever watch the remake. I refuse to see Billy Bob Thornton as Walter Matthau's Morris Buttermaker (great name, great actor, great character). From the reviews I read, it sounds terrible. How can you make Tanner Boyle politically correct? I heard that they used non-actors who might be better at baseball. Great idea. The original had Tatum O'Neal who had already won an Oscar. It had a guy, Jackie Earle Haley, as Kelly Leak who could have still been playing a Little Leaguer when he was 20. Do the scenes of Little League Baseball need to look that realistic? I don't think so. The main problem with remaking it is: what's the point? Everything that made the original good has been done to death. How out of the norm is a female Little Leaguer now? I played Little League in the early 80s. Most of the teams had girls. Kids acting like dicks and cussing? Every movie has that. Team of mismatched kids who bond together to succeed? I could spend all day and not come up with all of them. From what I've seen, this was a movie that just shouldn't have been made.

Judges and terrorists

Just read an interesting news story about a not so recent terror case. Contrary to popular belief, terrorism existed before 9/11/2001. In fact, this scumbag was convicted of trying to bring explosives across the Canadian (damn Canucks) border New Year's Eve 1999. He apparently planned to blow LAX, but was fortunately foiled by incredible luck when border patrol decided to check his trunk and found 124 pounds of stuff to make bombs. However, something interesting came up at his sentencing. The judge decided to make his opinion known that this case proved that the American legal system could handle terrorism cases, and military tribunals and enemy combatant status weren't needed. Then this sack of wuss went out and proved himself wrong.

The suspect was originally cooperative with info, but then he stopped which could jeopardize cases against his co-conspirators. Yet, even though he faced 130 years, the judge gave him 22 with the possibility of parole in 14. That' s for trying to blow up LAX. I guess it could have been 30 if he had actually done it. This is why I don't trust the American justice system. It rewards failure. You'll probably get more time for negligent homicide if you're reckless behavior causes a person's death than if you shot him in the back eight times and he just happened to live. Maybe attempted murder shouldn't call for the same sentence as a successful murder, but it should get more than a few years. This steaming pile of shit tried to blow up an airport. Fourteen years is nothing. If that idiot judge thinks he's competent to handle terrorists after he does that, I have little hope that he could handle a case with successful ones.

Why, ESPN? Why?

For the love of God, how could ESPN do it? I just read where Joe Theismann will join Al Michaels in the booth for ESPN's Monday Night Football coverage that will begin in 2006. What the Hell were they thinking? Michaels is one of the all time best play-by-play men in sports broadcasting. This is a guy who made the famous "Do you believe in miracles" comment at the end of the US/Russia 1980 Olympic hockey game. Now, they are pairing him with one of the worst football analysts of all time in Theismann. This is the broadcast equivalent of putting Gary Cherone as the lead singer of Van Halen. It's a mistake from the beginning and unfortunately the fans are going to have to live with it until ESPN figures it out. The bad thing is that they probably won't figure it out, because football fans will watch football in spite of the commentators (Chris Collinsworth proves that), so you won't have the ratings drag like the lack of sales generated by the Cherone/Van Halen album. Plus, TV ratings services can't keep track of how often I mute the volume which I'm sure I will do repeatedly. Man, I just want to vomit. I thought Theismann might be gone for good.

Wedding Crashers

I haven't seen the movie yet. Probably won't see it in the theaters, but I'm sure I'll catch it when it comes out on DVD. I've always been a big fan of low brow humor and Christopher Walken. Plus, I like Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, and fortunately, the overly annoying Ben Stiller isn't even listed as a cameo as he so often is in their movies. Really, does he have the most extensive collection of blackmail pictures in Hollywood? How do you become a comedic actor without being funny? But I digress. I really have to question a couple of things that movie did marketing wise. The first was a promotional gimmick where you could print out a paper purple heart medals to impress women you're trying to pick up. What the Hell could they have possibly been thinking? Are they so out of touch with reality that they completely missed the Purple Heart controversy that arose during the Presidential race? I wonder if there might be some sensitivity about encouraging people to fraudulently use a Purple Heart as a pickup tool.

The other thing was John McCain. What the Hell was John McCain doing in that movie? I'll be candid. I don't like John McCain mainly because he seems to have lost all of his principles. Somewhere along the line his constituency became the New York Times editorial page where he is the only Republican they love. Actually, I do have to give him some credit. He figured out the Times editors are so stupid that they see him as a "maverick" for arbitrarily opposing President Bush on some key things. Yet, they constantly overlook the fact that he supported invading Iraq, and he thinks Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned which are antithetical to two of the Times' biggest issues. But I digress again. The big problem with McCain being in Wedding Crashers is the fact that once upon a time John McCain held hearings on Hollywood films and bitched out some movie executives for making too many R-rated films. By the way, for those not in the know, Wedding Crashers is R-rated. To tell the truth, this is exactly why I don't like John McCain. He pontificates on one side, but still likes to think of himself as being cool, so he goes out and has a cameo in something he pontificated against. "Hollywood shouldn't be making these movies, but as long as they do, why not take a role?" It's kind of like Al Gore letting Twisted Sister play at his campaign stops.

What did they expect?

Wow. The magnanimous Terrell Owens has said he would be at the Philadelphia Eagles training camp. Once again - Wow. Of course, it wasn't too hard to figure that would be the result once I read that his contract says Owens could be fined most of his signing bonus (about $1.8 million) if he didn't report. It's perfectly understandable that Terrell Owens would want a new contract. After all, it's been a full year since he signed the $49 million deal. Now, he's got super-agent Drew Rosenhaus. Actually, he might want to take a look at what another Rosenhaus client did. Mike McKenzie held out for the preseason and first game for the Packers last year because he hated his contract and wanted to be traded. He did get traded to the Saints, but only after he reported to the game. The Saints aren't giving him a new deal, so he basically lost his entire preseason of pay plus a game check to force a trade from a playoff team to an also-ran, which means he dropped a playoff bonus check.

The big question is - is Owens worth the money? He might not be paid "market value" as Rosenhaus says, but so what? He knew what he was doing when he signed the contract. Don't penalize the Eagles because he was stupid. I'm sure Rosenhaus is quick to get his clients to pay money back to teams when they under-perform their salary. The fact of the matter is that Owens was signed to get the Eagles to the Super Bowl, and he wasn't even necessary. The Eagles got into the Super Bowl while Owens was hurt. The only playoff game he was in was the loss to the Patriots. The Eagles also had the best record the previous two years, so it wasn't like he made that much of a difference before his injury. Some have said he was the Eagle's best player in the Super Bowl, and it was such a gutty performance to come back from a broken leg. Yes, he came back early from his broken leg, but I saw Byron Leftwich finish a game in college after his leg was broken. He had to be carried to the line of scrimmage by his linemen which was much more impressive than coming back six weeks later. Besides, everyone knows that there was no way Owens was going to take the chance that Philly would win the Super Bowl without him. As for him being the MVP, I don't buy that either. He caught 9 passes because New England played way off him. Why wouldn't they? It was like when UK played Jared Lorenzen at receiver, you knew even if he caught it, you could run him down. There was one play where the defensive back fell down, and yet Owens still only got about 36 yards. You notice when they got deep into New England territory, Donovan McNabb looked to other players like Greg Lewis and Brian Westbrook. Plus, the whole week leading up to the Super Bowl was one giant Owens' centered distraction. Who knows how that affected the Eagles' preparation.

The real problem with Terrell Owens is that I have never seen such a classless individual in any sport. Everything has to be about him and if anything goes wrong, it's someone else's fault. He seemed to be more concerned with his touchdown celebrations than he did about winning. The one play I will always remember Owens for in San Francisco was when he bobbled a pass against the Bears while anticipating a hit. The Bears intercepted it and returned it for an overtime touchdown. Frankly, I don't know where this concept of Owens' toughness came from. With the 49'ers, the rep was that he would alligator arm passes if you took a shot at him. Yet, he would turn around and trash teammates like Jeff Garcia who he blamed for that interception against the Bears. I guess he wasn't expecting the pass to hit his hands. Garcia takes the high road by not responding as he leaves town, so Owens decides to call him gay in an interview. He jilted the Ravens before going to Philly, and then blames Ray Lewis and Ozzie Newsome for it. He then makes a late touchdown catch and mocks Lewis probably because he knew he wouldn't have to go back on the field. Then he defends himself against accusations that he's a colossal dick by accusing Lewis killing people (for the record, there is no evidence Lewis killed anyone or even knew about it until after the fact, in fact he testified against two friends who were the likely suspects). Owens did this even though he considered Lewis a friend. A friend like Donovan McNabb. A guy who stood up for Owens all season and covered for his sideline temper tantrum. How did Owens pay him back? Made a crack about McNabb getting tired in the Super Bowl. As usual, it's always someone else's fault. Team chemistry had always been one of the reasons for the Eagles' recent success. Why bring in a cancer? Now, they're stuck with a prima donna who has just compared himself to Jesus (apparently that crucifixion was over a demanded pay raise) while at the same time insinuating that his unhappiness could cause problems. Kind of makes you realize why the only team with the talented Mr. Owens to win two playoff games in one year was this year's Eagles team. And he didn't play in either game. He's supremely talented, but I don't think the rest of him is worth it.

What thought process led to this travesty?

Normally, I let media organizations make their own screwups, but one has really got me pissed. What the Hell was ESPN2 thinking when they gave Stephen A. Smith his own TV show? This is the most irritating commentator in the entire sports world. Most of the time when someone comes on that I don't care for, I ignore the TV until they go away. Not Stephen A. Smith. I'm diving for the remote to either mute his ass or change the channel. He's loud and obnoxious and not in a good way. He says stupid shit all the time. The ad for his show was him basically saying that it doesn't matter who the Patriots lose, as long as they have Tom Brady, it's enough. Yeah, right. Swap him with Tim Rattay in San Francisco last year, and I bet the Patriots still have a better record. All they need, my ass. Brady's a good quarterback, but that team was stocked with talent. Only the Bengals are so stupid that they say "Hey, what ingredient are the Patriots missing? Oh, a running back? Let's give them Corey Dillon." It will be interesting to see how they handle the offseason losses this year.

But I digress. Smith has always talked out of his ass. The worst segment in ESPN history was the "Old School/New School" bit that he had with Skip Bayless. I guess a black guy in his mid-30s is naturally "New School". Actually, I'm not real sure what "New School" connotates. I suspect "hip and cool" is how he thinks of it. Moronic commentators who kiss ass with the big name athletes seems to be the actual practice. Normally in these "Crossfire" type pairings, you watch because you generally favor one side. Not with those two bozos. Half the time neither could make a coherent argument. And when they would, it was usually something stupid. I would just as soon watch monkeys throw shit at each other. Now Bayless is a co-host of that lousy ass "Cold Pizza" show, and Smith gets his own run. I guess having viewers is not a top priority for ESPN2.

Baseball for dumbasses

Kenny Rogers (the pitcher, not the singer) was recently suspended for 20 games for attacking a couple of cameramen before a practice, and he's appealing his sentence. So, what does he do to prove that his apology for the incident was sincere and that his suspension should be lessened? He started talking shit in a menacing manner to another cameraman who was video taping his booking for ....well hitting the other cameraman. How stupid is that? Didn't he get a clue from the previous incident? Is he so stupid that he's unaware those big cameras being carried around by news crews are taping his actions and maybe he shouldn't act like dick when they are pointed at him? Kenny, I don't care if the guy is flipping you the bird or spitting on your shoe, ignore him. Another incident isn't going to help your appeal. Of course, Rogers showed an incredible display of PR savvy recently. He was voted to pitch in the All-Star game by the other players, and he did so. Even though, he knewhe wasn't wanted, that he was an embarrassment and would be booed. His reasoning for still going? Well, the players voted him in, so he belonged (Plus a $50K bonus). In a word - Bullshit. Does he really think they would have voted for him if the incident occurred beforehand? I doubt it, too. Yet, he decided that the All-Star game should be about him. He should have stayed home. Does anyone else think that the NFL or NBA would let a suspended player into their all-star game?

Actually, the dumbest thing is what most people suspect is the reason for him attacking the cameraman. He's mad because the Rangers won't give him a contract extension. Apparently the Rangers are unaware how valuable a 40 year old pitcher really is. Why he feels the need to take it out on a cameraman is beyond me. What I want to know is why people in baseball are so angry? When ESPN was showing clips of confrontations between baseball players and media types, it was usually a player going after someone just standing there. Contrary to the impression given by Ron Artest, most of the fights between fans and players happen in baseball. These dumbasses also have tendency to hurt themselves. Rogers broke his hand earlier this year hitting a water cooler. Off hand I can think of several pitchers who have broken their hand throwing temper tantrums - Kevin Brown, Julian Tavarez, Jason Isringhausen. Can you think of a whole bunch of NFL players or NBA players who've done that? You also don't see fights like the baseball brawls in other sports. Of course, most "base-brawls" consist of a player charging the mound and everyone piling on everyone else and weak-ass punches being thrown. However, you would think that football and basketball would have a lot more fights just because those guys are already getting physical with each other, so in theory, a little push should put them over the edge. Yet, fighting in those sports is pretty rare. It makes it to TV because when they do really go at it, they aren't just making a big pile on each other. Plus, they aren't that common, thus are news. Heck, bench clearing brawls in baseball are so common, they don't even lead Sportscenter unless it's the Yankees and Red Sox. Even managers get into the act. You don't see football or basketball coaches get into the referees face screaming like the ref just stole their lunch. In baseball, managers will kick dirt on umpires, and even after being thrown out, they'll stand around screaming. NFL or NBA, your ass is out of there quick when you're tossed. Maybe baseball players feel inferior because football is viewed as a more macho sport, so they defend their manhood by throwing at batters after giving up a homerun. It's just usually someone else who didn't hit a homerun off you. And now you have base-runner. Not only are you extra-tough, but you're a genius. I think baseball has just let these idiots get away with it so long they feel the need to act certain ways. Take it from me, if you suspended pitchers for a month for deliberately hitting a batter (and you know when they do it) or a player for a mandatory 20 games for leaving the bench during a fight (like the NBA does), it'll stop.

Is poker a sport?

I saw this question in a sports column, and I think it is so stupid. If poker isn't a sport, it's still a competition of some sort. If people want to watch it, go for it. Is there some level of athleticism that is required to be a sport? NASCAR drivers sit on their ass the whole race, but they certainly look more physically drained than a golfer after a round at the PGA. The question came to mind while I was watching the Great Outdoor Games which for those not in the know is lumberjack events, jumping dogs, ATVs and shooting things. I love 'em. I make a point to watch them every year. If I'm going to be out, I'll tape them. If they had them in Kentucky, I'd take my vacation and go. Yet, I have watched maybe two baseball games this year, and that's our national pasttime. I seem to have an affinity for low level or fringe sports. Sure, I love football (NFL, college, arena, NFL Europe) and basketball (men's mainly). Yet, I don't really care anything for baseball. Soccer may be the world's most popular sport, but I never watch it. I tried in 1994 when the World Cup, then those bastards finished in an 0-0 tie and it had to be decided on penalty kicks. I guess when the NBA Finals are decided on a free throw contest, it will pass soccer in world-wide popularity. Track and field bores me. The only time I care who is the "fastest man" is when their timing guys at the NFL combine or someone just stole my wallet. If I could bet on human runners like I do horses, maybe I'd like them better. I might watch golf if it's on the last day and I've tired of watching paint dry. I don't care if Tiger Woods is playing Michelle Wie naked. I wouldn't care to see Tiger naked, and Wie is only 15 and I'm not that much of a degenerate. Now, if it was Tiger's wife, I might even get that on pay-per-view. I used to like boxing, but then I realized I was rooting for someone to not get as much brain damage as his opponent. And to this day, I cannot figure out how Muhammad Ali became a major saint when you consider that he was involved in the most crooked sport around. Yet, I like to watch bowling. I like volleyball (indoor and sand). I don't watch pool, but I do watch trick shot pool. NASCAR's great, but open wheel racing isn't. So, I'm not sure if I'm really a sports fan, but I like what I like.

Which brings me to the whole point of this posting. What the Hell was the NHL thinking when it canceled a whole season? Plus, how did the NHL ever get to be considered to be a major sport? Is it to make Canadians feel better? What kind of sport is in such bad shape that several owners wanted the lockout because they lost less money than they would have if they actually played the games? It's ratings were so poor that ESPN was happy they were on strike, because they substituted college basketball games which got better ratings. Actually, NHL is like the WNBA. I always forget when their schedule is until I see highlights on ESPN (and Barry Melrose's mullet). The fact that it starts in October is one reason it hasn't made an impact in this country. Let's start during the baseball playoffs and during football. Of course, the ending isn't much better. It's near the NBA playoffs and when baseball starts. The other problem is that it's sucks watching it on TV. Football was made for TV, but in a hockey game, it's tough to even see the puck. I say we boycott the NHL (trust me, it's not hard). Or else we invade Canada and make the Canadian football field the right size.

I thought the eminent domain case that the Supreme Court screwed up was a good example of the mass retardation that's affected the country's judiciary. Nope. The morons in Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals have certainly passed that. They've thrown out convictions of murderers because of the Miranda Rights they were read were inadequate. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, murderers are having their statements thrown out, and it only comes down to one word. The Broward County Sheriff's department read a set of rights to people arrested that said they could have an attorney present before questioning, but didn't specifically state that they could have one during questioning. What an unbelievable crock of shit. If you are so stupid that you don't realize that being able to have an attorney before questioning means you can also have one during questioning, you deserve to go to jail.

Actually, I've always thought the Miranda rights were one of the stupidest court decisions. It was based on incredibly expanded reading of the Constitution. "Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against " (5th Amendment) becomes "The Right To Remain Silent". And "the accused shall enjoy the right ..... to have Assistance of Counsel for his defense" 6th Amendment) became "the police have to stop questioning you once you ask for a lawyer even if you were driving around with your ex-wife's body in the trunk of your car." Even if you think that's good, the bigger problem is that it's mandated that they get read to you. Ignorance of the law is no excuse if you bone a 16 year old in California because you thought the age of consent was the same as in Kentucky. So, why should a murderer get out of jail if he didn't know what his legal rights are? And how many people don't know what their rights are? There are eight million cop shows and movies that read them out to you. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the police are obligated to tell you about your rights. Hell, you can be arrested 19 times and have your rights read to you every time. Yet, if they don't read them to you the 20th time, you can be let go. If the cops can show you knew your rights, why the Hell should they have to read them again? Why are people in this country surprised that deviant bastards with criminal pasts are wandering around kidnapping children and killing people? They know the system is set up in their favor and they think they can keep gaming it. I'm surprised it's not more.

Stupid celebrities

I happened to catch a bit on E! television or whatever the Hell channel 64 is. Something about Hollywood Oops. I probably would have bypassed except they were talking about Ed Furlong and mentioned that he had an incident in "rural" Kentucky. Then they said it was in Florence. I don't expect these people to get a clue, but surely they could find a damn map. Florence is like 10 miles from Cincinnati. But that's not the stupid part. Apparently, a drunk Furlong went to Meijer and was freeing the lobsters. Actually, I've been drunk, so freeing the lobsters isn't the really stupid. It's the fact that he allegedly said lobsters are people too. And on the show, a PETA spokesperson said his freeing the lobsters was a good thing. Now, where the Hell was he going to put them. From the sound of it, he was letting them loose in the store. I don't think lobsters do well out of water for very long. That's probably why they keep them in tanks.

On a musical note, I just read where Wal-Mart has made Willie Nelson change the cover of his latest reggae album from pot leaves to a palm tree. I was very surprised. Not that Nelson would put pot on an album cover or that Wal-Mart wouldn't sell an album with a pot leaf on it. I just couldn't believe that Willie Nelson recorded a reggae album. And for the record, regardless of title of this posting, I don't think Willie is stupid. Except when it comes to taxes.

Derrick Jackson is a dick

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Why?

I understand why Tubby Smith would want Randolph Morris to come back to the University of Kentucky after going undrafted. Thinking the other center options (commonly referred to as the semi-useless stick figures) are better is pure denial, and Tubby is getting farther away from his only Final Four each year. What I don't understand is why Morris wants to go back. It's obvious from his behavior that he wasn't too enamored with college ball the first time around. So, now he's going to play with nothing to gain?

And there is nothing to gain. At least not much as someone at work pointed out. The main point of dropping out of the draft to go back to school is the hope of improving your draft stock into the first round where contracts are guaranteed. By rule, Morris cannot go back into the draft, so he'll never have a shot at the first round. I think he would be better off joining a pro league. For one, he'll get paid. Two, I'm not convinced college coaches are that much better at developing pros than pro coaches. Third, the minor leagues are getting better at supplying good players to the NBA, and it will probably only increase as the NBA puts more emphasis on the Development League. Bobby Simmons just signed for $9 mil a year , and Rafer Alston has averaged double digits the past two years. Both of them did time in the NBDL. Two key players on the Heat playoff team were Damon Jones and Udonis Haslem. Jones played in both the CBA and IBA, while Haslem went undrafted and played a year in Europe. So, you can make it if you're good enough. Why not get paid while you do it?

Wie/Patrick: Gimmick?

You know, I really hope that Danica Patrick wins a race or Michelle Wie makes the cut of a PGA event. Not because I really care about them or their sport, but because maybe I won't have to put up with nauseating wall to wall coverage of their non-winning careers when I pick up a sports section. Wie can't even make a cut when she plays a PGA event full of nobodies like the John Deere Classic. About the only golfer I recognized in the field was the immortal Stewart Cink. Yet, I had to put up with idiot sportswriters hyperventilating about her "chances" to make the cut. Dumbass Dan Shanoff from ESPN.com has basically become her publicist. He said she was the most talented golfer if you factor in things like gender and age and experience. Well, shit. If you factor in my lack of athletic ability or coordination or the simple fact that I've never actually played a round of golf, I can say I'm the most talented golfer. I don't care what you factor in, she hasn't won an event on the LPGA, let alone made the cut at a PGA event. That means to me that she obviously isn't the most talented. Shanoff expanded on that later by saying she was the most talented golfer younger than Tiger Woods. Strange. Didn't she just choke in the U.S. Women's Open to finish tied for 23rd while a girl only two years older took second? Yeah. She needs to win on the LPGA before I start calling her the best female teen golfer, let alone the best golfer.

At least Danica Patrick has an excuse. She drives in the IRL, which is a minor league series, and gimmicks are expected in the minors. And it is a minor league series. Formula One is the most popular open wheel racing in the world, even if they can't really finish a race in this country. Hell, it's only been the past couple of years that the IRL was the best open wheel racing in the U.S.. Until the top CART teams (Penske, Rahal, Ganassi and Andretti) defected to IRL, CART was easily better. For a few years, the Indy 500 was the biggest joke in the world. It was the equivalent of Busch series drivers making up the field of NASCAR's Daytona 500. Speaking of NASCAR, that is by far the top dog American racing. It is so much stronger that rising stars like Tony Stewart and Jeff Gordon made the jump from open wheel. Hell, John Andretti (whose family is the most famous name in open wheel racing) rides for NASCAR. IRL racers were bragging about how high their Indy 500 ratings were, and that they beat the Coca-Cola 600 ratings that same weekend. So what? I remember not that long ago when the Indy 500 was must-see TV, but now they are happy with a 6.6 in their signature event (with a gimmick) when a regular NASCAR race pulled a 6.1. Hell, a regular race at Talledega pulled a 7.6 for NASCAR. That's not to mention the Daytona 500 which was 10.9. So I think I'm on solid ground when I say that IRL is minor league. That's not to say Danica Patrick is not a good driver. She's a top rookie who is 10th in the IRL standings. Yet, every race I have to read about how she should be considered a favorite. A favorite? She has two fourth place finishes. Outside of that, her only other top ten finish was 9th. As for all the talk that she would have won the Indy 500 if she had more gas, that's bullshit. She was in 9th when most of the other leaders pitted. That's the only reason she was in the lead late, but her team took a huge gamble. They needed to be under caution for most of the end of the race to have enough gas. That's why she let off the pedal. If it wasn't for two late cautions, she would have run out of gas and finished very far back. So, she's a pretty good rookie. That doesn't justify the press she gets, and I just don't understand the appeal. She is cute, but I've seen better tits on a snake, so I don't think the sex appeal is all that, especially considering she's in a helmet, car and fire resistant suit during the race.

I'm sure some might think all this is based on sexism. It's not. Wie would kick my ass in golf. Since I let myself get out of shape, she could probably win an arm wrestling match. So, I can't have too much male pride about it. Besides, when I was in college, I was a big supporter of women's sports. I went to women's basketball and volleyball games, even traveling to some. Last year, I went to Louisville to root on UL's volleyball team in the NCAA tournament. So, I don't have a problem with successful women athletes. My problem is the media saturation for events that are not new. Check the news articles about Michelle Wie. They say she's trying to be the first woman to make the cut in a PGA event since Babe Zaharias did 60 years ago. If a woman could do it 60 years ago, it's not that stunning that a woman can do it now. I would wager that the growth of the LPGA is the reason more women haven't tried. You can probably make more money as a top LPGA player than someone who barely makes the cut in the PGA. In auto racing, three women (Sara Christian, Ethel Mobley & Louise Smith) were in the 1949 Daytona race (pre-cursor to the Daytona 500). In Indy Car racing, Janet Guthrie qualified for the Indy 500 before Patrick was ever born. And in the 70s, I would say that's more impressive because top drivers were still driving the 500, unlike today. This is nothing new, so I think it stinks that these two are sucking all the publicity from the people who are actually winning these events.

Good-bye Paden

I was recently watching Silverado (actually as I drink bourbon & coke and type this) , and a question formed in my booze addled mind. Outside of this movie, has there been another really good Western made in the last 20 years that didn't have Clint Eastwood in it? Eastwood had Pale Rider and Unforgiven (one of the best ever). Tombstone and Open Range (it did have Robert Duvall) were good, but they certainly don't compare to non-Eastwood classics like High Noon or The Professionals from the distant past. Silverado had a good villain in Brian Dennehy. Danny Glover at his best (showing I don't allow politics to interfere with my entertainment). Kevin Costner actually acted. And that midget who played the principal in Kindergarten Cop was there too. Plus, two of the most underrated actors of all time - Kevin Kline and Scott Glenn. I'm such a big Scott Glenn fan that I enjoyed Edie & Pen even though it was a chick flick with Stockard Channing and Jennifer Tilly (who didn't get nekkid or have hot deviant sex). Plus, he was in My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys, which isn't a western, but I watch it every time it's on. Best of all, Silverado had Joe Seneca who played Blind Willie Brown in Crossroads (not the Britney Spears movie that I will probably never see) with the Karate Kid. It still begs the questions - why can't they make really good westerns anymore?

London bombing - unfortunately, no surprise

I wish I could say that I'm surprised by the terrorist attacks in London, but I'm not. I n fact, I have to give credit to the British because it hasn't happened sooner. Not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but a rather large number of terrorists not only follow the Muslim faith, but use it as a rationale for their attacks. Since Europe has a large immigrant Muslim community that seems to actively oppose assimilation, the idea that Muslim terrorists could move about easily in London isn't that hard to imagine. At this point, they haven't said that the terrorists were locals, but based on the Madrid train bombings from last year, I think it's probable. Early reports also indicate that suicide bombers may have been involved. Well, let's not forget that the "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid was a convert from London who was perfectly willing to go down with the plane. Plus, the level of violence that has come out of the Muslim immigrant communities is rather staggering. You have the Madrid situation. A Dutch filmmaker was brutally murdered by a Moroccan immigrant for daring to make a short film critical of Islam (the act won the approval of many European Muslim leaders). Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Europe, yet the European Union squashed a report that tied the rise to Muslims. With this type of attitude, it's no wonder these shitbags think they can get away with anything.

And yet, how ironic that in recent weeks we've seen people wanting the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed down. I won't even get into the fact that a large number of those protesters are admirers of Fidel Castro who runs an entire country as a penal colony. The type of people being held at Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst. The same type who perpetrated the London bombings. Of all the prisoners taken in Afghanistan, only a few hundred were brought to Cuba. Contrary to popular belief, each of those bastards has been before a military tribunal to argue their case. Many have been released. Some of those have been re-captured in Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not real sure where these protesters think we should stick them. Maybe they think they should go before a judge where he'll let them go for $15,000 bail. Let's just say that if they ever load them up in a C-130 to fly them somewhere, I hope they open the back and go into a steep climb over the Atlantic. So, my response to the pantywaist scumbags who want to let them go, "Do you know what FO stands for?"

The sad thing is that Europe did away with the death penalty. I think any cocksucker who knew even knew about this should friggin' die.