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.

Killings Too Good For Him

As far as I'm concerned there ain't no excuse
For the raping and the killing and the child abuse
And I've got a way to put and end to all that mess
You just take those rascals out in the swamp
Put them on their knees and tie 'em to a stump
And let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest
Simple Man - Charlie Daniels

These lyrics come to mind when I think about Joseph Edward Duncan III. Normally I find electrocution to be perfectly acceptable for human scum, but this guy needs more. He apparently much hit the trifecta with the Charlie Daniels song. He kills three people in order to kidnap two children to rape and abuse before killing one of them. Assuming of course that he's actually guilty. If he's not, that better be one Hell of a story as to how a convicted child rapist managed to get ahold of a young girl whose family had been murdered six weeks before. According to his website, he wants to die. Well, I say let him, but only after some real punishment. After what he did, lethal injection is just too quick. Actually, I wouldn't mind him getting a jail sentence if it ends the way Jeffrey Dahmer's did. Beaten to death in the bathroom.

What the real problem is the fact this piece of shit was wandering all over the country even though he had been convicted of forcible rape on a 14 year old boy and been re-arrested for molesting a six year old. Judge lets him out on $15,000 bail. I guess it would have been $30,000 if he had also killed the kid. Martha Stewart had to wear an ankle monitor. Was it too much to ask that you use one when someone with a violent criminal past is re-arrested and put back on the streets to await trial? Or better yet, when one of these bastards gets out, attach a GPS signal to their spine. When you want them, you get them.

Yippee-ki-yay, M*****F*****

I was watching one of my favorite movies the other night, Die Hard, and they let loose a little info that I wasn't aware of. Bruce Willis got the John McClane role only after it was turned down by Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds and Richard Gere. Sure, if Willis had never been in the role, I may have still liked the movie (and it's doubtful that I would have thought "Gee, you know who would be perfect for this part? Bruce Willis), but I think the producers really dodged a bullet on this one. Willis was perfect for the role of a world-weary cop completely in over his head who rises to the challenge. Based on his character's in movies like Heat (not the Pacino/De Niro one) and Sharky's Machine, I think Reynolds is the only one of the four to pull it off. Stallone could do weary (think Cobra), but you never get the feeling he's in over his head. The closest he came was in Cop Land, and that's because he was in over his head mentally, and he can play dumb with the best of them. Schwarzenegger couldn't have done it at all. He's such a larger than life character. I mean could you imagine him not crushing Karl in a second instead of having a knock down drag-out fight? Karl was played by some ballet dancer whose previous role was an orchestra conductor in The Money Pit. But at least he was taller than Willis to make the fight seem possible. Besides, how could Arnold fit in the air ducts? Richard Gere? The American Gigolo? What the Hell were they thinking? He wasn't even believable as a cop in Internal Affairs. I can't imagine Gere as John McClane. Although on a side note, I do wonder why he turned it down. Would they not allow gerbils on the set?

Duke obsession

For the life of me, I cannot understand the obsession that UK fans have with Duke basketball. I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of Duke, but there's no way in Hell that I would obsess over another program that my team has only played seven times in the past 25 years. I went to the Cat's Pause message board during the basketball season, and it seemed half the posts dealt with Duke. Even with all the things happening with the UK program, there was still a topic called "Duke Sucks" with 54 responses. I realize that UK doesn't really have a true conference rival, but does anyone think that Duke fans sit around bitching about UK? WTF? The Laettner shot was years ago. Get over it. I don't hate Arkansas because U.S. Reed his a half court shot to knock Louisville out of the tournament in 1981.

The latest UK rant came on the front page of the sports section of the Lexington Herald-Leader, and if anyone thinks that newspapers don't pick wire articles to support their opinion pieces needs to read it. The gist of the article was that Mike Krzyzewski got an unfair recruiting advantage from his American Express commercial. Strangely enough, inane mouthpiece for the Big Blue Nation, John Clay, has written at least three columns criticizing that very thing while throwing out words like "reprehensible" and "nauseating". Funny. I bet his reaction would have been different if Tubby Smith was the ones in the ads. Of course, Tubby has one title in one Final Four. Coach K has three titles and nine Final Fours. I think that's the real beef here. Jealousy. UK has faced Duke five times since Coach K took over. They've lost four. American Express wanted Coach K because his success in recruiting has led to success on the court. He doesn't need the commercials for recruiting. And anyone who doesn't think Tubby Smith would have taken those commercials is in complete denial. Just get over it. Duke has surpassed UK in national prominence. But don't worry. Coach K will eventually retire and UK will probably still have Tubby.

Live 8 BS

"The greatest thing that's ever been organized in the history of the world." This is how some guy from Coldplay described the Live 8 concert. For those who don't, Live 8 was a massive worldwide concert put on to shame the heads of the G8 (the largest economies plus Russia who is invited to be nice to a country that used to be a superpower) into giving more money to Africa to alleviate the dire poverty that exists there. It's nice to see that the concert performers are not over dramatizing their importance. They probably believe that everyone who watched the concerts is now up in arms about Africa. I think the slaughter in Rwanda shows how much most of the people of the civilized world care about Africa. Of course, nothing irritates me more than friggin celebrities trying to tell me about poverty. These geniuses are part of a group that rails against things like capitalism while they are perfectly willing to take money from record companies, usually multi-national conglomerates. Are these really the best people to inform the world about poverty? That's something these shitbags have no clue about. Madonna played the show, and she once gave her 8 year old daughter a $10,000 credit card (not to mention all the money wasted on her shitty movies). Elton John once spent over $500,000 on flowers in less than two years. Mariah Carey apparently spends $7,000 a day on a hairdresser and makeup artist. I won't mention what a lot of these performers probably sent up their nose. For God's sakes, they were serving lobster and caviar backstage of the Live 8 show and giving these "altruistic" millionaires goodie bags that were worth up to $12,000. Are these really the people to lecture me on solving poverty? Looks like they've got more than enough money to blow on Africa themselves, but they don't seem to be doing it.

I think the funniest thing about this whole joke of an event was how the viewers were told not to send any money, but convince their leaders to send more financial aid to Africa. This keen grasp of economic principles makes me realize why so many rock 'n roll figures end of bankrupt during their careers. Let me explain something. Governments do not generate income on their own. The money that the U.S. government spends on foreign aid comes either directly through me in income taxes or in higher prices that are charged due to taxes on corporations. Either way, the money eventually comes from you and me. Of course, I notice that Paul McCartney opened and closed the show. This model of civic responsibility was considered a tax exile when he was with the Beatles because they stayed out of England for long chunks of time to avoiding paying their high tax rates. Yet, he wants my tax dollars going into the toilet.

And it is the toilet. I would think that Live 8's big promoter, Bob Geldof, should know better. Or maybe not. It's my belief that self-promotion is at the heart of these big charity events. Why? Because I remember the 80s when "We Are the World" and LiveAid were supposed to be feeding Ethiopia. What happened? Communist dictator, Mengistu (I won't use his full name because it would take a page and a half), diverted most of the food aid to his military and militias allied with him. He even used the aid vehicles for military use. Seven years after LiveAid, the U.S. Marines were sent into Somalia because food aid wasn't reaching the people. Why wasn't it? In a nutshell, the tribal militias were diverting it for their own use. That's the reason Live 8 is friggin' joke. Development money isn't the problem. Europe and North America have been sending billions (not millions) to Africa for development. The problem is that too many African countries are run by dictators and warlords. Look at Zimbabwe. They used to be self-sufficient in food. Thanks to President Robert Mugabe (check him out, he's got his own website), they rely on international food aid. Until there is some type of responsible government in most of these countries, the money will simply be wasted. Again

ESPN in the Bluegrass

After slamming (lightly) one of my least favorite (and I have many) sports columnist, Rick Bozich, I will give him credit for one point in a recent column. ESPN is taking SportsCenter to all 50 states from mid-July to early-September. For Kentucky, they'll be at an Indy Car race at the Kentucky Speedway. That's insane. I agree with Bozich that they should have found something to do with basketball or horse racing. Who in the world thinks auto racing and Kentucky? Even worse is Indy Car racing. I bet the crowd won't be near as interested as they were for the Busch series race earlier this summer. Are they going to do ice skating for Texas?

The NBA Draft

I love college basketball. I’m pretty indifferent to the NBA. In fact, I still root for the Utah Jazz simply because they drafted my favorite college player, Darrell Griffith, in 1980. So, naturally, I don’t like the fact that so many basketball players are leaving school early or making the jump to the NBA straight from high school (or were until the new CBA goes into effect). However, anyone who tells you these guys are making a mistake isn’t doing it out of concern for the player. To begin with, who knows if they are making a mistake. Let’s look at a couple of local boys who didn’t get drafted. Randolph Morris made his mistake not going pro last year when he probably would have been drafted, but what were his options this year? He was apparently unhappy at UK, so he could either stay and be miserable (and he may come back and do it), transfer and sit out a year or go pro. Kalenna Azubuike left as a junior. Would coming back have made a difference? I doubt it. Keith Bogans went back to UK because he was projected as a second round pick after his sophomore year. Two years later, he managed to move into…..well, the second round.

That’s the main point. Who knows if a player will really improve his status by staying. The knock against Morris is that he’s supposedly lazy. How will NBA teams seeing more college film of that help him? Scouts aren’t sure that Azubuike can create his own shot in the NBA, but would he be able to learn that in another year at UK when the offense doesn’t seem suited for it? I’m not buying the argument that college coaching is going to help prepare these guys for the NBA better than NBA coaching. College coaches want to win first, prepare their players for the NBA …well, somewhere down the list. Take Jared Jefferies who led Indiana to the 2002 NCAA Championship game and declared for the NBA after his sophomore year. There was one columnist (Rick Bozich of the Louisville Courier I think) who criticized him during his NBA rookie year. Said he would have been better off staying at Indiana and playing instead of sitting on the bench in the NBA. Sheer fuckin’ genius. He was the 11th pick in the draft. How much higher could he have gone. At Indiana, he would have been unpaid and playing center. In the NBA, he was getting great money and NBA coaching at his natural position – forward. Compare him to Udonis Haslem who also went pro in 2002, but as a senior. He had led Florida to the NCAA championship game as a sophomore, but after coming back the next two years, he went undrafted. I don’t know if he would have been drafted very high after his sophomore year, but I bet he would have been drafted. He spent a year in France before coming back to the states and is now a better playing than Jefferies, but probably makes less money.

Since there are no guarantees coming back, I can’t criticize too much when someone leaves early, especially if the NBA does beef up the Development League into a real minor league. Take those high schoolers who went in the second round. Are they screwed? Maybe. Probably not. Could they become first round picks if they go to school? Sure. Guaranteed? What do you think? There’s still going to only be 31 first round slots. Under the new NBA-DL, they can sign with a team that will send them down while retaining their rights. The team can send an assistant coach with them so they’ll be coached with the emphasis on their pro game. If they are good enough, they can get to the big leagues. Being a second rounder won’t be such a bad thing anymore. Gilbert Arenas was a second round pick in 2001. As a second rounder, he signed a two year deal for little money. Two years later, he was a free agent who signed for six years - $65 million. I imagine that made him the highest paid member of the class of 2001 since all the first rounders were still playing under their rookie contract. Believe me, if a player is really good enough, he’ll make it. It's not guaranteed, but neither is returning to school.