It was a pretty good year for me in predicting the recent NFL season. I wasn't perfect but I wasn't way off either.
Preseason Projection Actual
AFC East AFC East (Perfect)
Patriots Patriots
Jets Jets
Dolphins Dolphins
Bills Bills
AFC North AFC North (Not so perfect. At least I got the Ravens right.)
Ravens Ravens
Browns Steelers
Steelers Bengals
Bengals Browns
AFC South AFC South (Who could have picked the Colts last, really?)
Texans Texans
Colts Titans
Jaguars Jaguars
Titans Colts
In the next two divisions, I was right except the last place team finished first.
AFC West AFC West (I, like many, underestimated Tim Tebow.)
Chargers Broncos
Raiders Chargers
Chiefs Raiders
Broncos Chiefs
NFC East NFC East (I clearly underestimated the Giants.)
Eagles Giants
Cowboys Eagles
Redskins Cowboys
Giants Redskins
NFC North NFC North (Close)
Packers Packers
Lions Lions
Vikings Bears
Bears Vikings
NFC South NFC South (No comment)
Falcons Saints
Saints Falcons
Buccaneers Panthers
Panthers Buccaneers
NFC West NFC West (I always pick the 49'ers last.)
Seahawks 49'ers
Rams Cardinals
Cardinals Seahawks
49'ers Rams
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl (I had one team right. I had the wrong NFC East opponent.)
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury. (Matt Schaub)
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last. (Rams and Buccaneers. I was off by one.)
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season. (Chargers and Eagles. Off by one again.)
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior. (49'ers)
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season. (Newton and Dalton. Damn!)
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason. (Wrong! I underestimated the effect of the "no leading with your helmet" rule. Defenses were pretty soft this year.)
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail. (Wrong! Most teams think they are the Packers or Patriots.)
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
Monday, February 06, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
NFL - Conference Championships
Is this the season where we return to sanity?
The traditional rules to winning a Superbowl are the following:
1. Have a smart, accurate quarterback who performs under pressure. Quarterbacks who double as running backs need not apply.
2. Have a featured running back who rushed for over 1,000 yards but did not lead the league or even the conference in rushing. Teams that are mostly about the running game don't belong here.
3. Have a strong defense.
For decades, having all three of the above has been the formula. There have been a few exceptions, such as the 2000 Ravens, but year by year, this has been almost always the case.
However, each of the last two years has featured teams that don't quite fit this formula. Two years ago, the New Orleans Saints won with hardly any running game to speak of. They, in fact, barely beat the Indianapolis Colts, another team without a strong running game or even that good of a defense. Both these teams featured complex, dynamic passing games that seemed to overcome their other deficiencies. Then last year, it happened again with the Green Bay Packers. This leads to the question - has the formula been changed?
This year, the Packers went 15-1 with a weak running game and a suspect defense. They seemed to be on a collision course with the Saints, who had similar strengths and weaknesses. This weekend was supposed to be the big shootout between these two pass-happy teams. As we know now, it wasn't to be. In fact, the two teams in the NFC that won last week follow the traditional formula.
Now, of the four teams left, only the Patriots depend almost solely on their passing game with their weak running game and suspect defense. However, I'm not sure if the Ravens fit the formula either as we'll see if Joe Flacco is poised and accurate enough.
The way I see it, this is a very good thing. Just like the steroid-era of baseball showed, too much offense is not necessarily a good thing. In baseball, home runs were supposed to be special and exciting. When there's 10 home runs in a game, the luster wears off and it just becomes expected. In football, stuffed runs, quarterback sacks, and knocked-down passes are as exciting as touchdowns. A 10-3 game can be as entertaining as a 35-31 game.
Here I go:
Giants over 49ers
Ravens over Patriots
The traditional rules to winning a Superbowl are the following:
1. Have a smart, accurate quarterback who performs under pressure. Quarterbacks who double as running backs need not apply.
2. Have a featured running back who rushed for over 1,000 yards but did not lead the league or even the conference in rushing. Teams that are mostly about the running game don't belong here.
3. Have a strong defense.
For decades, having all three of the above has been the formula. There have been a few exceptions, such as the 2000 Ravens, but year by year, this has been almost always the case.
However, each of the last two years has featured teams that don't quite fit this formula. Two years ago, the New Orleans Saints won with hardly any running game to speak of. They, in fact, barely beat the Indianapolis Colts, another team without a strong running game or even that good of a defense. Both these teams featured complex, dynamic passing games that seemed to overcome their other deficiencies. Then last year, it happened again with the Green Bay Packers. This leads to the question - has the formula been changed?
This year, the Packers went 15-1 with a weak running game and a suspect defense. They seemed to be on a collision course with the Saints, who had similar strengths and weaknesses. This weekend was supposed to be the big shootout between these two pass-happy teams. As we know now, it wasn't to be. In fact, the two teams in the NFC that won last week follow the traditional formula.
Now, of the four teams left, only the Patriots depend almost solely on their passing game with their weak running game and suspect defense. However, I'm not sure if the Ravens fit the formula either as we'll see if Joe Flacco is poised and accurate enough.
The way I see it, this is a very good thing. Just like the steroid-era of baseball showed, too much offense is not necessarily a good thing. In baseball, home runs were supposed to be special and exciting. When there's 10 home runs in a game, the luster wears off and it just becomes expected. In football, stuffed runs, quarterback sacks, and knocked-down passes are as exciting as touchdowns. A 10-3 game can be as entertaining as a 35-31 game.
Here I go:
Giants over 49ers
Ravens over Patriots
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Candidates
Alright, it's time to chime in on the 2012 Presidential candidates.
I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.
This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected. The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.
Here is my take on the candidates:
Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.
Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?
Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.
Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.
Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.
Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military. Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)
Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?
Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world? The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.
If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.
I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.
This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected. The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.
Here is my take on the candidates:
Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.
Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?
Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.
Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.
Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.
Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military. Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)
Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?
Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world? The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.
If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
2011 NFL Fearless Predictions
First of all, here's a sneak peak at the final standings:
AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals
AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants
NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers
NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals
AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants
NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers
NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Show Me the Racism!
“...as long as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!” -Rep. Maxine Waters
"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson
"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo
"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?
Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/).
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.
"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson
"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo
"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?
Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/).
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Have You Met the Poor?
There's a great scene in the movie Time Bandits where John Cleese, as Robin Hood asks "Have you met the poor?". He then points to a group of people behind a rope. The "poor" might as well have been Jews, Eskimos, or Lithuanians. They were portrayed satirically as a fixed group of people who are in some way different. However, what seems funny to me is becoming the state of mind of many people, namely Democrats.
Democrats like to talk about "the poor". They project how they know their pain and show pity to them for being in such a sorry situation. They see themselves as the party that cares about "the poor" as opposed to those evil Republicans who support the wealthy. So I have to ask the question; Does the Democrat Party really care about "the poor"?
The answer is "Yes, they do".
Of course they do. After all, the majority of poor people are Democrats. "The poor" represent a win-win for Democrats. "The poor" are dependent on government for sustenance and this dependence creates more poor people - thus, more Democrats.
If you look at Democrat beliefs -- tax the job-providers to create more unemployment, create more public services, take away guns, government control what we are allowed to eat, how to get medical care, what we are allowed to drive, and how we get our news, they are out to create more poor people dependent on government to run their lives.
Democrats in general (along with some Republicans), give less of their income to charities, make it difficult for employers to hire people, and don't want to punish criminals if they are poor. In other words, they have no interest in giving opportunities to "the poor" to move out of poverty. Their wet dream is to have a society of "the poor" that they can service and therefore control.
Have you met "the poor"? Watch out! There are those that want you on the other side of that rope. They're the smiling faces that support "the poor".
Democrats like to talk about "the poor". They project how they know their pain and show pity to them for being in such a sorry situation. They see themselves as the party that cares about "the poor" as opposed to those evil Republicans who support the wealthy. So I have to ask the question; Does the Democrat Party really care about "the poor"?
The answer is "Yes, they do".
Of course they do. After all, the majority of poor people are Democrats. "The poor" represent a win-win for Democrats. "The poor" are dependent on government for sustenance and this dependence creates more poor people - thus, more Democrats.
If you look at Democrat beliefs -- tax the job-providers to create more unemployment, create more public services, take away guns, government control what we are allowed to eat, how to get medical care, what we are allowed to drive, and how we get our news, they are out to create more poor people dependent on government to run their lives.
Democrats in general (along with some Republicans), give less of their income to charities, make it difficult for employers to hire people, and don't want to punish criminals if they are poor. In other words, they have no interest in giving opportunities to "the poor" to move out of poverty. Their wet dream is to have a society of "the poor" that they can service and therefore control.
Have you met "the poor"? Watch out! There are those that want you on the other side of that rope. They're the smiling faces that support "the poor".
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Liberal Math
(Revenue X Tax Rate Increase) = New Tax Revenue for State/Federal Government
Does the above equation make sense to you? To most Democrats (President Barack Obama and Governor Jerry Brown, for instance), it makes perfect sense. It states that if a corporation takes in a certain amount of revenue, increasing their tax rate will equate into increased government tax intake. This will fix deficits, allow more spending on education, fix infrastructure, and generally make everyone a whole lot happier.
Wrong!
If you ever took an algebra class, you learn that there are constants and there are variables. The mistakes the Democrats make is they assume corporate revenue is a constant. As any person who has run a business knows, it is a variable. Company revenue is a complex variable at that. It is dependent on many factors, one of them being the tax rate.
Why do so many people not understand that when tax rates increase, it forces companies to adjust other factors in their business to account for that? These factors can include laying off workers, lessening worker's hours or pay rates, increasing prices of their products and/or services creating a burden on the consumers, or just simply going out of business which would create more unemployment.
It creates a vicious cycle. Any increased revenue from the higher taxes would end up being needed to aid the new group of unemployed people at best, and it wouldn't be enough anyways. So politicians would want to raise taxes again to cover this additional expense. Sound familiar? This is exactly what is happening. Higher taxes is self-serving. In other words, raising taxes actually creates more reasons to raise taxes.
Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes. Result: The depression got worse.
John F. Kennedy lowered taxes. Result: The economy grew.
Richard Nixon raised taxes. Result: A major economic downturn from the mid-70's to the mid-80's.
Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. Result: The economy performed well from the mid-80's to the early 90's.
George HW Bush raised taxes. Result: The economy went down.
George W Bush lowered taxes. Result: The economy boomed.
Barack Obama is finding ways to raise taxes. Result: What do you think?
Does the above equation make sense to you? To most Democrats (President Barack Obama and Governor Jerry Brown, for instance), it makes perfect sense. It states that if a corporation takes in a certain amount of revenue, increasing their tax rate will equate into increased government tax intake. This will fix deficits, allow more spending on education, fix infrastructure, and generally make everyone a whole lot happier.
Wrong!
If you ever took an algebra class, you learn that there are constants and there are variables. The mistakes the Democrats make is they assume corporate revenue is a constant. As any person who has run a business knows, it is a variable. Company revenue is a complex variable at that. It is dependent on many factors, one of them being the tax rate.
Why do so many people not understand that when tax rates increase, it forces companies to adjust other factors in their business to account for that? These factors can include laying off workers, lessening worker's hours or pay rates, increasing prices of their products and/or services creating a burden on the consumers, or just simply going out of business which would create more unemployment.
It creates a vicious cycle. Any increased revenue from the higher taxes would end up being needed to aid the new group of unemployed people at best, and it wouldn't be enough anyways. So politicians would want to raise taxes again to cover this additional expense. Sound familiar? This is exactly what is happening. Higher taxes is self-serving. In other words, raising taxes actually creates more reasons to raise taxes.
Franklin Roosevelt raised taxes. Result: The depression got worse.
John F. Kennedy lowered taxes. Result: The economy grew.
Richard Nixon raised taxes. Result: A major economic downturn from the mid-70's to the mid-80's.
Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. Result: The economy performed well from the mid-80's to the early 90's.
George HW Bush raised taxes. Result: The economy went down.
George W Bush lowered taxes. Result: The economy boomed.
Barack Obama is finding ways to raise taxes. Result: What do you think?
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Losing My Soul: Joe vs. The Volcano Film Analysis
(Here is my first attempt at a video film analysis. Joe vs. The Volcano has fascinated me for years. There's a lot more to it than what appears on the surface.) The video is in three parts. I've also included a written version of the analysis below.)
(Youtube embedded files don't always seem to work so here's the link to the actual Youtube page.)
Losing My Soul: Joe vs. The Volcano Film Analysis
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
When you consider the movie, Joe vs. the Volcano, you must remember that it was released in 1990. This was before Philadelphia or Forrest Gump. Tom Hanks, at this time, was mostly considered to be a physical comic actor. Audiences were used to seeing Hanks in rather buffoonish roles in movies like Bachelor Party, Volunteers, and Dragnet. Joe vs. the Volcano seems to be a rather silly title, so it was natural for audiences to expect to see a screwball comedy.
Audiences and critics didn’t seem to think too highly of the movie. It was generally panned and it did not stay in theaters for very long. It seemed to come across as a weak screwball comedy that had only occasional funny moments and nothing truly memorable.
Yet for some, the movie’s bizarreness seemed to linger in their minds and in subsequent viewings, most likely from their homes, many started to detect that there was something more to Joe vs. the Volcano than what they saw in their first viewing.
Let’s take a close look and explore some of the hidden themes.
The very first thing we see is a placard. The words “Once upon a time” are a clue that this is a fairy tale. The characters, places, and events are mostly made up. Fairy tales also often have elements of magic or the supernatural so this simple placard is a clue to what follows. Also notice the nursery rhyme music indicating something child-like.
Joe Banks, played by Tom Hanks is going to work. We are hearing a song with the words “I owe my soul to the company store” Joe, as well as a mass of people, apparently in a dazed state, are walking like zombies to a factory. This is an everyday ritual of getting up early and going to work that many of us can relate to.
The song “Sixteen Tons” reveals the slightly hidden story within the story. Joe vs. the Volcano is basically the classic story of making a deal with the Devil and losing your soul. There is also a theme of personal redemption.
Joe is among the myriad of people who have no meaning in their lives other than going to their job every morning. Their dazed state and dreary surroundings hint they are in some kind of limbo – between awake and asleep. They are barely aware of the awfulness of their situation and they seemed to have stopped caring long ago. These people are unaware that they have traded their souls for a dull, meaningless life.
The sign of the Devil is a crooked line and we see it as the logo of the company Joe works for. We soon see it again as the camera moves upwards revealing that the path the workers are taking is the same crooked line. This scene will be played out again. In fact, the whole movie is essentially a crooked and wide path to redemption that Joe takes. This contradicts the traditional dogma that redemption is found by walking a straight and narrow path.
Joe walks in to the advertising department. It features poor lighting, drab colors, a broken hat rack, and an annoying buzzing sound from the fluorescent lighting. The employees are in their own little worlds – oblivious to anything around them. This is particularly true with Mr. Waturi. Mr. Waturi is on the phone engaged in a pointless, seemingly endless argument. The prosthetic testicles on his desk reflect his lack of manhood. These people have horribly mundane jobs and lives. They dress in dark colored clothes and appear half-dead. They are soulless.
Only Joe seems a bit different. While he has the same deadpan look as everybody else, he seems a bit more active and aware of his surroundings. Once he gets to his desk, he pulls out a child’s reading lamp. The lamp is colorful and contrasts everything else in the office. This is an indication that though Joe is in limbo like everybody else, he doesn’t seem as far gone and the lamp symbolizes that he has hope. When he turns on the lamp, a tropical island with a volcano appears on it. This is also symbolic as this forebears Joe’s destiny with a volcano. While the red and orange image of the volcano contrasts the drabness of the office, it also indicates danger. Indeed, the volcano represents hell itself. The nursery-rhyme music; however reflect Joe’s child-like demeanor. It’s the same music we heard when the “Once upon a time…” text appeared earlier.
In case the hidden story is too hidden, Joe brings it out in an obvious way when he tells Deedee, played by Meg Ryan, “I’m losing my sole.” Deedee, whom we’ll see more of later, comes across as totally non-assuming, too accepting, and very dull.
Even worse though, is Joe’s boss, Mr. Waturi. He obviously lives to work. It is all he is about. To him, there is nothing beyond the office. He can’t comprehend why Joe doesn’t share the same dedication to his job. Mr. Waturi can’t stand Joe’s lamp and makes him put it away.
Joe seems to deal with his co-workers like a child dealing with his parents, perpetuating the notion that Joe is basically, a child. Mr. Waturi has no childishness left in him and resents it in Joe.
We see Joe in a Doctor’s waiting room. He is shielding his eyes as if he is hiding from something. He is hiding from the real world. Part of Joe wants to die and this has made him a hypochondriac. He is secretly hoping he will be afflicted with some deadly disease so that his horrible life will soon be over.
Note that the waiting room is plain and dull – as is the nurse. She is just like everybody else just living a lousy, meaningless life. Contrast this with the Doctor’s office. It features warm colors. The fire in the fireplace gives it life. Here, we discover that Joe used to be a fireman. He saved people from fire. In the soul-selling allegory, this makes Joe a fallen angel as he is no longer saving others from hell. He has allowed himself to become a victim instead.
Notice how the Doctor doesn’t seem to even know what a fireman is. He asks “What did you do in the fire department?” and “Was it dangerous?” Allegorically, the Doctor is not human. He is in league with the Devil. We’ll see that he is setting Joe up to sell his soul. The fire behind Joe and the redness in the room are evidence of this.
The Doctor informs Joe that he has a terminal condition called a “brain-cloud”. This is fitting since Joe’s mind is definitely in a fog, as it has been since he left the fire department. Joe anxiously asks if it is incurable as if he wants the answer to be “yes”. Notice also how Joe shows no disappointment, despair, or any negative emotion over finding out he is going to die within six months.
Finding out he has only six months to live seems to flip a switch in Joe. He starts acting like the proverbial man who had a brush with death and now appreciates life so much more. This is of course, the opposite of this situation. Back at work, things are just the way he left them. Mr. Waturi is in another pointless conversation and everybody else is minding their own business. Joe stirs things up. He briefly interacts with Deedee and with Frank. He mocks Waturi with a prosthetic arm, again suggesting Waturi’s lack of humanity.
Joe’s closing the valve suggests he is regaining his bravery and is going to try new things. It scares the hell out of soulless Mr. Waturi. In a sudden inspiration, Joe quits his job. The three books – Robinson Crusoe, Romeo & Juliet, and The Odyssey foretell his upcoming adventures. He leaves the lamp with Deedee. He is passing the torch in hope that Deedee can find her childlike wonder in the lamp. In his speech to Mr. Waturi, Joe no longer behaves like a frightened child, but a giant compared to the others in the room. Joe suddenly realizes the ridiculousness of his whole situation
We now see Joe and Deedee on a date. Joe is doing all the talking. Note how he is focused on only himself and Deedee – as if they are the only two people who matter. Joe is full of energy but he lacks direction. Like the Doctor’s office, the restaurant is colorful and features a lot of red. This again, hints that the Devil is near and Joe is ripe for the taking.
Deedee, with her brown hair, acts as the goddess of the Earth. She is nature and Joe is reaching into the supernatural which is beyond her reasoning. Deedee is overwhelmed. She can’t understand Joe’s change. It enchants her but it also frightens her. It’s unclear here as to which side will win out.
As they leave the restaurant, we see that a volcano is visible on a poster titled “Fire in Paradise”. Joe seems to be in paradise, but it is a false one. Joe is celebrating his upcoming death when he should be celebrating his life. An erupting volcano on a welcoming tropical island reflects this paradox.
At his apartment, Joe tells Deedee his bad news. This is the final straw for Deedee. She is not ready to deal with something like this. She leaves Joe forever.
Samuel Graynamore enters Joe’s apartment the next morning and now we see a large scar on Joe’s wall. It’s the same crooked line that represents his former company and, as we know, the Devil. Mr. Graynamore is no one else but the Devil himself. Here, Joe is given the Faustian bargain – that is for Joe to get all his heart’s desires and pay the price later. Specifically, Joe is given carte blanche to spend huge sums of money, live like a king, be treated as a hero, and then finally jump into a volcano. Joe doesn’t even think about it very long before agreeing to the deal. This just shows how lost Joe really is.
Joe is ready to go on a Manhattan shopping spree and satisfy every materialistic lust he has. This fits exactly into the Devil’s plan as Joe will lose what’s left of his soul with his greed. However, help is on the way – in the form of the limousine driver Marshall. Marshall is basically Joe’s guardian angel and subtly tries to steer him right. Joe doesn’t know where to go or what to buy – again indicating how directionless he is.
But Marshall won’t directly tell him either. He wants Joe to make these decisions. Marshall says “clothes make the man” and later tells Joe he has no clothes hinting that Joe isn’t a man, but a child. As a guardian angel, Marshall is constantly giving Joe advice. Later, Marshall later tells Joe he is “coming into focus” once Joe has new clothes and a new haircut.
Joe encounters the luggage man. Here is a real lost soul. All he seems to think about or talk about is luggage. He reminds us of Joe’s former co-workers who live meaningless, petty lives. Notice however, the blue sky covering the door to the steamer trunk. This, the star on the floor, and the choir that chants are indications of heaven. The trunks represent a gift from heaven.
Marshall’s mentoring puts Joe on the correct path of life. When Joe tells Marshall “There are certain doors you got to go through alone.” Marshall smiles, as this confirms that Joe is finding direction and himself.
Upon reaching Los Angeles, Joe remarks “It looks fake. I like it.” Joe prefers living in a fairy tale world. Earlier, the hairdresser said he looks “like a prince in a fairy tale”.
Angelica, also played by Ryan, is very different than Deedee. She is weird and moody. She is also utterly self-absorbed and likes to talk about herself. When the subject is something other than about her, her favorite response is “I have no response to that.” Angelica, with her fiery-colored hair, clothes, and car, represents the goddess of the sun. Note how depressed she suddenly gets at night and she talks of killing herself.
Joe soon recognizes her as a fellow lost soul – more lost than he is. Joe asks her if, instead of killing herself, do what you’re afraid of doing, wouldn’t it be worth the risk? Joe had tried to help Deedee by giving her the child’s lamp. Now Joe is trying to put Angelica on the right path. Joe’s growth is evident here. He is selflessly trying to help a fellow human being. Note how, unlike with Deedee, he chooses not to bring Angelica to his hotel room. He also never tells Angelica about his situation.
Knowing what we know about the two previous Meg Ryan characters, it’s easy to deduce that Patricia is the Moon goddess. She remarks that the sunshine gets her down. It’s clear that she and Angelica the Sun, don’t get along.
Patricia is another lost soul. She is ashamed at herself for performing a service for her father in exchange for a boat. To her, it is a compromise of principle so she, like Joe, took the Faustian bargain. Joe begins to bond with Patricia, something he couldn’t do with Deedee or Angelica. They are all lost souls but Patricia seems a kindred spirit. Like Joe, she is aware of what she has done and is rediscovering herself.
The crew are enjoying themselves fishing the next day. However, the shark, like the “Fire in Paradise” poster, is an omen. It forebodes that not all is well and there is danger ahead.
Joe and Patricia bond further that night. Joe asks Patricia if she believes in God and Patricia answers “I believe in myself.” After all, she is a god in the underlying story. It’s interesting how Joe seems to see no difference between a tropical island he is going to and Staten Island where he is coming from. We already know Staten Island is full of lost souls and we’ll soon see the Waponi Wu is no different. Patricia remarks that her father told her that most of the world is asleep and the few who aren’t live in a state of constant, total amazement. We already know this to be true and who better to make this observation than the devil himself, who preys upon those who choose to sleep through life.
Joe looks back at his life and realizes how different both he and his life are now as to when he was working in the factory – more indications that Joe is growing as a person.
When Joe told Deedee about his predicament, she was overwhelmed and refused to deal with it. Joe had the good sense to not even bother to tell the self-absorbed Angelica. Joe does decide to explain it all to Patricia. Patricia is a bit shocked, but seems to accept it. This is more evidence of her similarities with Joe.
Note how there are candles and sunflowers behind Joe. The candles remind us of the candlelight dinner with Deedee while the sunflowers represent Angelica. Twice in the movie, Joe tells one of the women that he felt he had seen her before. Deedee, Angelica, and Patricia represent different parts of the same woman – which is why Meg Ryan plays all three parts. So Joe is basically addressing all three of them as the symbols in the background suggest.
Joe may have sold his soul, but he now seems to be re-claiming it. He has full self-awareness and a true love of life. He has also met the women he was meant to be with. For Joe to fully claim his soul back, he will have to be severely tested. A one-time firefighter, Joe bravely rescues Patricia when she is knocked overboard. Here we see the storm was brought on by the devil as we see the lightning bolt in the shape of the crooked path strike and destroy the boat.
Not all is hopeless, though. The trunks he had bought come to the surface. These trunks represent Joe’s guardian angel Marshall as Joe had purchased them with Marshall’s assistance. He is being looked after.
Joe sacrifices himself to try to save the now unconscious Patricia. He doesn’t drink any water. Joe spends days and nights in solitude with only the music from the radio and his ukulele to keep him company. Joe seems to maintain good spirits. Joe is going through the type of fast associated with Jesus. Fasts in religions have a cleansing effect and Joe is being rid of the pettiness he once had. If Joe survives the fast, he’ll emerge as something greater than a mere man.
The rising giant Moon serves as a signal that Patricia, who represents the Moon, is coming back. Keep in mind that the other nights shown were Moonless so a sudden full Moon is a magical event. It also symbolizes that Joe’s personal growth is complete. Where earlier, it was uncertain of whether or not he believed in God, he now thanks God for his life. Joe is now the man he was meant to be, not the cowering child he was at the beginning of the movie, but a selfless, heroic, leader.
The Waponis are lost souls. They traded their souls for orange soda. They traded their God-fearing culture into one of western decadence. No one of the tribe is willing to sacrifice himself or herself for the good of the tribe. Enter Joe, the savior and that is how he is treated. As Jesus was welcomed into the temple in a celebration of palms, Joe is given similar treatment. Note the Jewish song being sung here.
At the feast, we see a Waponi wearing a very strange, yet familiar mask. It's familiar because it is a mock up of the factory Joe used to work in. Notice also, that a Waponi appears to have a pyramid painted on one hand and an eye on another - a masonic symbol. These images reinforce the idea that Waponi Wu is really no different than Staten Island, or Manhattan Island. They're all full of lost souls.
Once again, we see the crooked path symbol, this time, as an actual crooked path up the way to hell. Joe is perfectly willing to sacrifice himself for these soulless people. He accepts it as his duty and is willing to forsake his newly found love to do what he feels is right. Patricia, in finding Joe, has found herself as well and realizes her place is with him no matter what. So she and Joe leap into the volcano to destroy themselves by descending into hell to save the Waponis.
But… an unexpected thing happens. Hell rejects the two who have proven themselves so worthy and instead, consumes the Waponis. This contradicts the Christian story as the soulless are not saved.
Joe and Patricia are once again saved by the trunks and are now Gods themselves and will live “away from the things of Man and happily ever after”.
Or will they? Going back on board the Tweedle Dee – Patricia’s boat, Patricia told Joe about how sleeping on a boat affects your dreams What if the whole part of the movie that followed was just a dream through Wonderland?
(Youtube embedded files don't always seem to work so here's the link to the actual Youtube page.)
Losing My Soul: Joe vs. The Volcano Film Analysis
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
When you consider the movie, Joe vs. the Volcano, you must remember that it was released in 1990. This was before Philadelphia or Forrest Gump. Tom Hanks, at this time, was mostly considered to be a physical comic actor. Audiences were used to seeing Hanks in rather buffoonish roles in movies like Bachelor Party, Volunteers, and Dragnet. Joe vs. the Volcano seems to be a rather silly title, so it was natural for audiences to expect to see a screwball comedy.
Audiences and critics didn’t seem to think too highly of the movie. It was generally panned and it did not stay in theaters for very long. It seemed to come across as a weak screwball comedy that had only occasional funny moments and nothing truly memorable.
Yet for some, the movie’s bizarreness seemed to linger in their minds and in subsequent viewings, most likely from their homes, many started to detect that there was something more to Joe vs. the Volcano than what they saw in their first viewing.
Let’s take a close look and explore some of the hidden themes.
The very first thing we see is a placard. The words “Once upon a time” are a clue that this is a fairy tale. The characters, places, and events are mostly made up. Fairy tales also often have elements of magic or the supernatural so this simple placard is a clue to what follows. Also notice the nursery rhyme music indicating something child-like.
Joe Banks, played by Tom Hanks is going to work. We are hearing a song with the words “I owe my soul to the company store” Joe, as well as a mass of people, apparently in a dazed state, are walking like zombies to a factory. This is an everyday ritual of getting up early and going to work that many of us can relate to.
The song “Sixteen Tons” reveals the slightly hidden story within the story. Joe vs. the Volcano is basically the classic story of making a deal with the Devil and losing your soul. There is also a theme of personal redemption.
Joe is among the myriad of people who have no meaning in their lives other than going to their job every morning. Their dazed state and dreary surroundings hint they are in some kind of limbo – between awake and asleep. They are barely aware of the awfulness of their situation and they seemed to have stopped caring long ago. These people are unaware that they have traded their souls for a dull, meaningless life.
The sign of the Devil is a crooked line and we see it as the logo of the company Joe works for. We soon see it again as the camera moves upwards revealing that the path the workers are taking is the same crooked line. This scene will be played out again. In fact, the whole movie is essentially a crooked and wide path to redemption that Joe takes. This contradicts the traditional dogma that redemption is found by walking a straight and narrow path.
Joe walks in to the advertising department. It features poor lighting, drab colors, a broken hat rack, and an annoying buzzing sound from the fluorescent lighting. The employees are in their own little worlds – oblivious to anything around them. This is particularly true with Mr. Waturi. Mr. Waturi is on the phone engaged in a pointless, seemingly endless argument. The prosthetic testicles on his desk reflect his lack of manhood. These people have horribly mundane jobs and lives. They dress in dark colored clothes and appear half-dead. They are soulless.
Only Joe seems a bit different. While he has the same deadpan look as everybody else, he seems a bit more active and aware of his surroundings. Once he gets to his desk, he pulls out a child’s reading lamp. The lamp is colorful and contrasts everything else in the office. This is an indication that though Joe is in limbo like everybody else, he doesn’t seem as far gone and the lamp symbolizes that he has hope. When he turns on the lamp, a tropical island with a volcano appears on it. This is also symbolic as this forebears Joe’s destiny with a volcano. While the red and orange image of the volcano contrasts the drabness of the office, it also indicates danger. Indeed, the volcano represents hell itself. The nursery-rhyme music; however reflect Joe’s child-like demeanor. It’s the same music we heard when the “Once upon a time…” text appeared earlier.
In case the hidden story is too hidden, Joe brings it out in an obvious way when he tells Deedee, played by Meg Ryan, “I’m losing my sole.” Deedee, whom we’ll see more of later, comes across as totally non-assuming, too accepting, and very dull.
Even worse though, is Joe’s boss, Mr. Waturi. He obviously lives to work. It is all he is about. To him, there is nothing beyond the office. He can’t comprehend why Joe doesn’t share the same dedication to his job. Mr. Waturi can’t stand Joe’s lamp and makes him put it away.
Joe seems to deal with his co-workers like a child dealing with his parents, perpetuating the notion that Joe is basically, a child. Mr. Waturi has no childishness left in him and resents it in Joe.
We see Joe in a Doctor’s waiting room. He is shielding his eyes as if he is hiding from something. He is hiding from the real world. Part of Joe wants to die and this has made him a hypochondriac. He is secretly hoping he will be afflicted with some deadly disease so that his horrible life will soon be over.
Note that the waiting room is plain and dull – as is the nurse. She is just like everybody else just living a lousy, meaningless life. Contrast this with the Doctor’s office. It features warm colors. The fire in the fireplace gives it life. Here, we discover that Joe used to be a fireman. He saved people from fire. In the soul-selling allegory, this makes Joe a fallen angel as he is no longer saving others from hell. He has allowed himself to become a victim instead.
Notice how the Doctor doesn’t seem to even know what a fireman is. He asks “What did you do in the fire department?” and “Was it dangerous?” Allegorically, the Doctor is not human. He is in league with the Devil. We’ll see that he is setting Joe up to sell his soul. The fire behind Joe and the redness in the room are evidence of this.
The Doctor informs Joe that he has a terminal condition called a “brain-cloud”. This is fitting since Joe’s mind is definitely in a fog, as it has been since he left the fire department. Joe anxiously asks if it is incurable as if he wants the answer to be “yes”. Notice also how Joe shows no disappointment, despair, or any negative emotion over finding out he is going to die within six months.
Finding out he has only six months to live seems to flip a switch in Joe. He starts acting like the proverbial man who had a brush with death and now appreciates life so much more. This is of course, the opposite of this situation. Back at work, things are just the way he left them. Mr. Waturi is in another pointless conversation and everybody else is minding their own business. Joe stirs things up. He briefly interacts with Deedee and with Frank. He mocks Waturi with a prosthetic arm, again suggesting Waturi’s lack of humanity.
Joe’s closing the valve suggests he is regaining his bravery and is going to try new things. It scares the hell out of soulless Mr. Waturi. In a sudden inspiration, Joe quits his job. The three books – Robinson Crusoe, Romeo & Juliet, and The Odyssey foretell his upcoming adventures. He leaves the lamp with Deedee. He is passing the torch in hope that Deedee can find her childlike wonder in the lamp. In his speech to Mr. Waturi, Joe no longer behaves like a frightened child, but a giant compared to the others in the room. Joe suddenly realizes the ridiculousness of his whole situation
We now see Joe and Deedee on a date. Joe is doing all the talking. Note how he is focused on only himself and Deedee – as if they are the only two people who matter. Joe is full of energy but he lacks direction. Like the Doctor’s office, the restaurant is colorful and features a lot of red. This again, hints that the Devil is near and Joe is ripe for the taking.
Deedee, with her brown hair, acts as the goddess of the Earth. She is nature and Joe is reaching into the supernatural which is beyond her reasoning. Deedee is overwhelmed. She can’t understand Joe’s change. It enchants her but it also frightens her. It’s unclear here as to which side will win out.
As they leave the restaurant, we see that a volcano is visible on a poster titled “Fire in Paradise”. Joe seems to be in paradise, but it is a false one. Joe is celebrating his upcoming death when he should be celebrating his life. An erupting volcano on a welcoming tropical island reflects this paradox.
At his apartment, Joe tells Deedee his bad news. This is the final straw for Deedee. She is not ready to deal with something like this. She leaves Joe forever.
Samuel Graynamore enters Joe’s apartment the next morning and now we see a large scar on Joe’s wall. It’s the same crooked line that represents his former company and, as we know, the Devil. Mr. Graynamore is no one else but the Devil himself. Here, Joe is given the Faustian bargain – that is for Joe to get all his heart’s desires and pay the price later. Specifically, Joe is given carte blanche to spend huge sums of money, live like a king, be treated as a hero, and then finally jump into a volcano. Joe doesn’t even think about it very long before agreeing to the deal. This just shows how lost Joe really is.
Joe is ready to go on a Manhattan shopping spree and satisfy every materialistic lust he has. This fits exactly into the Devil’s plan as Joe will lose what’s left of his soul with his greed. However, help is on the way – in the form of the limousine driver Marshall. Marshall is basically Joe’s guardian angel and subtly tries to steer him right. Joe doesn’t know where to go or what to buy – again indicating how directionless he is.
But Marshall won’t directly tell him either. He wants Joe to make these decisions. Marshall says “clothes make the man” and later tells Joe he has no clothes hinting that Joe isn’t a man, but a child. As a guardian angel, Marshall is constantly giving Joe advice. Later, Marshall later tells Joe he is “coming into focus” once Joe has new clothes and a new haircut.
Joe encounters the luggage man. Here is a real lost soul. All he seems to think about or talk about is luggage. He reminds us of Joe’s former co-workers who live meaningless, petty lives. Notice however, the blue sky covering the door to the steamer trunk. This, the star on the floor, and the choir that chants are indications of heaven. The trunks represent a gift from heaven.
Marshall’s mentoring puts Joe on the correct path of life. When Joe tells Marshall “There are certain doors you got to go through alone.” Marshall smiles, as this confirms that Joe is finding direction and himself.
Upon reaching Los Angeles, Joe remarks “It looks fake. I like it.” Joe prefers living in a fairy tale world. Earlier, the hairdresser said he looks “like a prince in a fairy tale”.
Angelica, also played by Ryan, is very different than Deedee. She is weird and moody. She is also utterly self-absorbed and likes to talk about herself. When the subject is something other than about her, her favorite response is “I have no response to that.” Angelica, with her fiery-colored hair, clothes, and car, represents the goddess of the sun. Note how depressed she suddenly gets at night and she talks of killing herself.
Joe soon recognizes her as a fellow lost soul – more lost than he is. Joe asks her if, instead of killing herself, do what you’re afraid of doing, wouldn’t it be worth the risk? Joe had tried to help Deedee by giving her the child’s lamp. Now Joe is trying to put Angelica on the right path. Joe’s growth is evident here. He is selflessly trying to help a fellow human being. Note how, unlike with Deedee, he chooses not to bring Angelica to his hotel room. He also never tells Angelica about his situation.
Knowing what we know about the two previous Meg Ryan characters, it’s easy to deduce that Patricia is the Moon goddess. She remarks that the sunshine gets her down. It’s clear that she and Angelica the Sun, don’t get along.
Patricia is another lost soul. She is ashamed at herself for performing a service for her father in exchange for a boat. To her, it is a compromise of principle so she, like Joe, took the Faustian bargain. Joe begins to bond with Patricia, something he couldn’t do with Deedee or Angelica. They are all lost souls but Patricia seems a kindred spirit. Like Joe, she is aware of what she has done and is rediscovering herself.
The crew are enjoying themselves fishing the next day. However, the shark, like the “Fire in Paradise” poster, is an omen. It forebodes that not all is well and there is danger ahead.
Joe and Patricia bond further that night. Joe asks Patricia if she believes in God and Patricia answers “I believe in myself.” After all, she is a god in the underlying story. It’s interesting how Joe seems to see no difference between a tropical island he is going to and Staten Island where he is coming from. We already know Staten Island is full of lost souls and we’ll soon see the Waponi Wu is no different. Patricia remarks that her father told her that most of the world is asleep and the few who aren’t live in a state of constant, total amazement. We already know this to be true and who better to make this observation than the devil himself, who preys upon those who choose to sleep through life.
Joe looks back at his life and realizes how different both he and his life are now as to when he was working in the factory – more indications that Joe is growing as a person.
When Joe told Deedee about his predicament, she was overwhelmed and refused to deal with it. Joe had the good sense to not even bother to tell the self-absorbed Angelica. Joe does decide to explain it all to Patricia. Patricia is a bit shocked, but seems to accept it. This is more evidence of her similarities with Joe.
Note how there are candles and sunflowers behind Joe. The candles remind us of the candlelight dinner with Deedee while the sunflowers represent Angelica. Twice in the movie, Joe tells one of the women that he felt he had seen her before. Deedee, Angelica, and Patricia represent different parts of the same woman – which is why Meg Ryan plays all three parts. So Joe is basically addressing all three of them as the symbols in the background suggest.
Joe may have sold his soul, but he now seems to be re-claiming it. He has full self-awareness and a true love of life. He has also met the women he was meant to be with. For Joe to fully claim his soul back, he will have to be severely tested. A one-time firefighter, Joe bravely rescues Patricia when she is knocked overboard. Here we see the storm was brought on by the devil as we see the lightning bolt in the shape of the crooked path strike and destroy the boat.
Not all is hopeless, though. The trunks he had bought come to the surface. These trunks represent Joe’s guardian angel Marshall as Joe had purchased them with Marshall’s assistance. He is being looked after.
Joe sacrifices himself to try to save the now unconscious Patricia. He doesn’t drink any water. Joe spends days and nights in solitude with only the music from the radio and his ukulele to keep him company. Joe seems to maintain good spirits. Joe is going through the type of fast associated with Jesus. Fasts in religions have a cleansing effect and Joe is being rid of the pettiness he once had. If Joe survives the fast, he’ll emerge as something greater than a mere man.
The rising giant Moon serves as a signal that Patricia, who represents the Moon, is coming back. Keep in mind that the other nights shown were Moonless so a sudden full Moon is a magical event. It also symbolizes that Joe’s personal growth is complete. Where earlier, it was uncertain of whether or not he believed in God, he now thanks God for his life. Joe is now the man he was meant to be, not the cowering child he was at the beginning of the movie, but a selfless, heroic, leader.
The Waponis are lost souls. They traded their souls for orange soda. They traded their God-fearing culture into one of western decadence. No one of the tribe is willing to sacrifice himself or herself for the good of the tribe. Enter Joe, the savior and that is how he is treated. As Jesus was welcomed into the temple in a celebration of palms, Joe is given similar treatment. Note the Jewish song being sung here.
At the feast, we see a Waponi wearing a very strange, yet familiar mask. It's familiar because it is a mock up of the factory Joe used to work in. Notice also, that a Waponi appears to have a pyramid painted on one hand and an eye on another - a masonic symbol. These images reinforce the idea that Waponi Wu is really no different than Staten Island, or Manhattan Island. They're all full of lost souls.
Once again, we see the crooked path symbol, this time, as an actual crooked path up the way to hell. Joe is perfectly willing to sacrifice himself for these soulless people. He accepts it as his duty and is willing to forsake his newly found love to do what he feels is right. Patricia, in finding Joe, has found herself as well and realizes her place is with him no matter what. So she and Joe leap into the volcano to destroy themselves by descending into hell to save the Waponis.
But… an unexpected thing happens. Hell rejects the two who have proven themselves so worthy and instead, consumes the Waponis. This contradicts the Christian story as the soulless are not saved.
Joe and Patricia are once again saved by the trunks and are now Gods themselves and will live “away from the things of Man and happily ever after”.
Or will they? Going back on board the Tweedle Dee – Patricia’s boat, Patricia told Joe about how sleeping on a boat affects your dreams What if the whole part of the movie that followed was just a dream through Wonderland?
Monday, January 24, 2011
It's All Global Warming
From ABC News on Jan 21, 2011:
(Linsey Davis)
"If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow."
(Diane Sawyer)
"...millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? "
Wait a minute!!! Al Gore and others specifically told us that global warming will cause warmer winters and less precipitation. I read a lot about global warming and its effects and if I put all the claims stated by "scientists" from various media, I can draw the following conclusions:
This is something I am exploring this year. Think about an answer to the question above. It's not really that hard to find the basic answer.
(Linsey Davis)
"If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow."
(Diane Sawyer)
"...millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? "
Wait a minute!!! Al Gore and others specifically told us that global warming will cause warmer winters and less precipitation. I read a lot about global warming and its effects and if I put all the claims stated by "scientists" from various media, I can draw the following conclusions:
- Warmer than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
- Colder than normal temperatures are due to global warming.
- Temperatures that are approximately average for a given area for a given time is proof of global warming.
- Dry conditions and droughts will be common due to global warming.
- Heavy precipitation is due to global warming.
- Places reporting average amounts of precipitation indicate global warming.
- Ice melting in the Arctic is due to global warming.
- Ice sheets increasing in size in the Antarctic is proof of global warming.
- The imminent rise of ocean levels will be an indication of global warming.
- The ACTUAL non-significant rise of ocean levels is due to global warming.
- An expected increase in the number of hurricanes and typhoons and the expected increase in their intensity will be proof of global warming.
- The reality of six consecutive years of a normal or less than normal frequency of hurricanes and typhoons is also a strong indication of global warming.
- Recent earthquakes in Haiti and Pakistan are due to global warming.
This is something I am exploring this year. Think about an answer to the question above. It's not really that hard to find the basic answer.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Merry Christmas to All!!!
Merry Christmas to All!!!
May we all enjoy the Christmas season and remember the reason for the season.
The Month before Christmas
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!
not Happy Holiday !
Please, all join together and wish everyone you meet
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Christ is The Reason for the Christ-mas Season!
(Thanks to my Uncle for sending me this.)
May we all enjoy the Christmas season and remember the reason for the season.
The Month before Christmas
Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!
not Happy Holiday !
Please, all join together and wish everyone you meet
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Christ is The Reason for the Christ-mas Season!
(Thanks to my Uncle for sending me this.)
Friday, June 11, 2010
New Rules of Feminism - Addendum
In case you missed the original change in rules, look here:
New Rules of Feminism
Now, "rich businesswomen" (as the L.A. Times refers to them) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have won Republican primaries and are taking on incumbent Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, respectively) in my State of California.
The L.A. Times already revealed how it wants us to perceive these women. Of course, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer aren't exactly poor. Boxer started out as a stock broker and married a very successful lawyer and lived in the very rich Marin County, Ca until 1994. Yet I have never seen her referred to as "rich".
Meg Whitman arguably has a more impressive background. She worked her way up the corporate ladder before marrying a successful neurosurgeon. She comes across as much more of a self-made woman than Boxer. She's rich because of her own doings.
But of course, media pundits refuse to see her as a feminist because of that (R) next to her name.
Tina Brown Slams Female GOP Primary Winners
Carli Fiorina has a similar story. Starting out as a secretary, she worked her way up to becoming CEO of Hewlett Packard. This was at a time when a female CEO of a hot tech company was unheard of. If only she had been a Democrat, she would probably stand above Hillary Clinton as the benchmark feminist that all our daughters should aspire to be.
Of course, had she been a Democrat, that would mean that she didn't have the internal convictions to have been a successful CEO in the first place so it was a moot point.
New Rules of Feminism
Now, "rich businesswomen" (as the L.A. Times refers to them) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have won Republican primaries and are taking on incumbent Democrats (Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, respectively) in my State of California.
The L.A. Times already revealed how it wants us to perceive these women. Of course, Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer aren't exactly poor. Boxer started out as a stock broker and married a very successful lawyer and lived in the very rich Marin County, Ca until 1994. Yet I have never seen her referred to as "rich".
Meg Whitman arguably has a more impressive background. She worked her way up the corporate ladder before marrying a successful neurosurgeon. She comes across as much more of a self-made woman than Boxer. She's rich because of her own doings.
But of course, media pundits refuse to see her as a feminist because of that (R) next to her name.
Tina Brown Slams Female GOP Primary Winners
Carli Fiorina has a similar story. Starting out as a secretary, she worked her way up to becoming CEO of Hewlett Packard. This was at a time when a female CEO of a hot tech company was unheard of. If only she had been a Democrat, she would probably stand above Hillary Clinton as the benchmark feminist that all our daughters should aspire to be.
Of course, had she been a Democrat, that would mean that she didn't have the internal convictions to have been a successful CEO in the first place so it was a moot point.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
A Night at the Hollywood Bowl
The Show
Last night, Michelle and I went to the Hollywood Bowl and saw Carole King and James Taylor perform, both individually and as a duet. These are two of Michelle's favorite artists. I always liked James Taylor, although I was never what you would call a fan. I had barely heard of Carole King before I met Michelle but I found out she had performed written, and co-written quite a few songs I knew and liked. I had no idea she had co-written "The Loco-motion" or "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" until last night.
Getting to the Bowl almost requires taking a Park & Ride as the parking at the Bowl is really bad in terms of space and accessibility. It gets rather cool there this time of year and the seats are wooden park benches - towards the back of the arena anyways. Despite all that, it was very enjoyable. James Taylor has not lost anything in his voice at age 62. His voice sounded like we were in the studio with him in 1970. King was also impressive and the chemistry between them was great.
I tend to prefer rock and roll with more substance than these two offer. I like layered instruments, tempo changes, and lyrics with obscure or double-meanings. Taylor and King make very personal music with simple melodies. Their lyrics are straightforward. You know what they are conveying. However, these two artists do their thing so well that I found myself enjoying the show quite a bit. Michelle was enthralled. When it was over, we both agreed it was a great show.
One Observation
I realize as I write this that this is going to come across as completely inappropriate to some people. I had a good view of a horde of people just arriving and getting to their seats just before the concert began. The thing that struck me was... ready... They were almost all white! As I then looked across the mass of people, I realized that at least 98% of the audience was white. I spotted a couple of black people amongst the thousands. I saw no sign of a Latino or Asian whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this? Of course not!
I imagine that some black performers are going to attract mostly black audiences, the same with Latinos. It's apparent that some performers have broad, cross-racial appeal such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson. While others don't.
What's my point? It is that if this were any kind of political event, it would have been blasted by the mainstream media. I'm sure someone at MSNBC would have called this some kind of "Klan" or "Nazi" event. In the case here, it was a collection of people who shared a similar taste in music and that's okay. In the case of a Tea Party event, it is a collection of people who are concerned about tax dollars being wasted on corporate bailouts, possibly jeopardizing the future prosperity of the United States. Apparently to the mainstream media, this is not okay. By the way, I certainly hope the black people at the concert weren't "uncomfortable" as I am sure, they were as welcomed as anybody else.
Has it ever occurred to anybody in the media that the reason so many people attending the Tea Parties are white because black people don't want to protest a black President? I'm sure many blacks are concerned with the same things the Tea Party is about as their children are in jeopardy too. The media seems to want to believe that only white people are concerned with skin color. I don't believe that's the case.
Last night, Michelle and I went to the Hollywood Bowl and saw Carole King and James Taylor perform, both individually and as a duet. These are two of Michelle's favorite artists. I always liked James Taylor, although I was never what you would call a fan. I had barely heard of Carole King before I met Michelle but I found out she had performed written, and co-written quite a few songs I knew and liked. I had no idea she had co-written "The Loco-motion" or "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" until last night.
Getting to the Bowl almost requires taking a Park & Ride as the parking at the Bowl is really bad in terms of space and accessibility. It gets rather cool there this time of year and the seats are wooden park benches - towards the back of the arena anyways. Despite all that, it was very enjoyable. James Taylor has not lost anything in his voice at age 62. His voice sounded like we were in the studio with him in 1970. King was also impressive and the chemistry between them was great.
I tend to prefer rock and roll with more substance than these two offer. I like layered instruments, tempo changes, and lyrics with obscure or double-meanings. Taylor and King make very personal music with simple melodies. Their lyrics are straightforward. You know what they are conveying. However, these two artists do their thing so well that I found myself enjoying the show quite a bit. Michelle was enthralled. When it was over, we both agreed it was a great show.
One Observation
I realize as I write this that this is going to come across as completely inappropriate to some people. I had a good view of a horde of people just arriving and getting to their seats just before the concert began. The thing that struck me was... ready... They were almost all white! As I then looked across the mass of people, I realized that at least 98% of the audience was white. I spotted a couple of black people amongst the thousands. I saw no sign of a Latino or Asian whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this? Of course not!
I imagine that some black performers are going to attract mostly black audiences, the same with Latinos. It's apparent that some performers have broad, cross-racial appeal such as Madonna and the late Michael Jackson. While others don't.
What's my point? It is that if this were any kind of political event, it would have been blasted by the mainstream media. I'm sure someone at MSNBC would have called this some kind of "Klan" or "Nazi" event. In the case here, it was a collection of people who shared a similar taste in music and that's okay. In the case of a Tea Party event, it is a collection of people who are concerned about tax dollars being wasted on corporate bailouts, possibly jeopardizing the future prosperity of the United States. Apparently to the mainstream media, this is not okay. By the way, I certainly hope the black people at the concert weren't "uncomfortable" as I am sure, they were as welcomed as anybody else.
Has it ever occurred to anybody in the media that the reason so many people attending the Tea Parties are white because black people don't want to protest a black President? I'm sure many blacks are concerned with the same things the Tea Party is about as their children are in jeopardy too. The media seems to want to believe that only white people are concerned with skin color. I don't believe that's the case.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
The Game We Wanted
Seemingly, every NFL season has a prominent NFC team and a prominent AFC team that appear destined to face each other in the Superbowl. Just about every NFL season has one or both teams taking an unexpected early exit in the playoffs.
Not this season. This time, we get the Saints and Colts that were dominant and even undefeated late in the year. This time, we get to see Peyton Manning vs. Drew Brees, Reggie Wayne vs. Marques Colston, Joseph Addai vs. Pierre Thomas, Dwight Freeney vs. Darren Sharper.
The sentimental choice of course, is the Saints. With them carrying the hopes of a whole recovering city on their back, and with them never having gone to the big game before, it's hard not to be happy for the team and New Orleans. They have the means to pull off the dream too. Drew Brees is a smart and accurate passer. He has plenty of weapons to throw to. Reggie Bush is a threat to score every time he touches the ball (admittedly, he is also prone to fumbling the ball too.) Their defense is quite underrated. They pummeled Brett Favre in the NFC Championship game and they are quite adept at creating key turnovers.
Then you have the Colts. They've been here before, they're experienced, tough, and explosive in their own right. This is a team determined to build a legacy as a winner. Had it not been for the incredible run by the New England Patriots in recent years, it would most likely be the Colts with the multiple Superbowl rings. Peyton Manning, time and time again, has shown an incredible ability to read defenses and find their weaknesses. He is one of those players who makes his whole team better. He is the face of the franchise and is the driving force behind the determination and dedication to their success. Their defense is quick and fierce and underrated like the Saints.
This has been the Colts' season. They are one step away from capping it off and being perceived as one of the greatest NFL teams of all time.
The only problem is, the Saints will win.
Not this season. This time, we get the Saints and Colts that were dominant and even undefeated late in the year. This time, we get to see Peyton Manning vs. Drew Brees, Reggie Wayne vs. Marques Colston, Joseph Addai vs. Pierre Thomas, Dwight Freeney vs. Darren Sharper.
The sentimental choice of course, is the Saints. With them carrying the hopes of a whole recovering city on their back, and with them never having gone to the big game before, it's hard not to be happy for the team and New Orleans. They have the means to pull off the dream too. Drew Brees is a smart and accurate passer. He has plenty of weapons to throw to. Reggie Bush is a threat to score every time he touches the ball (admittedly, he is also prone to fumbling the ball too.) Their defense is quite underrated. They pummeled Brett Favre in the NFC Championship game and they are quite adept at creating key turnovers.
Then you have the Colts. They've been here before, they're experienced, tough, and explosive in their own right. This is a team determined to build a legacy as a winner. Had it not been for the incredible run by the New England Patriots in recent years, it would most likely be the Colts with the multiple Superbowl rings. Peyton Manning, time and time again, has shown an incredible ability to read defenses and find their weaknesses. He is one of those players who makes his whole team better. He is the face of the franchise and is the driving force behind the determination and dedication to their success. Their defense is quick and fierce and underrated like the Saints.
This has been the Colts' season. They are one step away from capping it off and being perceived as one of the greatest NFL teams of all time.
The only problem is, the Saints will win.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Memoirs of a "Racist"
The Past
Over a year ago, Barack Hussein Obama rode into the Presidential Election campaign and quickly became the Democrat front runner. His confident and powerful voice promising hope and change wooed citizens across the country. The mainstream media swooned over him. Some journalists lost all pretensions of objectivity and almost reported Obama's victories in the primaries with glee.
It all seemed a bit odd to me. When listening to Obama promising to end the war in Iraq, shelf the Bush tax cuts, raise minimum wage, establish universal health care, and deal with countries like Iran and North Korea with a diplomacy-first attitude, I wondered what was so different about him than the other Democrat candidates. Hillary Clinton seemed to have the same agenda and John Edwards was running on a virtually identical platform.
What's more, it was soon revealed that Obama was toting baggage. He had stated that the Constitution was a "flawed" document that was about what the government cannot do. He was friends to Bill Ayers, a radical whose method of protesting government was to bomb buildings. Obama also was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It was revealed that Wright had a very anti-American attitude and blamed the U.S. Government for the 9/11 attacks. Yet Barack Obama referred to Rev. Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and Wright even performed the Obama's wedding ceremony and baptized Barack and Michelle Obama's two daughters.
With Clinton and Edwards having similar agendas but not having anywhere near the potential problems Obama had, one would think that one of them would have been selected as the Democrat candidate of 2008. It didn't happen. Why?
By the way, Barack Obama is half black. That wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? After all, it is the Democrats who are always claiming to be so tolerant and blind to racism so obviously that wasn't the reason.
Yet Bill Clinton seemed to think otherwise as he accused the Obama campaign of playing the "race card". The one-time media darling got basically shunned by the media for making such an accusation. In fact, the mainstream media didn't report on Ayers or Wright. They didn't seem to think it was newsworthy.
If you heard anything about Ayers or Wright, it was most likely from talk radio or Fox news. The Obama supporters decided that Obama was beyond reproach. Anybody who questioned his candidacy or his policies did so without any merit. If the criticism against Obama was without merit, then what motivated those to critique Obama? There could only be one answer: Racism!
Obviously, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the host of others who daily expressed concern over an Obama Presidency were nothing but racists. They couldn't see the magic in Obama that ordinary people see because they were blinded by racism.
9 Months Later
Obama has shown he meant what he said by a "flawed" Constitution. He bailed out and seized control of failed banks and auto companies - spending billions of taxpayer's money in the process. Call me crazy but federal government control of companies is outright Socialism if I recall. According to the left, I'm not crazy. I'm racist.
Obama is always talking about re-distribution of wealth. Hard-earned money by those who studied, got an education, and worked hard should distribute their wealth to those who didn't but feel they are entitled to the same benefits anyways. I don't think it's fair at all so that makes me a racist.
Similarly, Obama wants Universal Health care. A notion that sounds lovely on paper but has been shown repeatedly to be a failed system. The United States has the best health care system in the world and the statistics support that. Yes, it could be even better but I have every reason to believe that Obama's policies will worsen it and cost us more. I'm told that that sort of thinking is that of a racist.
When traveling abroad, Obama is always apologizing for past actions of the United States. Hey wait a minute! Doesn't that justify and promote more terrorist attacks? Isn't Obama proud of the nation that allowed him to come from humble beginnings and become its leader? Isn't Obama a living testimony to the power of Democracy and our tolerant culture? Apparently not. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for having so many racists like me in the country.
Obama actually told the Arab world "...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." Later in the same speech, he called the United States a "Muslim nation". Did he state this for appeasement or was it just an oversight? If it was an oversight, why was it on his teleprompter? For those of us who question Obama's motives concerning the Middle East, we are wrong and should stop judging Obama by the color of his skin.
Over a year ago, Barack Hussein Obama rode into the Presidential Election campaign and quickly became the Democrat front runner. His confident and powerful voice promising hope and change wooed citizens across the country. The mainstream media swooned over him. Some journalists lost all pretensions of objectivity and almost reported Obama's victories in the primaries with glee.
It all seemed a bit odd to me. When listening to Obama promising to end the war in Iraq, shelf the Bush tax cuts, raise minimum wage, establish universal health care, and deal with countries like Iran and North Korea with a diplomacy-first attitude, I wondered what was so different about him than the other Democrat candidates. Hillary Clinton seemed to have the same agenda and John Edwards was running on a virtually identical platform.
What's more, it was soon revealed that Obama was toting baggage. He had stated that the Constitution was a "flawed" document that was about what the government cannot do. He was friends to Bill Ayers, a radical whose method of protesting government was to bomb buildings. Obama also was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ headed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It was revealed that Wright had a very anti-American attitude and blamed the U.S. Government for the 9/11 attacks. Yet Barack Obama referred to Rev. Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and Wright even performed the Obama's wedding ceremony and baptized Barack and Michelle Obama's two daughters.
With Clinton and Edwards having similar agendas but not having anywhere near the potential problems Obama had, one would think that one of them would have been selected as the Democrat candidate of 2008. It didn't happen. Why?
By the way, Barack Obama is half black. That wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? After all, it is the Democrats who are always claiming to be so tolerant and blind to racism so obviously that wasn't the reason.
Yet Bill Clinton seemed to think otherwise as he accused the Obama campaign of playing the "race card". The one-time media darling got basically shunned by the media for making such an accusation. In fact, the mainstream media didn't report on Ayers or Wright. They didn't seem to think it was newsworthy.
If you heard anything about Ayers or Wright, it was most likely from talk radio or Fox news. The Obama supporters decided that Obama was beyond reproach. Anybody who questioned his candidacy or his policies did so without any merit. If the criticism against Obama was without merit, then what motivated those to critique Obama? There could only be one answer: Racism!
Obviously, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the host of others who daily expressed concern over an Obama Presidency were nothing but racists. They couldn't see the magic in Obama that ordinary people see because they were blinded by racism.
9 Months Later
Obama has shown he meant what he said by a "flawed" Constitution. He bailed out and seized control of failed banks and auto companies - spending billions of taxpayer's money in the process. Call me crazy but federal government control of companies is outright Socialism if I recall. According to the left, I'm not crazy. I'm racist.
Obama is always talking about re-distribution of wealth. Hard-earned money by those who studied, got an education, and worked hard should distribute their wealth to those who didn't but feel they are entitled to the same benefits anyways. I don't think it's fair at all so that makes me a racist.
Similarly, Obama wants Universal Health care. A notion that sounds lovely on paper but has been shown repeatedly to be a failed system. The United States has the best health care system in the world and the statistics support that. Yes, it could be even better but I have every reason to believe that Obama's policies will worsen it and cost us more. I'm told that that sort of thinking is that of a racist.
When traveling abroad, Obama is always apologizing for past actions of the United States. Hey wait a minute! Doesn't that justify and promote more terrorist attacks? Isn't Obama proud of the nation that allowed him to come from humble beginnings and become its leader? Isn't Obama a living testimony to the power of Democracy and our tolerant culture? Apparently not. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for having so many racists like me in the country.
Obama actually told the Arab world "...we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation." Later in the same speech, he called the United States a "Muslim nation". Did he state this for appeasement or was it just an oversight? If it was an oversight, why was it on his teleprompter? For those of us who question Obama's motives concerning the Middle East, we are wrong and should stop judging Obama by the color of his skin.
Obama has waffled on talks with North Korea and Iran. He has stated that these fledgling nuclear powers can be talked with without pre-conditions. Then he's stated otherwise. Do I feel comfortable with a President who is so unsure of how to handle nations like these? No, I don't but that's just the racism talking.
ACORN, the group that supported Obama and registered over a million voters for him has been caught for many illegitimate registrations. Furthermore, recently it was discovered that ACORN is willing to support prostitution of underage girls from El Salvador. Obama claims no knowledge of the goings on at ACORN yet has funded them over $50 million in taxpayer-funded bailout money. The mainstream media does not seem to want to report on this. Something seems fishy here but that must be the racist in me.
What about Iraq? Obama promised an end but that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon. Where are all the protests against that war that we used to see during the Bush Presidency? Did racists like me quell them?
Obama keeps appointing Czars. One of them is out to suppress Fox News hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, not to mention Rush Limbaugh and others. Media control by the federal government? I find it scary and tyrannical. Apparently racists like them and myself should have no voice.
The bailouts and health care reform will lead to unprecedented deficit spending - something Obama condemned in his campaign. Yet, the only way to deal with it at all would be to raise taxes everywhere - something else Obama said he wouldn't do. Remember what happened to George HW Bush when this happened? But then again, he was a racist like all us conservatives.
Obviously, I have issues with our President. I am being told repeatedly from members of the Democrat Party, the media, and even a fellow blogger that my issues aren't real and that racism is the root of it all. How insulting! Strange how it seems that it is the left that is hung up on Obama's skin color while I feel like I and others who don't trust him are judging him by the content of his character. Strange indeed.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Godlessness and Science
I finally got around to reading Ann Coulter's Godless:The Church of Liberalism. This is a book that I really wanted to like. I usually agree with Ms. Coulter's points of view even though I don't always agree with how she presents them. My biggest beef is she has the bad habit of grouping the entire opposition to her point of view and making broad and grand statements about them. Coulter's works are littered with phrases starting with "Liberals think..." as if she wants us to believe not only that she knows what everybody thinks, but why they think this way. In taking such a stand, she sets herself up for scrutiny.
On the other hand, her sharp wit, while irksome to many, is one reason I like reading her. Some of these topics can get a little dry but Coulter always manages to keep it interesting. It is also very apparent that she researches her material. Just about everything she points out can is referenced in her notes. Evidence of her accuracy can be found in the fact that virtually all criticism of Ms. Coulter seems to be in the form of personal attacks.
Now to the book. Chapter one explains the title of the book and why she calls liberals "Godless". She goes on to call liberalism itself, a religion, complete with its own dogma, priests, accounts of creation and human destiny. Chapters two through six explore common points of argument between the right and left - topics like crime, education, and abortion. Here, Coulter really shines. She does a great job of pointing out why the views of the left on these issues are just ridiculous. For the most part, she didn't really go into linking liberal beliefs to religion. In other words, she didn't really stick to her primary topic, but nevertheless, the arguments were spot on.
All this was just a warm up session, though. The rest of the book is where it seems to me that the real drive behind the book is. One of the common arguments of the left is that the right doesn't believe in science. Coulter is determined to turn that argument around. Today, most of this argument concerns global warming, er climate change. In Godless, Coulter doesn't get into this. Instead, she goes into the long debated argument regarding evolution versus creationism.
This was the part I really looked forward to. Coulter, one by one, defeats just about every argument of Darwin. She does this with facts about research others have done. Personally, I knew about some of the problems with Darwinism but the body of evidence Coulter presents is compelling.
I don't dispute any of her arguments. What I do dispute is her conclusion. Darwinism may not be true but that doesn't mean that science or evolution cannot account for the reason we are here. She doesn't actually say it, but I get the feeling that Coulter feels that since there are so many holes in Darwinism, that must mean that science has failed in explaining creation and therefore, we must just accept that "God did it." Coulter falls into her own trap where it's obvious that she doesn't understand science either.
Just as those who accuse creationists of being anti-science or say things like "evolution is a fact", it is equally incorrect to say that science doesn't work because of a theory being disproved. That's the whole point of science. Science isn't truth. Science isn't fact. Science is a path to discovery that is based more on failure than it is on success. Darwin's assertions may be largely disproved, but in the very least, they put us on a path. Because of this path, we know a hell of a lot more than we used to and more importantly, we understand more about what we do not know. Science will come up with better theories based upon knowledge of the failed ones.
Let's imagine a conversation in the middle ages where a budding scientist meets Anneth of Coulter. Anneth believes in the traditional "God painted the sky blue." dogma.
Scientist: Have you heard the latest scientific theory about why the sky is blue? We now believe that there is a giant sapphire in the sky. Our instrumental readings indicate that the sky color is consistent with that of a sapphire.
A of C: There are many holes in that theory. Haven't you heard that some scientists have discovered gravity and that means it would be impossible for a sapphire of the mass required to fill the sky with a blue color to exist?
Scientist: So you are saying that I need to account for gravity and come up with a better theory?
A of C: No, obviously science can't explain why the sky is blue because God did it.
Again, Godless is a worthwhile read. I just don't agree with its conclusions.
On the other hand, her sharp wit, while irksome to many, is one reason I like reading her. Some of these topics can get a little dry but Coulter always manages to keep it interesting. It is also very apparent that she researches her material. Just about everything she points out can is referenced in her notes. Evidence of her accuracy can be found in the fact that virtually all criticism of Ms. Coulter seems to be in the form of personal attacks.
Now to the book. Chapter one explains the title of the book and why she calls liberals "Godless". She goes on to call liberalism itself, a religion, complete with its own dogma, priests, accounts of creation and human destiny. Chapters two through six explore common points of argument between the right and left - topics like crime, education, and abortion. Here, Coulter really shines. She does a great job of pointing out why the views of the left on these issues are just ridiculous. For the most part, she didn't really go into linking liberal beliefs to religion. In other words, she didn't really stick to her primary topic, but nevertheless, the arguments were spot on.
All this was just a warm up session, though. The rest of the book is where it seems to me that the real drive behind the book is. One of the common arguments of the left is that the right doesn't believe in science. Coulter is determined to turn that argument around. Today, most of this argument concerns global warming, er climate change. In Godless, Coulter doesn't get into this. Instead, she goes into the long debated argument regarding evolution versus creationism.
This was the part I really looked forward to. Coulter, one by one, defeats just about every argument of Darwin. She does this with facts about research others have done. Personally, I knew about some of the problems with Darwinism but the body of evidence Coulter presents is compelling.
I don't dispute any of her arguments. What I do dispute is her conclusion. Darwinism may not be true but that doesn't mean that science or evolution cannot account for the reason we are here. She doesn't actually say it, but I get the feeling that Coulter feels that since there are so many holes in Darwinism, that must mean that science has failed in explaining creation and therefore, we must just accept that "God did it." Coulter falls into her own trap where it's obvious that she doesn't understand science either.
Just as those who accuse creationists of being anti-science or say things like "evolution is a fact", it is equally incorrect to say that science doesn't work because of a theory being disproved. That's the whole point of science. Science isn't truth. Science isn't fact. Science is a path to discovery that is based more on failure than it is on success. Darwin's assertions may be largely disproved, but in the very least, they put us on a path. Because of this path, we know a hell of a lot more than we used to and more importantly, we understand more about what we do not know. Science will come up with better theories based upon knowledge of the failed ones.
Let's imagine a conversation in the middle ages where a budding scientist meets Anneth of Coulter. Anneth believes in the traditional "God painted the sky blue." dogma.
Scientist: Have you heard the latest scientific theory about why the sky is blue? We now believe that there is a giant sapphire in the sky. Our instrumental readings indicate that the sky color is consistent with that of a sapphire.
A of C: There are many holes in that theory. Haven't you heard that some scientists have discovered gravity and that means it would be impossible for a sapphire of the mass required to fill the sky with a blue color to exist?
Scientist: So you are saying that I need to account for gravity and come up with a better theory?
A of C: No, obviously science can't explain why the sky is blue because God did it.
Again, Godless is a worthwhile read. I just don't agree with its conclusions.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Economic Recovery
I found an interesting tale on the Internet. It had a European flavor so I changed a few details and embellished the story a bit.
There is a small town in Ohio where the recession has hit particularly hard. The local factory had closed. Few are working and everybody is in debt.
An out-of-towner driving through the town sees Harriet's Antique shop and stops. He sees a 1950's era Wurlitzer jukebox and asks Harriet how much it costs. Harriet says it's in perfectly working condition and the price is $20,000. The man winces a bit but really wants it. He sighs and agrees and writes a $20,000 check.
Harriet cashes the check and pays her landlord, Hank $10,000 in back rent she owed. She also pays 5 other people she owed money to a total of $5000. Then Hank pays the local restaurateur, Ellen the entire $10,000 and squares away his debt.
Ellen, with much of the town out of debt, does very good business that week at her restaurant. She does so well that she is able to pay Harriet, the $20,000 she owed in antiques decorations for her restaurant.
At the end of that week, the out-of-towner returns to the antique shop and says his wife won't let him keep the Wurlitzer. Harriet returns the $20,000.
There was no profit or income.
But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.
There is a small town in Ohio where the recession has hit particularly hard. The local factory had closed. Few are working and everybody is in debt.
An out-of-towner driving through the town sees Harriet's Antique shop and stops. He sees a 1950's era Wurlitzer jukebox and asks Harriet how much it costs. Harriet says it's in perfectly working condition and the price is $20,000. The man winces a bit but really wants it. He sighs and agrees and writes a $20,000 check.
Harriet cashes the check and pays her landlord, Hank $10,000 in back rent she owed. She also pays 5 other people she owed money to a total of $5000. Then Hank pays the local restaurateur, Ellen the entire $10,000 and squares away his debt.
Ellen, with much of the town out of debt, does very good business that week at her restaurant. She does so well that she is able to pay Harriet, the $20,000 she owed in antiques decorations for her restaurant.
At the end of that week, the out-of-towner returns to the antique shop and says his wife won't let him keep the Wurlitzer. Harriet returns the $20,000.
There was no profit or income.
But everyone no longer has any debt and the small townspeople look optimistically towards their future.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The Death of Journalism
http://www.mediamalpracticemovie.com/
When I read about John Zieglers Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin was Targeted, I knew I had to get this DVD. The news coverage of the 2008 election was very disturbing to me. I was curious if Ziegler's film would reflect my own personal observations. It did.
Let me summarize the argument. In late 2007 and even early into 2008, it looked like the two major candidates were going to be Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN were all nervous over this as most of the people at these networks desperately wanted the next President of the United States to be a Democrat. They were so uneasy about Clinton's chances that they derailed her candidacy and put the spotlight on a young, articulate, African-American who was in better position to get the young vote, the moderate vote, and the liberal vote. It would potentially hurt the female vote but the news media felt the trade-off still favored the Democrats. Meanwhile, these same networks did everything they could to convince America that Giuliani was unelectable and John McCain, as a moderate, would have a better chance. They knew that the soft-spoken McCain would look timid, old, and weak next to Obama. The scheme worked as suddenly, McCain and Obama started winning primaries.
Remember the stink Bill Clinton made about how the media was treating Hillary? Remember how the once-adored Clinton was berated for his accusations? That was just the beginning.
Everything was going as planned for the Obama campaign and the news media. The polls in mid-summer 2008 clearly favored Obama. Then suddenly and unexpectedly, McCain dropped a bombshell in August 2008. This bombshell was the choice of an outspoken, much truer conservative Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. Palin frightened the bejesus out of the news media as conservatives and many ex-Hillary supporters rallied behind her. Suddenly the McCain campaign was a real threat to the Obama campaign and the hopes and dreams of the news media. What did the news media do? They launched a barrage of attacks on Sarah Palin. They attacked her family. They picked on where she shopped. They accused her child of not being her child They got Saturday Night Live to spoof her incessantly. They got Katie Couric to interview her and Couric relentlessly attempted to "gotcha" Palin. When all was said and done, enough damage had been done to the McCain/Palin ticket to get Obama elected. It was an amazing display of contrast how Obama's running mate - Joe Biden, got virtually unnoticed during the entire campaign. Also, since the news media was doing Obama's dirty work by smearing McCain and Palin, Obama looked like a saint. His campaign never had to say anything bad about the opposition. Meanwhile, whenever McCain or Palin attempted to show a negative aspect about Obama, (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayres, willing to negotiate with Iran, etc.) the news media spun it as a negative campaign by desperate candidates.
John Ziegler's Media Malpractice reviews the 2008 campaign. It shows examples of everything shown above. Ziegler presents news clips, screenshots from blogs, and newspaper headlines that provide damning evidence that the news media was behind the Obama campaign all the way. In this regard, the presentation succeeds and should anger anybody who believes in fair journalism.
While I thought it was all worthwhile, I couldn't help but want more behind the scenes material. I would have liked Ziegler to have directly challenged the media organizations concerning the 2008 campaign. I would have liked some statistics to support and further drive home the whole point being made. In these areas, the presentation falls short. Nevertheless, the material shown here is disturbing to say the least and anyone who honestly believes the news media was fair should watch this DVD.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hate Speech
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." -Carrie Prejean (Miss California)
“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!” - Perez Hilton (Miss USA judge and blogger)
I don't usually comment on the media hits of the week but I do want to point out one observation.
The mainstream media in general, is treating one of the above comments as hate speech. In our politically correct, appease everybody society, it's obvious which one it is.
“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!” - Perez Hilton (Miss USA judge and blogger)
I don't usually comment on the media hits of the week but I do want to point out one observation.
The mainstream media in general, is treating one of the above comments as hate speech. In our politically correct, appease everybody society, it's obvious which one it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)