Saturday, September 27, 2008

The woman who could be VP

Tuesday night is going to be a bloodbath.

Two clips for your consideration:



That's gotta be the worst she can do, right?

Oh, no, wait ...



Speaking of debates, a quick note about last night's: McCain won!

He did!

In fact, he was proud to tell everyone about it ... before the debate actually took place.

Sigh ...

Obama was terrific last night, I thought.

NFL Picks - Week 4

Last week was a nightmare. Oh, man. I won the Atlanta and Tennessee games, but lost the other three. I started the week at imaginary $150, bet $100, and with my incorrect picks lost only $20, so after three weeks I'm still up $30.

How people make a living betting for real is beyond me - three weeks into the season, with a cumulative 8-7 record, I'm living the high life with three extra imaginary ten dollar bills in my imaginary wallet. Not enough to pay for the removal of my wisdom teeth this coming Friday (wish me luck), but enough to pay for some ice cream I guess. Also, I had that cardiac calcium scanning test three days ago, and I'll write about that in the coming days. Amazing machinery and technology, that thing. Much to Nicole's relief (mine too, obviously), all is well with my ticker, and the doctor said that my results were "excellent."

But this week ... let's see what we've got.

This whole season, being completely upside down at this point, is pretty much beyond comprehension. From week to week, guys (and I mean superstars, not just linemen) are getting injured left and right, and any given team's starting lineup at the start of the first half of a game can change completely by the end of halftime. Basically, I should pretty much just pull teams out of a hat and pick that way.

But I won't - not this week, at least. As always, I'm using Yahoo! odds as they're listed at 4:15 on Saturday afternoon.

Buffalo -8.5 vs. St. Louis (at St. Louis) for $25
Buffalo is 3-0, even if last week was shaky. St. Louis is 0-3 and in the midst of a revolt from their head coach, and Marc Bulger is no longer their QB. Their receivers aren't happy, their running back isn't happy, Marc Bulger is not happy (duh) ... all of which means I'm happy to pick the Bills, your AFC East Champions for the 2008-2009 season. Sorry Patriots.

Denver -9.5 vs. Kansas City (at Kansas City) for $25
The 3-0 Broncos are averaging 38 points per game, and the 0-3 Chiefs averaging just under 11. Looks like a no-brainer to me. (A statement that almost guarantees that KC covers the spread, right?) I'm not sold on Denver being Superbowl-bound yet, by the way. Yes, they're putting up big scores and are undefeated, but they beat the Chargers at the last second in a very controversial manner (i.e., they SHOULD have lost, if not for a bad ref decision), and New Orleans almost snuck back from an 18 point deficit last week. But against the Chiefs this week ... hell, anyone against the Chiefs any week, perhaps, they're a lock.

New Orleans -5 vs. San Francisco (at New Orleans) for $25:
SHOOTOUT! First, the over-under is 48, which seems really low to me. New Orleans is giving up an average of just under 28 ppg (while scoring just under 27). San Francisco is averaging 32 ppg over their last two games (just under 26 overall) while giving up just under 19. The mere concept of a shootout assumes that both sides will keep trading scores right through the end of the game, and if that's the case, the score should be pretty close. And if the score's close, I have to go with the underdog to cover the spread - if not win the game outright.

Jacksonville -7 vs. Houston (at Jacksonville) for $25:
Jacksonville, though 1-2, sees the opportunity given to them by Indianapolis' poor start, and I can't see them missing a chance to take advantage of an 0-2 Houston team that is likely emotionally and physically tired from having played no home games, having practice issues, and everything else that came about due to Hurricane Ike.

San Diego -7.5 vs. Oakland (at Oakland) for $25.
Oakland can't cover the spread twice in a row, especially against a team that put up 48 points this past week, can they? My only concern is that the Chargers are playing on short rest. Still, if I have to pick five games, this is my fifth.

That leaves me an imaginary $5 for a pint of imaginary Ben and Jerry's, for my very real wisdom teeth removal.


Sunday, September 21, 2008

And this, my friends ...

... is why I don't bet actual money on football games.  Yeesh.  

Saturday, September 20, 2008

NFL Picks - week 3

OK, so I didn't expect Pittsburgh to play Cleveland in a monsoon last weekend. Pittsburgh didn't cover the six point spread and I lost that one. Had I known about the weather situation, I probably still would have picked the Steelers to cover that game, so what can you do, right? And picking the Atlanta/Tampa Bay game ... eh. Made sense at the time, I guess.

I hit the other three games, though, so after the first two weeks my cumulative record is 6-4, and my original investment of $100 has grown to $150 ($20 left over from week 1, plus $130 from last week's correct games). Not great, but I'm in the black, and I haven't had to put in "additional" funds to keep this going.

As always, the odds are via Yahoo! sports, this week taken at 6:23 p.m. on Saturday 9/20.


Buffalo -9.5 vs. Oakland (at Buffalo) for $20:
I know the Raiders won last week, but they're still terrible, and Buffalo's defense won't allow many points this week. They'll be lucky to score a touchdown on offense, frankly. I know it's a pretty big spread, but Buffalo's at home, and I can envision the Bills winning by two touchdowns (at least).

Tennessee -4.5 vs. Houston (at Tennessee) for $20:
Houston didn't play last week due to Hurricane Ike, so they've been dealing with major distractions off the field, and Tennessee seems to have successfully navigated through their own distractions on the field (for now, at least). They're at home, and a 4.5 point spread seems do-able to me.

Minnesota -3.5 vs. Carolina (at Minnesota) for $20:
Adrian Peterson may not play, the team has turned to Gus Frerotte (!) to lead the team at QB, and the Vikings are coming off a disastrous loss last week in a winnable game vs. Indianapolis. Carolina is 2-0, Steve Smith is back in the lineup, and the Panthers have every reason to be as optimistic as the Vikings may be pessimistic. Even on the road, I think the spread favors Carolina.

Atlanta -5.5 vs. Kansas City (at Atlanta) for $20:
The Chiefs are terrible, and it may be safe to bet against them and whatever their spread is for the rest of the season. Atlanta's not great (especially their defense, which has allowed 45 points already this season), but the Chiefs are starting their third string QB on the road.

New England -12.5 vs. Miami (at New England) for $20:
What I said last week about not betting on the home team, and using your head instead of your heart? Here's the exception to the rule. I know the point spread is pretty big, but the Patriots are at home, Matt Cassel is playing with confidence, Chad Pennington is no Bret Favre (because if he was, he'd still be a Jet instead of the actual Favre), the Dolphins can't run they give up a ton of yards to their opposition, and Joey Porter said the 'Fins would treat Cassel "like a backup" and that the game "shouldn't be that hard" because Cassel "isn't Tom Brady".

Why do you say such stupid things, sir? Even if Matt Cassel can't perform the way Brady did, the rest of the team can still perform better than the Dolphins can. The Dolphins who won exactly one game last year. The Dolphins who are winless this year and looked clueless vs. Arizona.

P-A-T-S! Pats Pats Pats!

Five games, twenty bucks a pop, keeping $50 off the board for next week. Plus a "real" blog entry to follow in the next day or two.

Friday, September 19, 2008

(Warning: politics inside!) the Obama vs. Palin chain e-mail

This is from an e-mail making the rounds recently, so it may be old news to some of you. Please feel free to send it to your other political-junkie friends (on both sides of the aisle) to see what kind of response it gets.


* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're
"exotic, different."

* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a
quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well
grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the
first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter
registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years
as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator
representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of
the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years
in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people
while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs,
Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you
don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people,
then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking
executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while
raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're
not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your
disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.

* If you teach children about sexual predators, you are irresponsible
and eroding the fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no
other option in sex education in your state's school system while your
unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in
a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city
community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values
don't represent America's.

* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI
conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25 and once was a member of a group that hates America and
advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is
extremely admirable.

Friday, September 12, 2008

NFL Picks - Week 2

So Tom Brady, as if somehow pre-destined to miss this season given that he didn't play in the pre-season either, is out for the year. This falls squarely into the realm of "shit happens". It's happened to great players before (except the QB the Pats are playing against this weekend), and it'll happen to great players after. Them's the breaks, as they say.

I can understand other fans getting excited that their teams now have a better chance of winning a Superbowl, because a Brady-led Patriots team will always be an "elite" team, but what I can't understand - what I despise, actually - is the pure glee that so many other fans seem to be taking in Brady's injury.

I know that people are sick of the Patriots, sick of Spygate, sick of Belichik, sick of hearing about whether or not this is the greatest team ever to play on the field, sick of Randy Moss, sick of Gisele Bundchen, sick of whatever else ... but to revel in the very literal pain of a guy who's never done anything to fans except maybe break their hearts? Sad, dude. Sad. I don't like the Yankees, but I never hoped Jorge Posada would break his leg.

Anyway, what happens from here is anyone's guess. I still think the Patriots are capable of winning 10 games and the division, but the playoffs seem like they'll be a "it was just nice to be here" kind of situation. Of course, people thought the same thing when Drew Bledsoe went down in the 2000-2001 season.

Bottom line, as a Patriots fan, I'm super bummed out but not completely destroyed, the way Boston.com would like the rest of the country to believe we're supposed to be. As a sports fan, I'm disappointed, because I want to see teams play their hardest with their best players, because that's what makes Championships "valid", sometimes - I mean, if the Red Sox didn't have to play the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS but won the World Series anyway, Yankees fans would somehow feel the series was "tainted". So would some Red Sox fans, frankly. So I want to see healthy teams play healthy teams, and may the winner be worthy. As a fantasy bettor, with no real cash on the line, it makes it that much easier to stay away from Patriots games in my picks, because betting with your heart instead of your head will kill you almost every time.

Last week I went 3-2, with the Chargers and Bengals letting me down. Somehow I'm not surprised that Cincy let me down, but I'm stunned that the Chargers lost. The fact that they did, and the fact that Chicago beat Indianapolis in Indianapolis (spoiling the Colts' debut at their new home stadium) actually gives me hope for the Patriots. This could be another one of those "anything goes" seasons for some mystery team that nobody expects to do anything, so the Colts or Chargers could win, or the 49ers, or the Lions, or maybe even the Patriots.

But 3-2 isn't a great start. On the plus side, the way I distributed my fantasy bet money only lost me $35 of my $100, but $65 of my bets came through so I have up to $130 to work with this week (I know the betting lines are generally -105 or -110, and not even money, but for the sake of blog math, it's 1:1 as far as I'm concerned).

So let's look at the schedule (odds via Yahoo! sports at 2:10 p.m. on Friday, 9/12)

First of all, there's no way I'm touching the Cincinnati/Tennessee game this weekend. Crazy stuff with both of those teams. It could finish 3-0, it could finish 49-48. Yeesh. I'd love to know how much money this game is moving in Vegas this weekend; aside from degenerate, compulsive gamblers, I can't imagine anyone wanting any part of this mess. But that's just me.

1. Green Bay (-3) vs. Detroit (at Detroit) for $20:
This could be a fun, high-scoring game. Detroit gave up 34 points to Atlanta last week on the road. Green Bay is a better team that the Falcons, so a win by more than a field goal seems pretty safe, even in the Lions' home opener.

2. Pittsburgh (-6) vs. Cleveland (at Cleveland) for $30
The Steelers looked very strong last week, stronger than I expected frankly, and Cleveland faced a likewise powerful Dallas team. More importantly, Pittsburgh is 22-3 against the Browns in their last 25 matchups. I'd pick Pittsburgh with a ten point spread, if those were the odds. Maybe more. Steelers should win handily.

3. NY Giants (-8.5) vs. St. Louis (at St. Louis) for $25:
St. Louis might win 4 or 5 games this year, but this ain't one of 'em. I don't like their chances against the spread, either.

4. Tampa Bay (-7) vs. Atlanta (at Tampa Bay) for $15
I think seven points is too much to give in this game. If the line was -3, I wouldn't pick this game, but I think Atlanta can win this game (or at least lose by less than a touchdown).

5. Jacksonville (-6) vs. Buffalo (at Jacksonville) for $20
Jacksonville's offensive line is beat up, part of the reason they only scored 10 points against the Titans last week. Buffalo looked solid against Seattle last weekend, putting up 34 points. Put them together this weekend, and I think the Bills win outright - forget about just covering the spread.

So that's $110 of my allowed $130. I'll pocket the other $20 for next week's games, in case I want to use it then.

As an aside, however, I think it's entirely possible that San Diego and Indianapolis could both begin this season 0-2. They've got tough games this weekend, but given their respective point spreads (-1 and -1.5), I wouldn't fake-bet on either of them, just in case.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Spilling blood and bleeding gas

[For the record, Bryan, I'd started a draft of this before you posted your blog, so I'm not trying to crib your ideas, I promise!  :) ]

If you've read The Lord of the Rings, you're more patient than I am. I only saw the movies.  Also, you're a nerd.  

Either way, you'll recall a character names
Grima Wormtongue. In the character's Wiki entry, he is described as a "flatterer, liar, and manipulator" who "worked to weaken Théoden and his kingdom through lies and persuasion".  Had the LoTR movies been a mob movie, he would have been the Godfather's consiglieri, but rather than dispensing good advice,  Wormtongue used his influence to turn a good man to evil.

At the side of Theoden, Wormtongue weakened the King and clouded his judgment.  At long last, "When the wizard (Gandalf) revealed Wormtongue for what he was, Théoden returned to his senses" and ruled with the bravery and goodness that his followers knew was still in his heart, buried somewhere deep within.

Ladies and gentlemen, I offer to you that Bob Rock is the real-life Grima Wormtongue, Rick Rubin is Gandalf (if the beard fits ...), and Metallica is King Theoden.

Bob Rock, having ruined Metallica for the last 17 years or so by offering advice that was horrible on a personal level and even worse on a musical one (If you've seen Some Kind of Monster, you know what I mean; if you haven't, go rent it.  It almost out-Spinal Tap's Spinal Tap.) has been jetisoned in favor of Rick Rubin.  

This is the equivalent of when Tom Brady decided to ditch Tara Reid and ended up with Gisele Bundchen.  Sometimes the upgrade is so great, you can't believe the first choice was even an option in the first place.

To say that Rubin's work is wizardly on the new Metallica record, Death Magnetic, would be an understatement.  In fact, "whiz" is a descendant of the word "wizard", and Rubin is widely considered to be a "whiz" at re-inventing or re-energizing musicians whose careers seemed to have been on the decline, or at least less relevant than they had been previously.  

To fans (like me) old enough to remember what the band was like pre-"Black Album", he has made Metallica vital again.  The music is thoroughly re-energized, focused, fast, and - yes - heavy.  Death Magnetic is easily Metallica's best record in the last twenty years.  TWENTY YEARS, people.  We're old.  Dammit.

The sound is akin to that on  ... And Justice For All; the rhythm guitar chugs along with the evil galloping menace that the more recent Metallica records lacked.  For a while there, it seemed like the band forgot how to ride a galloping low E string.  But it's back here, bigtime, as are Kirk Hammet's scorching guitar solos.  Not allowed to play any on the previous record, he's making up for lost time here.  Seven of the ten songs are more than seven minutes long.  None is less than five minutes long.  Like the older Metallica records, each song is jam-packed with tempo changes and handful upon handful of riffs.  It's just like old times.

(In fact, I'd love to see if Rubin could re-master a re-release of Justice, which always sounded too crowded and muddy to me - there's a lot of great stuff in there, but it gets lost in the mix.)

And you know what's missing?  That awful clanging drum from St. Anger.  Gone, baby, gone.  Lars Ulrich may be one of metal's least popular personalities, but he reminds everyone that he's not just Lars Ulrich, he's Lars Ulrich DAMMIT.  It almost makes you forget what a screwball he seems to be in real life.  (Almost.)

Jim Hetfield is still prone to writing some really awkward verses here and there, but nothing is as awful as pure garbage like "Sweet Amber" on St. Anger, for instance (though, frankly, it's unlikely anything could be).  

But there's plenty here to like.  More than like.  This is devil horn fist in the air type stuff.  

The opening track, "That Was Just Your Life", opens with the sound of a heartbeat - appropriately symbolic of a band trying to prove that it still has some life in it.  The guitar enters with a shimmering phasor effect, and it feels like when you're on the way up the first slope of a rollercoaster.  You know you're going to start moving really fast, really soon.  Will it be fun?  Will everyone enjoy the ride and want to tell their friends they need to go on it?  Yes and yes.

The drums kick in, the overdrive switches on, and that old familiar snarling staccato vocal delivery digs its claws in.  As my good friend Bryan rhetorically asks aloud in his own blog, "There.  Was that so hard?"

Track #3, "Broken, Beat, and Scarred" is, at "only" 6:30 long, a likely radio release.  

Track #4, "The Day That Never Comes", is the first to have been released to fans via the Metallica website.  The first couple of times I heard it, I was as wary as Bryan regarding the rest of the album. For the first five minutes, it's as close to the Bob Rock era as the album comes.  It sounds like it's trying too hard to be radio friendly, and the vocals aren't as confident as they are on the rest of the album.  It's Hetfield singing again, not barking the way he's at his best.  And the lyrics are pretty forgettable ("when you stand up and feel the warmth, but the sunshine never comes").   The final three minutes, though, had me scratching my head - did they play like that because they meant it, or because they thought it was what people wanted to hear?  It sounded like old Metallica, but were they just throwing it in as a treat to their older fans?

Turns out they meant it.

Track #5, "All Nightmare Long", will probably be the biggest hit on the record.  It's got the perfect mix of the old Metallica songwriting style with the radio-friendly chorus of the more recent records.  It's another eight minute long locomotive barreling down the tracks.

Bryan picked up on the Ennio Morricone vibe in "Unforgiven 3", too.  Though it shares its name with two predecessors, it doesn't share the same melody or chorus.  Metallica had recorded mostly-instrumental cover of "The Ecstasy of Gold" on a tribute record a while back - if you've seen The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, you'll recognize it as the song that plays toward the climax of the movie as Tuco runs through the cemetery trying to find Arch Stanton's grave.  The similarities between that song and "U3" are subtle but undeniable.  Hell, sometimes they're not subtle.  Hetfield uses the word "gold" quite often in the new track and seems to begging for the comparison.

Two side notes: 

1. I always wondered about how bands name songs.  If a band writes something called "The Happy Song", and then on the next record they write another song that would have been more appropriately named "The Happy Song" than the first one, could they retro-actively re-name the first?  Metallica has three "Unforgivens".  Iron Maiden has a song called "Wicker Man", but so did Bruce Dickinson (their lead singer) on one of his solo records.  I don't know.  It's just kinda weird.

2. Just in case you haven't seen The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly and want to avoid a spoiler, skip the rest of this paragraph.  Stop reading now.  You've been warned.  A couple of times.  OK, I'm going to spoil it now.  Ready?  Look away.  -- During the standoff at the end of the movie, wouldn't it have been better for Blondie to have decided Tuco's fate depending on what Tuco did when he drew his (ammunitionless) gun?  They should have somehow made it clear that had Tuco drawn his weapon on Angel Eyes, Blondie would have spared him, but if he drew on Blondie, Blondie would have killed him despite their history.  The only change I would have made to a wonderful movie.

Track #8, "The Judas Kiss", would have fit perfectly onto Justice.  

Track #9, "Suicide and Redemption", is a welcome old friend: the ten-minute instrumental.  

Track #10, "My Apocalypse": Kirk Hammett's solo at 2:25.  Ooh, baby.

So yeah -- get it.  Don't just download it.  Regardless of their previous stance on pirated music and how it might be perceived that they treated their fans, you have to support art when you appreciate it.

It took a long time to be able to say this and mean it:  Metallica has given us a gift this year.  This is great stuff.  Really, really great stuff.  

Go check it out.



Friday, September 05, 2008

NFL Picks - Week 1

OK, so it's that time of the season again. Since I don't know any bookies (though I'm in New Jersey and could probably find one pretty easily) - and I'm broke anyway - I'm relegated to showing you all how much money I *could* win if, in fact, I actually gambled.

Many sports bettors say that betting the NFL is for chumps, and that you're just throwing your money away. Here's my history: Two years ago, Nicole and I were in Las Vegas and I debated placing money in the sports book at one of the casinos. I had six games I felt pretty good about, but I chickened out and didn't put any money down. Five of the six games would have paid off. Last year a co-worker of mine went to Las Vegas for a work-related conference, and I gave her $50 to play a four game parlay bet at one of the casinos for me. The payoff on a 4-game play like that is, I believe, 12:1. My $50 could have gotten me $600, and I would have hit it too, if Tony Romo and the Cowboys hadn't crapped the bed against the Bills early in the season and won by only one point. Crazy game. If they'd won by 10, I'd have been in the money.

My goal is to pick 5 games every week against the spread (not the money line), so that a theoretical payout would be 1:1 per game. In week one, I'll start with $100 in imaginary money. As the season progresses, I'll allow myself a minimum of $100 worth of "wagers" per week, or - if I carry a positive balance from the previous week(s), a maximum of however much my "winnings" add up to.

I'll use the odds as presented by Yahoo! sports. This week's lines are current as of 9:30 p.m. on Friday night - September 5, 2008.

So on to the games (your feedback and picks are welcome, too):

Game 1: New Orleans -3 vs. Tampa Bay (at New Orleans) for $20
New Orleans is a much better team than they appeared to be late last year, and given how explosive their offense is capable of being (Brees, Colson, Bush, and the newly acquired Jeremy Shockey), a four point win vs. Tampa Bay should be a pretty easy task, especially at home. I don't know how many fans will be there to see the game, but the Saints will take this one, with $20 worth of my seed money.

Game 2: NY Jets -3 vs. Miami (at Miami) for $25
Favre, in his first game as a Jet, has something to prove for his new team, and last year's Ravens-and-15 team won't be ready to stop him in week one. Easy win for the Jets.

Game 3: San Diego -9 vs. Carolina (@ San Diego) for $25
Tomlinson will probably have two touches at halftime, and the Chargers will coast from there, even with lingering injuries to Shawne Merriman and Antonio Gates. And who knows how well Phillip Rivers' knee is after off-season surgery. Still, they're going to play angry after last season's disappointing conclusion and should take Carolina with little difficulty.

Game 4: Philadelphia -7 1/2 vs. St. Louis (@ Philly) for $20
I don't think the Rams are ready to play (Steven Jackson, I'm looking at you), and their defense won't be able to stop Westbrook and McNabb. Plus they're in Philly. Pick the Eagles.

Game 5: Cincinnati -1 vs. Baltimore (@ Bawlmore) for $10
Cincy has to show that it's ready to play this year, and they're going to look to make a statement early in the season. Baltimore was terrible last year, and will be terrible this year. The only reason the line is -1 is because the Bengals can't get out of their own way. For this week, at least, they will. I make no promises about next week, though.

There you go!

My first (and probably last) post about religion

I look forward to a day in which a wholly secular candidate has a chance to run for President. I'm tired of people tiptoeing around religion, trying to play nice.

It would be nice to hear a candidate say "You know what, I appreciate that everyone has personal beliefs, but personal beliefs don't create new jobs or pave roads."

It's about time for someone to speak up for godless heathens like me! We're the one group of voters that's subjected to absolutely no pandering, and I'm feeling left out.




There's been a discussion on a messageboard that I've been following. A question arose regarding Barack Obama's statements that a marriage is between "a man and a woman". How does he reconcile this personal opinion with the strong support for gay marriage in the Democratic party?

My good friend ADR summed things up really well, I think.

"Obama, to date, has not been willing to allow his personal beliefs on the issue influence legislation to govern the rest of us," he wrote.

He went on to argue that supporting anti-gay marriage laws, or presenting only the opportunity for every same-sex couple to get a "civil union" (rather than be "married") or to have no other "equal" status at all (not even a civil union), would be tantamount to imposing personal beliefs upon others. ("Change the law, so EVERYONE has to follow what [you] believe in.") In essence, imposing morality.

Obama, I'm happy to say, has not gone that route, and I applaud him for it.



Here's my stance on religion:

If it gets you through the day, if it's something you feel is important ... hey, I'm not going to disparage it. Whatever floats your boat. Free country, your choice. All that good stuff.

I'm not into it, myself, and I would hope that others who are religious would not think ill of me for my choice, much in the same way that I do not think ill of those who are religious for their choice.

That said, what was written above about legislating morality does tweak the issue significantly in some cases: I do not think ill of those who choose to personally practice religion. I do, however, have problems with those who insist that their own beliefs should somehow be the ones that govern my life and the choices I make.

There are those who go the "God and Country" route and want to force me along for the ride (the talking heads on the right like Sean Hannity, "celebrity" religious figures like Pat Robertson or James Dobson, etc.), and I want none of it. These are the people I have major problems with. I have no problem with the neighborhood priest or the people who want to wake up early on Sunday to go to church. I could not possibly care less about having a temple or mosque in my neighborhood, nor about the worshipers who may attend their functions. They're good people who I'll leave alone and who, I assume, want to leave me alone.

But there are those others who want to extend their beliefs beyond the doors of their own homes or places of worship ... and I really, truly don't appreciate it.

And even then, I don't care that our money has "In God We Trust" on it. It doesn't matter. I don't care if a city or town wants to put up a Christmas Tree (and call it that) on public property. I don't even care if they want to put up religion-specific decorations (a manger scene, a menorah, whatever), so long as there's no outright criticism or slur of another religion in the display. And when I say "Happy Holidays", it's not because I'm against saying "Merry Christmas" - it's because "Happy Holidays" includes New Year's Day, too. I can wish you well for a single day, or I can wish you well for several at a time. Your pick. I'm a generous guy!




So why am I not religious myself? A couple of reasons, I guess.

Primarily, it's because I find it hard to believe that there's an Invisible Man in the sky, as George Carlin put it, who looks down upon us and guides our lives. If there is, I've never met him. I've seen no proof that he exists. The Bible? I could just as easily take "The Odyssey" by Homer as the truth as I could the Bible. Why not? The Bible is filled with all sorts of stories that would fit right in with those in Homer's works, but Homer's poems are deemed "fantasy".

For instance, let's take creationism. God created Adam, and from Adam, he created Eve. (I won't even get into the idea of the talking snake.) Adam and Eve had a couple of kids, and the world became populated from their origins. So, if man is created in "God's image", am I to believe that God is a strong advocate of incest? Because that's the only way we'd all exist today, if we came from the same starting point. Somehow I find this unlikely. As unlikely as when Gepetto was swallowed up by a giant whale. Though that might have been Pinocchio, and not the Bible. Either way. It's kinda silly.

Did Jesus exist? I absolutely believe that there was a man named Jesus who affected the lives of many others in his time, but I believe he was a great philosopher of his time, and not the son of God.

Then, there's the hypocrisy of some evangelical leaders - the "celebrities", like Jerry Falwell, or the hucksters like Jim Baker and those who followed in his footsteps, stealing from and tricking convincing the gullible that God wants them to give them all their money as donations to build super-churches for their TV shows. It's a sham and scam. And I know that not all religious leaders are like this. But the ones who are leave such a bad taste in my mouth, it's hard not to associate behavior that I'm sure God (if there was one) wouldn't approve of with "religion" in general. Is that unfair stereotyping? Yeah, probably. But it's how I feel.

Finally, personal experience:

I used to go to CCD (or whatever you call it) on Monday afternoons after school throughout my grammar school years. At this point, the routine in my family (well, my mom, my brother and me - my dad usually skipped it, as I remember) was to go to church at least every other week (which eventually devolved in the Easter/Christmas masses schedule only). My dad would drive my brother and me to CCD, though, and pick us up afterward. He was a carpenter by trade, and did some work in the rectory on occasion, though I don't know if this was voluntary or paid. I don't recall, and my dad died in '95, so it's kinda hard to ask him ... But unlike his mother, my bingo-playing/church-going grandmother who has a picture of Jesus in her room, I don't remember him being particularly religious. Ever, really.

One year, I mysteriously got sick every Monday afternoon in a row for about two months. Go figure. Crazy stuff, illness. Hmm. Anyway, I went back for the final week of classes before summer recess, and the priest in the rectory stopped my dad and me on the way out. He'd noticed that I was absent for quite a while, and he wanted me to repeat the "course" when CCD re-opened in the fall. My father (my actual father - my birth father, not my "Father" Father) must have heard my heart sink (or seen my shoulders slump), because he turned to me - right in front of the Priest - and asked "Do you want to do that?" I told him I didn't know. "Do you want to come back in the fall at all?" No, I told him. Not really. This was before Confirmation, and I didn't have a lot of "authority figures" in my life, so saying this to a priest was a pretty brave move for me at the time.

My dad calmly turned to the priest and said, "We're going to go home and talk about this, and I'll give you a call with his decision."

We went home and talked a bit with my mom, who said she would really like me to get confirmed when the time came, but if I promised to get confirmed, she'd be OK with letting me skip CCD.

I don't know if my dad ever called him back, but I know this: I never went back to CCD, I never got confirmed, and I've only been to church once ever since.

That one time was the clincher, really.

That one time was for my father's funeral service.

My dad died very suddenly and unexpectedly of a heart attack during my senior year at BU (which messed me up pretty bad mentally in a lot of ways at the time).

The service was led by a priest I didn't know - he'd joined the church my family used to attend after I'd stopped going. He only introduced himself to my brother and me very briefly before the mass, and I have no idea what my mother and/or (religious) grandmother may have had conversations with him about.

He went on to tell a story about how my father's death was a loss to him personally, because he'd see my father "regularly" at the rectory, even when he wasn't doing carpentry work, because my father liked to share his "great faith" with the church community.

He told another story about how my father was so proud of his sons for also sharing that faith, and that we were carrying on in his fine tradition of service to the church.

At this point, my brother and I hadn't been to church in years. My father gave us the green light to stop going to CCD. My dad was an avid dart player and spent a lot of his free time in a league or hanging out in the local townie bar with his friends - even on Sundays. He definitely wasn't hanging out in the rectory.

To top it all off, the priest mispronounced my family's last name - repeatedly.

We didn't know this priest, and he didn't know us.

At my own father's funeral mass, the priest was lying about my father and my family's relation to the church.

I know he was doing it because he was trying to provide "comfort" to my relatives (and to me, I guess), but ... man. You know? A priest who didn't know how to pronounce my last name is standing there, telling everyone about how much "faith" we had, when we all knew he was full of it?

So yeah ... I'm not a religious person.




My stance is not malicious. It's certainly not intended to be, at least, and when I make jokes about religion, that's all they are to me - jokes. Because I don't take them seriously. Because, in all true seriousness, I find it incredibly difficult to take religion seriously.

To so many people, it causes so many more problems than it resolves. Look at the wars we're fighting now, for instance - both globally, and politically in our own country.

And it's another terrific reason for me to endorse Obama's candidacy for President over that of a ticket that features someone like Sarah Palin, who would use her religious beliefs to govern the lives of others.

There you go. Hope nobody out there is offended.

Fixing broken things, part III

As Rorschach might mutter, "Hurm."

It's always something, isn't it?

I had planned on getting braces next week, and I think I still do. Maybe.

Yesterday I had a routine dental visit, just for a cleaning, and the appointment began with the typical Q&A about how my teeth have been feeling since the last appointment (hard and white?), is there any pain (no), have I been flossing (regularly, but not religiously), etc. I mentioned that I was scheduled to get braces next week with an orthodontist a couple of blocks away from my dentist's office, so they could be prepared the next time I came in for a visit with a metal mouth.

At my first dental checkup in this office (shamefully, my first in a long time in ANY office), my dentist took x-rays and was a little concerned about my wisdom teeth, which I haven't had removed. They're not painful and never have been, but the dentist said my lower-left wisdom tooth hadn't grown in all the way and was pretty much still under my gums, and she was afraid it might affect its neighboring tooth. She also said that the root of the wisdom tooth was "getting tangled" with the other tooth. She couldn't tell if there's any decay or cavity, because the crowding made it difficult to see the x-ray clearly.

Plus, she said, the way my other teeth had grown in made it tough to clean in the back of my mouth ("it's hard for us here in the office, and it's almost impossible for you at home"). My upper right one is grown in at a bit of a severe angle and juts out into my cheek, but I can't feel it, nobody can see it, and it doesn't affect the way I eat - but to get it clean, I have to "pop my lower jaw forward".

So I should cancel braces for now?, I asked.

Her recommendation was that I see an oral surgeon for an evaluation before making that decision. Because what I really want to do is have four teeth that don't hurt and have never bothered me ripped from my gums, take painkillers for a week, and not be able to eat comfortably for a few days.

Then get braces, which will stay on for 12-18 more months.

For no particular reason, I'm particularly wary about the painkillers thing. I'm not afraid of taking them, necessarily, but I've never taken them before and kind of like having such a long streak without a prescription. In fact, I can't remember the last time I took a prescribed medication of any kind. When I was in grammar school, maybe? I take Advil for a headache now and then, but that's it. I'm like Bruce Willis in "Unbreakable".

Waaah.

So I suppose it's a good thing I had this appointment before I had the braces put on, because if my wisdom teeth became an issue in the next 12-18 months while I was wired up, it could get complicated. On the other hand, I don't want to postpone having them put on, because I'm anxious to get started, though I realize it would only be a very temporary setback.

So I have to call the oral surgeon this morning, see if I can get in ASAP for an evaluation, figure out if I need to postpone the braces and for how long, and then possibly psyche myself up to have my mouth operated on. Hmm ... an operation, or braces? Such a fun choice! Of course, it's not a choice at all, because the answer is actually C: All of the above.

Like the saying goes, ignorance truly is bliss, I suppose. Though I hadn't been to a dentist in a ridiculously long time, I was happy. My teeth didn't hurt, and I brushed regularly. Now, thanks to the professionals, I can look forward to at least one and probably two separate procedures, AND the payments that result! Good times. Good times indeed.

Maybe they'll let me wear Rocky's cone, since he just had mouth surgery too. Life's full of amazing timing that way.

Speaking of Rocky, we got the pictures back. They're not gruesome, so if you're squeamish about seeing wounds or injured animals, I promise these aren't too upsetting. I don't think they are, anyway. Maybe a little gross. Keep in mind that Rocky has responded incredibly well to the surgery and his antibiotics, and though he's still healing up, he doesn't seem any worse for wear. He's honestly the kindest, nicest dog I've ever met (my own pets included), and he just keeps bopping along the best any 13 year old mutt can.



Our heroes at Morristown Animal Hospital! They've been fantastic in taking care of Joey, our half-husky/half-Jackass, and Rocky, my dog-in-law who needed emergency surgery.





You can see the bleed-through under his eye in these photos. Because of the wound, the ping-pong ball sized swollen "bulb" had mostly disappeared at this point. It was unsettling, trust me.



It's as if RCA Victor had an accident.



Note the bandage on his leg. He was under general anesthesia during the procedure, and they had to give him lots of fluids.





None of us slept well this night. Fortunately, he only had to wear the protective cone for ~24 hours; had he needed a drain for his wound, it could have been days. I wouldn't be writing this right now, because I'd have killed someone or been institutionalized. Not that I wish this on any dog, but I'm glad it happened to Rocky and not Joey. His temperament is better suited for this sort of thing, and it still was tough to get through.



Freedom! The bandage and cone came off, and the whining stopped. He still has to wait a few days before he can eat hard foods, though. I can tell he's anxious, though, because he knows he's supposed to get a couple of usual treats per day, and he looks longingly at the container in which they're kept.



A minor miracle - they're within a few feet of each other, and Joey isn't growling or lunging! We brought Joey to the kennel for a couple of days, just to be safe, and he came back a changed dog. He's been keeping to himself in our bedroom most of the time. I wonder if he finally just gave up and resigned himself to not being the only dog here. I'm sure he'll be relieved when Rocky leaves, but we're enjoying "mellow Joey" for as long as it lasts. Still, we dare not leave the two of them together unsupervised.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Fixing broken things, Part II

New music in the player to the left! (If you're reading on www.sonicplague.com.)

So many, many broken things ...

First, on a personal level:

1. According to the fine folks at Xbox.com, my unit is already on the way back to me. Quite the snappy turnaround! Less than a week? I really can't complain about the experience (if true), especially - as I'd written previously - since it resulted in me re-discovering God of War on my PS2. If I could only kill that Hades creature thing. Ugh.

2. Braces! They will be applied (installed?) on September 10, and will be the old-fashioned metal kind, which I've been told "are gonna hurt like hell" for a while. I don't know. I would imagine the technology has improved a great deal since my teen years, when I probably should have had them in the first place, so maybe it's not going to be as bad as people my age who've had them and are now slightly razzing me about them would have me believe.

I had my x-rays and dental molds taken last week. I know orthodontics is not an easy field of medicine and science, but $350 for literally twenty minutes worth of work? Seriously? But before anyone accuses me of being a raging anti-dentite, I have nothing but the greatest optimism that this is the right plan for me. It's just ... $350? And the foamy gel used to make my mold tasted NOTHING like the vanilla I was promised.

I'll post some "before" photos at some point, though we'll have to wait 12-18 months for the "after" ones.

3. The dogs. Remember when I wrote, regarding having two dogs in the apartment, "what could possibly go wrong?"

Ahh, ahem ...

In fairness to Joey, our crazy half-Husky/half-jackass, this wasn't his fault at all:

Rocky, my dog-in-law, had to have emergency surgery this past Friday morning.

Flashback to a early August: Nicole and I (and Joey) drove to Boston to celebrate my brother-in-law's 30th birthday at a cookout at her family's house. As the evening grew dark, we found a lump under Rocky's left eye that we thought was possibly swelling due to a bee sting. When we left the next day, the swelling hadn't gone down, but nobody thought much of it.

On August 17th, Nicole's folks drove Rocky to our apartment in New Jersey, so we could doggie-sit him while they enjoyed a vacation in Italy (lucky ducks!). His eye was still puffed up. It looked like he had a ping-pong ball trapped under his skin.

Last Wednesday (8/27), Nicole went to work and everything was fine, but by the time she got home, the swelling had grown even larger. With obvious concern, we got Rocky an emergency appointment at the Morristown Animal Hospital for that same afternoon. Rocky was given a physical examination, including having his temperature taken (the fun way!) and having blood drawn for lab work.

Long story short, Rocky had an abscess due to a problem with a tooth in his upper jaw. The big ball under his eye was mostly pus. Our vet suggested that Rocky should have surgery two days later (8/29) to fix it, otherwise the infection would just get worse and cause more problems. We brought home some antibiotics, and ... well, I can't say we "looked forward" to the surgery, but we were happy something was going to be done about it, let's put it that way. Oh yeah, and the price estimate was $800 - $1200. Nice.

But Rocky's a member of the family, and has been for 13 years. The cost was never an issue. I mention it only because when it rains, it pours ... just as we decided to get braces and have started paying for those, here comes emergency dog surgery.

Thursday morning, Nicole went to work, expecting that she might be let out early, since her company (very generously) gives the Friday before the Monday holiday off for Labor day, too. And if people have Friday off, they tend to start to bail halfway through the day before ...

It didn't really matter, though, because I had to call her to come home early anyway. About half an hour after taking Rocky for his after-lunch walk, I noticed a little spot of red on our floor and investigated. Sure enough, Rocky's swelling had started to come down, but there was a mess on his face, and he was bleeding. I don't know if he accidentally punctured himself with his paw, or if the tooth or something inside his mouth moved just the right way, or if the swelling literally got too big and "exploded" on him ... It was gross, though. He didn't seem to care, and it's not as if it was oozing out of him like a human with a bloody nose, but it was sufficiently upsetting for me to call the animal hospital for another emergency visit, with a follow-up to Nicole saying hey, get home ASAP, the dog's having a medical emergency.

The whole time, by the way, Joey was camping out in the bedroom, unaware of the drama unfolding. He just wanted to be left alone, and this ... this ... invading dog could just go to hell anyway.

Nicole got home, we went to the vet, and Rocky was taken to an examination room immediately. (For the record, I cannot say enough good things about the staff at the Morristown Animal Hospital - they were, and have continued to be - absolutely fantastic.) The abscess had ruptured, but Rocky was in no danger, and could wait until surgery the next morning. He (and we) would just have to survive overnight with a big, slightly moist wound under his eye.

I had been charged with the task of collecting a urine sample (from Rocky, not from me - though that would have been MUCH easier), on the day of the surgery. We grabbed a glass and a lid and headed outside. Lucky for me, I didn't get any splash-back until, at the completion of the act, Rocky kicked over the glass. Nice. Fortunately, he had a little left over and the mission, though messier than anticipated after a seemingly ideal beginning, was complete.

So, on Friday, the third consecutive day of going to the vet, we dropped Rocky off for his surgery. Nicole, having grown up for so many years with the dog, was incredibly nervous (and rightly so). They were going to put him under general anesthesia, which is always dicey under any circumstances, for animals or humans.

For good measure, since we didn't know how Rocky would react to his pain meds and everything else, we dropped Joey off at the kennel, or "Doggie Summer Camp" as we call it, just so they wouldn't tangle while Rocky healed. And, more importantly, so we could possibly enjoy part of our long weekend.

Gross side note: when the vet flushed out the abscess area, the water came out the wound under his eye. The dog had a damn hole in his face.

Rocky came home late the same day, with a big protective plastic cone strapped to his head. It was a long night. He didn't sleep well, and whined for most of it. I slept in the living room, so that he could find me if he was in severe distress, and in the hopes that he'd leave Nicole to get some rest.

In the end, Rocky's doing just fine, though I alternate between calling him Two Face and Scarface. The swelling he has now is from stitches, not the abscess. His face-hole is sealed up. He can't eat solid food for another week and a half or so. He's sleeping well every night, and his energy levels seem to be back up to pre-surgery expectations.

His owners, however, are still in Italy and don't know what their dog (or its babysitters) had to endure. If I knew where they'd be at any given point, I'd send a reverse-vacation postcard to THEM at their hotel from New Jersey, written in Rocky's voice. "Having a great time in Jersey! They took my blood, stuck something in my butt, and cut my face open. I'll have to tell you about my head-cone in person. But I'm on drugs, so everything's been a blast, really. Wish you were here! Love, Rocky."

He's happy and healthy, and in the end, that's all that matters.

We have pictures, of course, but (in keeping with the theme of this post) our digital camera is broken (and has been since our trip to the also-as-yet-unblogged trip to Cooperstown back in May). Nicole will drop off our disposable camera to be developed tomorrow. Fair warning on grossness will be posted before the pictures come up on your internets from out of nowhere.

**********

Item #4. The Republican VP candidate.

I just don't know what to make of this. On one hand, I think it's a gift from John McCain to the Democrats. On the other hand, this country is so fickle and backwards with politics sometimes that his overlords handlers advisers and PR people may be able to spin this and fool more people into voting for him.

I, like many of my friends, view Sarah Palin as a stunt candidate. Yes, in the short time she's been a public servant she's put together a pretty impressive resume for herself. I'll give her that. And her approval ratings in Alaska are apparently pretty high, and I've heard the stories about her standing up to her own party to try to eradicate corruption (something ALL parties should strive for). So there is some encouraging material there for which she deserves praise.

HOWEVER.

I think it's a pathetic attempt at pandering to the would-be Hillary vote. I (would like to) think that women voters who are disappointed that Clinton is not the Democratic candidate would realize that it's Clinton's stance on political issues that matter, not her genetic makeup. Palin is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage rights, and pro-creationism. And that's just to start. Any one of those four would be a flag to me, but having all four at once is the kiss of death, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm loathe to tell anyone what to believe, but I can't imagine the set of circumstances I'd have to face for me to choose someone like Palin for ANY public office. And I don't say that because she's a woman. I say that because her political stances are so completely opposite my own that she horrifies me as a potential Vice President (and, as such, potential President, should something unfortunate happen to John McCain).

But I would absolutely hope that any woman voter who wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton wanted to do so because of her views, not her gender. Anyone who wanted to vote for Clinton simply because she's a woman needs to seriously re-evaluate their own political and personal beliefs. I don't know why anyone would sell out their own personal beliefs like that, but look where it got John McCain 2008 compared to John McCain 2000. It seemed to work for him.

So as a pro-oil, pro-drilling, pro-gun, bible-thumping evangelical, she'll probably make the hard-right base much happier than they were with just McCain at the top of the ticket. She seems to mean what she says and stand behind her words (at least, 72 hours after the announcement that she's the candidate), so she's already more conservative than McCain. I'm convinced that Mitt Romney is a fraud and would be a terrible candidate on any national level. Giuliani had nothing to offer outside of yelling "911!" all the time. So in the end she's a good pick in the sense of getting the conservative base to support its candidate, disappointed as they may be with him.

But the undecideds and independents? Anyone pro-oil, pro-drilling, pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage wasn't going to vote for Barack Obama anyway.

So I don't know what McCain stands to gain here, unless that magical 30% of undecided would-be Hillary voters are, in fact, complete dolts. And even then, I don't know if it would be enough for McCain.

I'm not terribly concerned about the whole "lack of experience" argument thrown around by both sides regarding their respective opponents, either. Obama doesn't have the experience, the Republicans say, yet they have nominated the governor of a state with a population the size of Austin, Texas. But she's also a former mayor! Yeah ... of a city of less than 7,000 residents. That's JV stuff. But as governor and mayor, she has more "Executive" experience than Senators Biden and Obama, who've never held such an office! OK, but by that standard, she also has more experience than her running mate, John McCain.

Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

Further, there's the whole pregnant daughter angle, which seems like a powder keg about to explode. Something about the story doesn't seem quite right, but I don't know exactly what. My spidey senses tell me there's more to this story that's going to come out in the next few days and weeks.

Then, there's ownthesidewalk.com, a blog by a resident of Anchorage, Alaska, that provides a first-hand (though admittedly biased) perspective of Palin as governor. A very good read, and one I'll be sure to keep up with as the campaign progresses.

It also seems that someone "scrubbed" Palin's Wikipedia entry just before the announcement of her candidacy. Seems a little ... odd.

I don't know what to think about this article, which discusses how Palin may have been chosen not by, but FOR, McCain. I don't know anything about the website or who runs it, and I've never heard of the Council for National Policy before. So maybe this is some crazy black helicopter conspiracy stuff that doesn't deserve anyone's attention. But, as a piece of a larger puzzle, I wonder if it fits, especially given this article from the much more reputable L.A. Times, which says that McCain and Palin are "practically strangers", and that "Palin said she had met McCain only once or twice".

Really? They don't know each other well?

Say what you will about Joe Biden (I've never been his biggest fan, particularly due to his smug demeanor - frankly, his selection as VP running mate was a bit of a disappointment to me, at least at first), but over the course of the last two years as fellow candidates, he and Obama have developed a strong relationship, and they both understand the other because they've been around each other for so long.

But McCain and Palin had only met "once or twice"? REALLY?

This is a huge statement, to me. McCain thinks she's the best available candidate, and he's only met her "once or twice"? REALLY?

And if he's making important decisions like this in this manner, is this what we can expect in the future? Is it worth the risk?

Kids, it's a stunt. He's pandering. It seems clear to me, but I'll admit I'm biased and have been an Obama supporter since the day he announced his candidacy. More importantly, I hope it's clear to others still in the decision-making process, and I hope those people aren't fooled by the usual righty suspects (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) into believing that the Republican ticket is something it's not.

Time for a change, everyone. Let's fix what's broken and elect Barack Obama in November.