Reagan Memorials

In the last week, many Republicans and Reagan Democrats have been suggesting all types of memorials in his honor. Now, I for one, believe that Reagan should be honored with memorials and shrines. But I do not think that things should be taken to excess.

First, no discussion of monuments or renaming of buildings should take place for at least 2 years. You have to be dead for at least 10 years to get put on a stamp, so I think its only fair that you wait a few years before doing things. Granted, Reagan has been almost dead to the American public since 1994, but I don't believe that means we should accelerate things strictly because of this issue (or because the Republicans are in power at the moment).

Second, I've heard some absolutely crazy ideas regarding memorials. No one else should be carved into Mt. Rushmore. Its done and the last thing we want is to diminish the great men up there now by turning it into a political football. If Reagan goes up, then we'll have to put FDR and maybe Kennedy. Then things will just bounce back and forth in a really nutty fashion.

I've also heard about renaming the Pentagon, adding him to the $10 bill, splitting him with FDR on the face of the dime. Now, renaming the Pentagon is just stupid. People will still call it the Pentagon and Reagan already has National Airport named after him. You don't need to rename every building after someone, just as you don't need to sell the naming rights of every ballpark (but that's another rant).

Regarding the money, I think it would be actually be a great slight to Reagan if we put him on the $10 bill. If Adam Smith was the founder of Capitalism, then Alexander Hamilton is pretty much the high priest of it. To replace him with one of his loyal followers would do an injustice to the system that Reagan fought so hard to protect. If there is any bill that needs a new face, its the $50. What did Grant do that warranted his face being on money. I think he should be pulled and replaced with someone like John Adams, but again, that's a rant for another time.

Now, as far as the dime goes, I don't have as big of a problem with that. I think removing FDR completely would not be appropriate, but that having half of the newly minted dimes be with FDR and the other with Reagan wouldn't be too bad. I think most historians would probably argue that FDR and Reagan were the two most influential presidents in the 20th century, so tying them together isn't a bad idea. We've also been offering many variations with the currency in regards to the 50 state quarter program and the redesigned Lewis and Clark nickel, so varying the dime into two variations wouldn't be impractical.

But, we shall wait and see what happens. I think cooler heads will prevail once the funeral is over. Then we can start thinking about more practical ways of honoring Ronald Reagan.

*UPDATE* This opinion piece from USA Today is a good example of my position.

Weekend News Recap

Hats off to the Tampa Bay Lightning. After only existing for 12 years, they have broken the Southern Conference curse and taken home the Stanley Cup. I for one don't believe the conspiracy theorists who say that the NHL deliberately kept Calgary from winning in game 6, but I will say that there was a bad call made. Calgary had scored the go ahead goal and it should have been reviewed instead of being called off as it was. Despite that, Calgary can't blame anyone but themselves for poor use of personnel which lead to their demise in game 7. They were too tired to skate with Tampa for the full game and they lost as a result. But for now we will doff our hats to Tampa and hail them as kings of hockey, possibly for longer than normal.

Detroit won game 1 of the NBA finals and maybe they'll be able to run with the Lakers for the full 7 games. I'll believe it when I see it, and tonight's game will go a long way in telling me whether Detroit is an actual threat or just a speed bump.

Of course, dominating the news is the remembrance of the D-Day landing and the passing of Ronald Reagan. I myself have mixed feelings about Reagan's death. On the one hand, I'm sorry he's gone, if for no other than the selfish reason that he's the president I remember from my childhood and it makes me feel old. But on the other hand, I know what a horrible thing he was going through and, in truth, he is much better off now that he has passed on. We'll revisit this topic in August during the Republican National Convention.

Then there is D-Day. Unlike many people, I don't have the ties to WWII that most people have. Both my grandfathers were too young to enter the war (serving their military service time in the late 40's and early 50's). Now, Mrs. X does have ties as both her grandfather's fought in the war. But one was in the Pacific and the other came into the war too late to be involved in the D-Day landings. As such, it moves me a little less than some other people, but I still appreciate it. However, I do question our overwhelming use of D-Day as the WWII remembrance. To me it snubs the thousands of Americans who fought and died in the Pacific and all those other brave soldiers who fought in Europe and North Africa, but were not part of the landings. If we choose to make a large issue of celebrating one day to remember the men and women of WWII, I suggest that we pick a day when all may be remembered, not just those who made the landing at Normandy. To continue to do so, slights the rest and even those who made the landings would not want that.

...its made from PEOPLE!

What a difference 50 years makes. In the late 1950's (prior to the sexual revolution) a book called Make Room, Make Room was published. It caught on enough that it was made into a movie, although the focus of the movie was very different. The movie was called Soylent Green and stared Charlton Heston. The primary point to the book and movie was that the population had continued to expand on a geometric scale, thanks to high birthrates and advanced medicine, and food production had increased arithmetically. For those of you who didn't see these graphs while you were back in grade school, the food supply increases due to greater workforce like this: 2+2+2+2+2+2... etc. But population increases like this 1+2+4+16+32... etc. During the 50's and up through the late 70's, this was seen a terrible crisis coming for us. That the world would eventually starve because there just wasn't enough food and that would create social wars, battling over arable land.

Now, several countries are openly worried about depopulation. In order to keep a population stable, a country needs to keep a birthrate of about 2.08 children per household. Anything over that, you get population increase. Under it, you get population decrease and that could have nasty implications. Japan is expected to hit its peak population in 2006 and then suffer a sharp decline in population. Germany also has a birthrate below 2 and could start declining in population within the next 10 years. They're decline has been only staved off due to the large influx of people from former East Germany. Birthrates in the US are holding around 2.3 (I think), but even that is a drop from where we were only twenty years ago.

Industrialized countries don't need large families and the populations of these countries are so consumed with wealth and enjoyment of that wealth, that any more that 2 children is seen as an unnecessary drain. Non-industrialized countries still rely heavily on agriculture so more children are needed. You also don't have as good as medical technology so the child mortality rate is higher.

The problem for industrialized countries is that the generation that grew up in the 50's and 60's is getting older and forming a larger portion of the population. They are not being replaced by younger workers. So, the cost to individual workers to care for older members of the population is going up. Here in the US, we're all in a scramble because when the baby boomers retire, the fraction of employed to retired will be 2:1. Not exactly the set up FDR envisioned when he set up the social security system, which had a ratio of nearly 19:1. Now, for the US, which is facing bankruptcy in 20 years because of this quandary, our population is still increasing. Imagine having this problem and knowing that your population is going to start declining where you might actually be facing a 1:1 ratio of employed to retired. Instead of food starvation, the world now faces economic starvation by caring for its elderly. Who knows, maybe some of the ideas in those science fiction novels may be tried out before too long anyway, and that may be a very scary idea for some of the older generation.

Quick Update

Mrs. X and I had a good Memorial Day weekend that involved a lot of eating (especially cake) and a fair amount of West Wing. Of course, these were all episodes back in the good era of the show (Season 1 - Season 3).

Anyway, I don't have much time so I'll save the rest of the posting for later. As I expected, the Lakers beat the T'Wolves and will be going on to beat up either Indiana or Detroit. Maybe Detroit can play enough defense to put together a win over the West but I'm not that hopeful.

On a brighter note, the Stanley Cup finals are tied 2-2 with a nasty series brewing between Calgary and Tampa Bay. I've only been able to watch parts of game 2 and 4 but it looks like there's some nasty blood brewing between these two. Over 92 penalty minutes assessed in game 2. That's a nasty game. It should get interesting in game 5.

Shockingly, the Reds are still 2.5 games up on Houston going into June. I don't know how long their luck will hold out, but I'm going to enjoy it for as long as I can.

Working Theory

Yesterday I reasoned out a theory to something that has been bugging me for the past few weeks: when during the reign of King Hezekiah was Manasseh declared heir apparent? Hezekiah was 25 years old when he was crowned and, according to my calculations, there was very little coregency between him and his father, King Ahaz. So Hezekiah served solo for the first few years of his reign.

Conventional thinking has Hezekiah becoming king after the fall of Samaria (supposedly fell in 722 BC), but that doesn't jive with the Biblical narrative. Given that, its difficult to trust the conventional data for the split of Israel (931 BC). So we must start at the end and work backwards. Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar the second time in 586 BC. Working backwards we know that Manasseh was crowned as heir in 696 BC. But Manasseh was crowned when he was 12 years old. Because of his youth (and the fact that his father was king for 29 years) I am assuming that there was a period where both were king at the same time. In the rest of the Bible, you can cross check the reign of a Judah king vs the reign of an Israel king and vice versa. This keeps one honest in figuring out where each king reigned. Manasseh doesn't have that check so we have a floating point in the timeline.

My theory goes like this. In the 14th year of Hezekiah, he became very ill. The prophet Isaiah himself came to see the king and told him to put his house in order because he was going to die. Hezekiah prayed and God elected to heal him and let him reign for another 15 years because of how faithful Hezekiah had been. But Hezekiah was skeptical and asked for sign. God gave him one and Hezekiah recovered (see 2Kings 20:1-11). It is my working theory that when Hezekiah was told to put his house in order, the first thing he did was declare his heir to the throne, Manasseh. As such, Manasseh would have been crowned an anointed, even though he was only 12. But Hezekiah recovered and reigned for another 15 years, overlapping his son's reign of 55 years. Using this date, we push back the beginning of Hezekiah's reign to 710 BC and the fall of Samaria to 704 BC.

Now, I have to work out the details of how this cracks the reigns of Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon of Assyria, but I'm working on that. Mostly through the theory that Sargon and Sennacherib were the same person, but that's the subject of another post.

Questions

Soundfuryhas posted a group of blogs from Iraqis under the May 20th entry "Carnival of the Liberated. Obviously its not a completely rounded viewpoint as its from people who speak some English and have access to the internet, but it is some information that's direct from the source and not screened through a media outlet.

Whilst I was reading it this morning, I noticed that one of the blogs had a set of 4 questions for Americans. It was posted 6 days ago and he already had 181 responses so I didn't bother to put in my $.02 there, but I thought I would repeat it here and let you thinking about how you would answer:

1) What is your opinion of the Kurdish situation and will the US establish an experiment in the region?

2) The US started the war claiming that Iraq had WMDs. Where are the said WMDs?

3) Weren't these weapons given to Iraq by the US in the first place?

4) Wasn't Osama Bin Laden created by American policy?

Now, I've cleaned the questions up a little bit in terms of grammar and gone after what I believe is the bloggers intent to ask. I'll offer my own answers to the questions here.

1) I know the Kurds are progressing faster in the rebuilding process mostly due to their great unification. They are extremely worried about the new government being formed and are fearful that the new government will carry on the old Iraqi policy of "dealing" with the Kurds. That being said, I don't believe that the US will attempt to break off the Kurdish region into a separate state. Political alliances with Turkey (NATO) will not allow the US to officially recognize an independent state of Kurdistan barring complete military victory over an invading Turkish army. So, no, I don't think that the US is toying with the idea of setting up an independent state.

2) Large standing stockpiles of WMDs most likely do not exist. Saddam did have some but I imagine that they were only for last minute localized use only. The advance came too quickly for him to deploy anything, even in isolated pockets. Iraq did have scientists who, given the raw materials, could probably make large stockpiles in a relatively short amount of time. However, I believe that the WMD story was a red herring supplied mostly by incorrect intelligence. Most of the intelligence came from Iraqis in exile who had a vested interest in seeing the US move to remove Saddam.

3) Not exactly. We supplied Iraq with large amounts of conventional weapons to deal with Iran during the war of the 1980's, but as a rule, we don't like adding to the club of large weapons. Its a lot easier to browbeat your "ally" if you can hold nastier weapons over his head. Now, might the CIA have introduced small amounts of chemical agents which Saddam replicated? Its possible. But I certainly wouldn't ever say that the US gave the weapons to Iraq in the first place.

4) (I couldn't exactly replicate the tone of this question the way he asked it. It was more of a hostile accusation rather than the simplification I have.) No. Osama Bin Laden was funded by the American government as part of the guerilla movement against the invading Soviet army. The US never contributed to his development of extreme Islamic thinking and did not set him up with large amounts of weapons and money after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. He was given his original start by the US, but he was not formed or continued by the US or US policy.

Your answers may differ. Feel free to leave them here or there.

Danny Graves: Double Agent?

Mrs. X and I went to see a baseball game last night. Roger Clemens of the Houston Astros was pitching against someone I had never heard of for the Cincinnati Reds but who has apparently started in 8 games this season. Shows how much I watch the starting pitching staff of the hometown team. Anyway, Mrs. X, myself and most of population of Cincinnati was down on the riverfront either watching the game, watching the Shania Twain concert going on next door, or racing speedboats down the Ohio River, presumably to escape the river patrol nestled in their Kentucky harbors. Did you know that Kentucky actually owns the Ohio River and the bridges going across it? Amazing the things you learn each day.

Before I go into the game, I need to chastise Great American Ballpark for not selling programs and scorecards on the 400 and 500 level. After walking around the entire ring and asking a souvenir vendor where they were, I had to walk down to the 300 level, which is about 4 flights of steps for those keeping count. At least I didn't have to buy a program to get the scorecard, which a lot of ballparks are making you do now. I know I need the exercise but would it be that inconvenient to sell scorecards on all levels? That and $4.50 for a large soda is blackmail.

So the game. It was quite good. Clemens stuck out 8 batters, including Griffey twice (apparently he only knows how to hit balls when he's gone down in defeat three or four times prior in the game). But Clemens also gave up 6 runs over 5 innings. Not his best performance. The Reds went up 4-0 at one point and then Houston battled back to tie it in the 5th. The Reds then went up 6-4 and chased Clemens from the game. In the 6th, the Reds bullpen tried to give it away again. Leadoff single, fortunate double play, pinch hit homerun (6-5), single, two walks loading the bases. At this point a new reliever was brought in and Jeff Kent got a little to eager for a grand slam and struck out. 7th inning starts with a leadoff double who gets home on a sac fly after the third Reds reliever is brought in. Its now 6-6. This third reliever, Todd Jones, actually seems to know how to pitch and goes the rest of the 7th and the 8th without giving up a hit or a walk. Meanwhile the Houston bullpen, which isn't that great, allows the Reds to go ahead in the 8th for an 8-6 lead.

I'm going to start a new paragraph here because I want to discuss my Danny Graves conspiracy theory. I've watched a few Reds games on TV and seen highlights of several more. Danny Graves currently is leading the league in saves. Not really saying much because that just means he comes in more often then people like Eric Gagne because the scores are closer. You don't need your closer if you're leading 10-2. In the games I have seen where Graves is pitching, I have never seen him fully protect a lead. He has always either given up at least the insurance run or blown the save. I imagine he's gone a couple of games where he hasn't given up a run but I haven't seen any. On the scoreboard when he came in, it showed he had an ERA of almost 3. Terrible for a closer, who should have an ERA of around 1 or 1.5 at worst. So my theory is that Danny Graves is secretly taking bribes from other teams to give them near meat pitches. Only incompetence on the other side and good defense has allowed him to escape with only 4 or 5 blown saves.

Now, last night. Graves comes in and he's starting with the number 4 hitter, Jeff Kent. Lead off single. Next batter, Lance Berkman, hits a double and Kent goes to third. Next batter, bloop single, Kent scores (8-7), Berkman goes to third. At this point we have a conversation on the mound and the fans are getting twitchy. Next batter is Richard Hildago. There was possibly a hit and run option on because Hildago hits a chopper to third and Berkman is already halfway home. He's cut off and the Reds catcher tags him out. So now Graves has runners on first and second with one out. The 8th man hits a pop fly to the shortstop. Two outs. Pinch hitter for the pitcher, Jose Vizcaino, who has been around for a while. The man takes the first pitch and rifles it down the line. Would have been an easy RBI double and maybe scored two if the third baseman had not made this brilliant dive and caught it in mid-air. Game over, Reds win 8-7. The fans clapped and cheered for at least a full minute after the game was over, no thanks to Danny Graves.

We managed to get ahead of the crowds coming out of the game and back to the car before traffic got too bad. Only took us about an hour after that to get home, which did include a detour around the primary downtown exit to I-75 to one a couple miles north. Mrs. X was a little nervous, as she had to pee and was not in the mood for adventure, but we made it back safely. We're going to another game in July against St. Louis and I'm hoping it will be as good a game.

Staying in the sports mood briefly, congrats to Tampa Bay and Calgary for making it to the Stanley Cup finals. My best man has an old friend who plays for Calgary so I'll be cheering for Canada this week to take the cup. That and it just seems wrong for a city that never drops below freezing to win the hockey championship, but that's just me talking out loud.

Perception, Perception

Being one of the late end of Gen X, I tend to be very cynical and disgusted with Baby Boomers as a whole. Every war isn't Vietnam and sometimes people do have to die to get things accomplished. Could you even imagine what would happen if we had battles like we had in the Civil War or WWI now? Two specific regiments during the Battle of Gettysburg suffered over 80% casualties. This is an exception, but as a rule any unit that didn't suffer upwards of 30% casualties was a rare thing. But people took that in stride because there was no other way to shape the information. Example: During the Civil War 75% of military age white males fought in the war which was 15% of the white population. Upwards of 90% of the African-American population of military age (and some over and under it) fought. Rather hard to tell someone how the war is going other than the way it is going. But you compare that to now where we have around 125,000 troops in Iraq relative to a population around 300 million. That's about .05% of the population. Big difference. Its also a lot easier to spin the story.

Up until Vietnam, it was all about kicking the other guy's tail on the battlefield. Then, in the late 60's it became about perception. You could still be kicking the other guy's can but if your support structure thought that your butt was being handed to you, then you were becoming hard pressed. As a good example, I'll give you this:

Army A is in a region where Army B is trying to establish control. Army A has driven Army B out of 92% of the territory they are trying to take over. Army B then launches an attack on Army A. Army B does not take any territory in its attack and has 35,000 soldiers killed and 60,000 wounded. Army A suffers less than 4,000 soldiers killed.

Now, in most history text books you would say that Army A was the victor and Army B would probably lose the war within a short span of time. But not when you throw perception into the mix. That example is knows as the Tet Offensive with Army A being the American and S. Vietnamese army and Army B being the NVA. We are taught in school that the Tet Offensive was the turning point of the war. Some people would probably tell you that the US lost that battle and that led to our decline.

War has always been perceived in the wrong way by the people at home. At the First Battle of Manassas, spectators came to watch because they thought a battle would be "romantic." People still didn't have any idea what was involved in war when they began to see the images from Vietnam. Then they saw people bleeding and dying and it hit home as to what war really involved. People still have this glorified notion of war today where they think that an objective can be achieved without people dying. If people do expect dying, they declare it'll be the most horrible thing and that we'll have Civil War numbers again. Then it doesn't happen and the people slip into the woodwork to make morbid predictions later.

To date we have lost about 800 men in Iraq. I respect the opinions of those who feel that its 800 men to many. Opposition to war in the first place I can respect. But for the flip floppers who want to leave because we now have "lost too many" I have no respect and this includes many in the media. The US lost almost the same number of troops during a training exercise for D-Day in 1944 due to swamped boats and malfunctioning equipment. War is a terrible thing and should be used as a last resort but I feel I should remind people of a quote by Gen. William T. Sherman, "War is cruelty. There is no way to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

Marine and soldier blogs report none of the same situations that the mainstream media does. But if you pick up any paper or watch the news tonight, you'll think we're about to have the entire army in Iraq killed and the entire Middle East explode against us. Perception is everything and it is perception that can grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!

The Spurs were up 2-0 and they let the Lakers come back and beat them 4-2. Now I have to listen to another three weeks of crap about what a brave hero Kobe Bryant is and how its so great that Payton and Malone are going to get their championships. LA, you can kiss my ass. I never thought I would actually hate a team more than the Yankees (and being a Boston fan, that's saying something) but at least the Yankees have guys you can like and appreciate on their team. The Lakers have no redeeming qualities. There are no nice guys you can root for and respect the quality of their play. Its all "give me the damn ball" and "I'm so big that I can foul and not get called for it because the refs will dismiss it." If Sacramento wins the series between them and Minnesota then I look for the Lakers to be in the finals in 5 games or less. Minnesota might be able to push them to 6 but I don't think they have the experience to get over the hump. Maybe the Pacers can be a little more than a speed bump for the Lakers but without a true center, I just don't see the Pacers being able to overcome the odds and that just sucks because it would have been nice to see Reggie Miller retire on top.

On a side note, I'm going to stray in the realm of Mrs. X for a little bit. I don't watch American Idol but I hear about it from Mrs. X and I did catch a little bit of it during the final 4 while she was staying at my place (I was on the computer in the other room). First, all of you who say that the show is racist, shut up. People are so eager to cry racism when things don't go their way that its lost all meaning. The final 6 of this year included three African-Americans and a Hawaiian of Asian descent. Two out of three of a minority doesn't seem to be overly racist does it? Some have have also tried to cry racism by pointing back to the first season when Tamyra Gray finished fourth. Never mind the fact that, as Mrs. X tells me, she had a terrible performance that night. Imagine harking back to the days when people were actually judged based on the quality of their performance each time.

Now, did Jasmine deserve to get kicked off? Yes. I heard it in the other room and she was God awful. But Simon said that she would be okay if all of Hawaii voted for her and it appears that they might have. They also enjoy the advantage of being 6 hours behind EDT and get to hit the phone lines when there is less call traffic. Advantage Jasmine. I would also like to point out that LaToya and Fantasia sing very similar styles and will easily split votes. In addition, both have somewhat outstanding personality flaws. Fantasia is seen as a stuck up bitch while LaToya is referred to as cold and somewhat stiff. So there are many reasons besides race that seem to be driving things. Of course, there is also manipulation by Fox. Mrs. X told me when this season started, that she thought AI would be pushing hard to get a minority female or a teen (preferably both). So the viewers have been subjected to the judges slurping it up to Fantasia (who would be easily manipulated by her handlers to do whatever they told her to do. Diana would be an agreeable second choice as her youth would allow her handlers to make all the decisions for her for the first two years. But I think that Fox has steered things adequately for a Fantasia victory. Outrage is high enough that Jasmine will be voted off third no matter how well she does. Then, all the diva voters will converge, along with a bunch of others who have been stirred up by the racism card fears. I personally hope Diana wins just to see things turned on its ear.

Odds and Ends

Stupid Lakers. 0.4 seconds left in the game and they had to hit the miracle shot. Well, San Antonio still has two games to get it in gear and maybe the Lakers will fall to the winner of the Sacramento/Minnesota series. If I hear any more about how great Kobe is for doing this while on trial or what a hero he is, I'm going to find some way of getting revenge on the sports media. I don't know how, but I'll do it.

Meanwhile San Jose woke up and smacked Calgary around last night as did Tampa Bay to Philadelphia. At this point I really don't care who wins the cup. All four teams are ones that I have no great like or dislike for. A lot of people seem to be pulling for Jeremy Roenick of Philadelphia so go him.

Mrs. X went back to Columbus today. She's have a special weekend with the girls and then a light clean and readyment of the apartment for bar preparation studies. Hopefully she doesn't throw her back out getting that box up the stairs. She'll be back in town Wednesday and then its off to see the Reds lose to Houston on Saturday. I'm hoping we see Clemens pitch but all I really want is a good game.

The Incompetence of Mainstream Media

Interesting this new format. It would be nice if I could actually see some of it but the computer at work has decided that I don't need to see anything remotely related to a GIF file. As such, I'll have to do what I can to get information across without using all the nice tools that blogger gives us.

Most people know that I'm not a great fan of the media. Mrs. X and I joke all the time about how Fox is "unbiased news coverage" and we all know that everyone else is just varying shades to the left. The chief problem from all news outlets is the desire for sensationalism because this sells air time. Unfortunately, any well reasoned thoughts that are out there are squashed quickly. Aside from the prison scandal and the beheading of an American, the media would lead you to believe that we are getting our butts wiped over there. Whether this is deliberate or just an effect of going for the "grab you" headline is up to your political persuasion.

However, I would just say that I am still not hearing the true measure of whether the war should be discontinued. That is the soldiers themselves who are coming back. In the 70's we had large numbers of veterans (Mr. Kerry among them) who came back and said that what we were doing was wrong and that the war is unwinnable. I'm not hearing that now. In fact, from the array of blogs that I check in with, most military people seem to think that this is worth it. An example is this letter that was sent to a blogger from a soldier she knows. I will warn you that he's writing in the heat of the moment in a very us vs. them tone.

But these type of things are never covered in the mainstream media. Same with the UN oil-for-food scandal. I've seen very little coverage of that on the news because it doesn't grab you until you have a trial going and even then, procedure will get you so down that you won't care. Its not the nice and juicy Laci Peterson kind of trial. Or check on the Boston Globe's prison rape photos. They published very explicit photos of white males raping arabic females assuming they were from the prison scandal and then finding out afterward that they were taken from a porn site. You would think the fact that almost no female Iraqis have been imprisoned as combatants would have been their first clue. But its all just a rush to grab the next big headline rather than properly inform the public as to what is going on.

So, investigate for yourself and keep an open mind to what you see on TV or read on-line. There are always at least two sides to every story.

Friends Isn't Seinfeld

Well, Friends is ending tonight and I'll be spending the time letting Mrs. X cry on my shoulder for her disappearing show. Of course, that's nothing compared to what NBC will be doing after the end of May with Friends and Frasier leaving while fans of West Wing are starting to campaign for its demise to preserve the integrity of its memory. Bad times for them.

Of course, there have been all kinds of critiques of Friends and even more in the last week. The common thing that people peg Friends for, typically in a negative fashion, is that its not Seinfeld. Now, for me, this isn't a bad thing because I actually didn't like Seinfeld. But irregardless, I don't think its fair to say a show isn't good because it isn't like another show. Now, Friends did try to be like Seinfeld at first but it jumped away from that during the first season.

But, no, the show wasn't dark or overly cynical. It was escapism. It also certainly wasn't grounded in reality given the way the characters seemed to be able to afford things and the great number of discontinuities in each episode. But lets enjoy a thing for what it was and not what it was not. If you don't like something for what it is not, don't watch it. I don't watch a lot of things on TV and I'm doing fairly well for it.

And because its been a whole 2 days since I've last mentioned sports, I'll recap:
NHL: Calgary vs. San Jose and Tampa Bay vs. Philadelphia
NBA: Spurs up 2-0 on Lakers. Go Spurs!
MLB: All you people who said the Yankees were done are idiots.

Shout Out Time

A great big shout out congratulations to Mrs. X for finishing with her last law school exam. We have graduation on Friday and then happy partying with families.

Also a very happy birthday to her and my brother-in-law (same birthday). If my sister is reading this, I have a card and it is going out in the mail today. So don't get into too much of a snit. ;)

The UN is Useless

This is an opinion I've held for a long time and I don't need any recent events to reinforce this opinion, but it does tend to stir the blood and cause one to react. Over the past few weeks, documents and information have surfaced that members of the United Nations were accepting bribes in the oil for food program. Now, this is not news to me. I think we all are smart enough to know that some greasing of palms always goes on in these types of programs, international or domestic. The interesting thing is how high up the ladder it goes. The head of the oil for food program has been indicted as well as one of the heads of President Jacque Chirac's political party, members of the Russian presidential staff, and God only knows how many little men in Arab and European businesses. For more information, go here.

The central problem with the UN is that its like Congress only 100 times worse because you have patriotism to one's country as opposed to one's state in the mix. Most American politicians are fairly harmless if they know they can get reelected. Of course, nothing gets done, but that's another rant. The UN is so bogged down with bureaucracy that they can't even agree with what to do with themselves. They have no independent power to enforce any of their resolutions and most importantly, they are always brought in to maintain the status quo rather than actually address the source of any problem. The recent outbreak of violence in former Yugoslavia and the tensions associated with that is a good example and the UN has been trying to sort out that conflict for nearly 10 years now.

On a less serious note, I'm happy to admit that I have been wrong. Over the past few weeks I've been saying that it would just be quicker to give the Stanley Cup to Detroit. Well, the Red Wings were eliminated by the Calgary Flames last night. I'm quite happy about that. Now, we just have to have San Jose knock out Colorado and we'll have a playoffs that's independent of all the past few winners. Nice to see a little new blood in the water right before the league goes under for a little while.

Two Witnesses

I know I promised that I would be discussing influential presidents, but after bible study yesterday, we had a discussion that was really interesting.

It started with us talking about how being a Christian means that you are rejected by the world and sometimes meet with some very nasty situations. From this I started talking about Elijah and I made the off hand comment that he was one of the two people who have never died; the other being Enoch (Gen. 5:21-24).

This off hand mention brought a comment by one of the other guys in our study group. He had been talking with someone and how there is a passage in the bible which says that it is man's role to live and die once and then be judged (Heb. 9:27). But there are two men who have not died in the history. His friend made the suggestion that these two men, Elijah and Enoch, could be the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11:1-14.

This would make sense as these two witnesses must be very holy men to have the power that they wield. The two witnesses will be killed once and then resurrected. Some people have postulated that the two witnesses may be Elijah and Moses, but Moses has already died once, so why would he need to die again? The more I think about this theory, the more I like it.

On a side note, if anyone is aware of a good history of the Assyrian Empire, I would appreciate someone letting me know about it. I'm hitting a snag in some of my research and need a good combing over of some source material.

Generational Thoughts

When I came into work today, one of the guys I work with told me that the latest big name children's book is a pictorial adaptation of Yellow Submarine by the Beatles. Very interesting given that most of us who know what the original yellow submarine was all about would not exactly consider it a tale for children. But it fed into something that I have been thinking about for the better part of two weeks but haven't posted about.

Two weekends ago, Mrs. X and I were talking and staying in on a Friday. We started discussing things and we got on the topic of a book she has that I have been meaning to read for a little while. The book discusses the cyclic nature of generations and the crises that arise because and to influence those generations. As I have not read the book, I'll do my best to recall what I can and Mrs. X can correct me as she needs to later on.

The cycle can be broken down into four generations:
1) The Hero generation - these are the generation that responds to whatever the great crisis is and takes a powerful leadership role later on as they age.
2) The Obedient generation - too young to respond to the crisis, they grow up in a world where you support your elders and follow orders to better the state.
3) The Idealist generation - Having grown up when the crisis is over, they live in a world of prosperity and adopt very black and white ideals, believing that every problem has a basic fundamental solution.
4) The Forgotten generation - typically overshadowed first by the idealists and then the next hero generation, they are practical and shun overt amounts of attention. They also understand the world as being more shades of grey.

In our more recent history, the generations are broken down as such:
1) Hero - The "Greatest" generation ie. WWII soldiers
2) Obedient - The Silent generation (c. 1928-1945)
3) Idealist - Baby Boomers (1946-1964)
4) Forgotten - Generation X (1965-1981)

Each generation takes it characteristics very much in terms of the above model. We are also in the stages of the next great crisis and the next hero generation (Gen. Next or Gen. Y depending on the labeling) is in the forefront of dealing with it. The idealist generation is in power and dealing with the crisis in the terms it can understand: mostly black and white. The crisis will last a while, until the end when the forgotten generation will rise to power to square away details before overseeing prosperity again.

A historical parallel follows:
During WWII the hero generation rode off to fight while the idealist generation led them (Roosevelt). The problem was simple: Nazis = bad, Allies = good. Eventually the war was won and the heros came home while a new generation of leaders came up. Now they faced a new foe from the ashes, one that had facets of evil and good woven together. The Socialist states looked at the problem differently and would see us as the enemy on occasion, although they were not committed to the great mass conquests that the Nazis were. The idealists of Roosevelt and Truman gave way to the practical Eisenhower. Eisenhower then gave way to the first of the heros (Kennedy) who then took a long hold on power while the country prospered before laying the seeds of the next great conflict.

Next time I'll post our discussion of how each generation tends to identify with a perceived great president of its youth and the influence on history.

What to do with the Sulfur?

Its amazing what you can talk about when you are trying to avoid work. A group of us got on the subject of power plants and how to make them better for the environment. We came up with a pretty good idea. For a coal plant, the two main pollutants are sulfur and carbon-dioxide. There is a process where you use the excess steam to create cooled water. Run that water into a pool and use it to cool the carbon-dioxide. From there you then dissipate the CO2 through a coiled pipe running through the ground in either a forest surrounding the plant or a series of farms surrounding the plant using an osmosis membrane. The extra CO2 will be absorbed by the plants and infuse the air with oxygen.

The only problem we have found is what to do with the sulfur. If you mix it with something, it tends to create a nasty by product. Someone else talked about using an interior plant ring as a sulfur absorber and just replace the plants as they die off. I'm not sure that would be cost effective given how much sulfur you might be pumping out. Once you can figure out what to do with the sulfur, you could do a lot in regard to cleaning up power plants around the world and increasing either food supply or general plant growth. Either option is good.

Guns, Balls and Pucks

Okay, so we can now start paying attention to hockey. With Boston's loss to Montreal we have the Habs playing Tampa Bay and the winner of tonight's Ottawa-Toronto game playing Philly. (Seriously, how did Tampa Bay get the #1 seed?) On the other side, Detroit gets to take on the Calgary Flames while San Jose dukes it out with Colorado. Despite my own personal hatred of them, I think we would save ourselves a lot of time by just giving the cup to Detroit right now. Then we could proceed with the lock out and start speculating on which teams will be erased.

Basketball playoffs are also starting and again, I'm not going to look at them until the first round is over. I really wish they would go back to the best of 5 first round series. We could go back to the possibility of upsets in the first round. My hope is for a San Antonio-Indiana match up in the finals. I'd love to see Reggie go out on top but if he can't than at least lose to a class team like the Spurs. Minnesota would be an acceptable alternative.

A group of us were talking today about sports and someone brought up something rather cool. Here in Cincinnati, GE used to be a major employer and manufacturer. Since they've outsourced a lot of the manufacturing to Wilmington and China, there are several large warehouses that are just standing empty. Our thought was to clear them out of heavy machinery and disinfect them. Then we set up a large scale paintball or laser tag facility in them. There's all kinds of natural obstacles and out of the way offices to plant booby traps and other games. It would be the perfect area of competition. Its even big enough that you could put multiple groups in different buildings or areas of buildings and not worry about them running into each other. You could even have a "night area" where all the paint is glow in the dark and the players would wear night goggles. Give them a real combat experience. Unfortunately it would take a bit of start up capital which we are all lacking, but it would be so interesting to try and do.

Political Disgust

At what point do you draw the line on political attacks? George W. Bush is an inarticulate and incompetent puppet, John Kerry is a flip-flopping hypocrite, Bill Clinton is an oversexed buffoon, and Dan Quayle is a stupid moron. All of these are standard fodder for one side or the other and are actually somewhat tame in relation to history. But, at what point do you cross the line?

There's been some flak down in Florida about a Tampa group that has put up banner ads saying that we should "pull the trigger" and "execute" Don Rumsfeld. A liberal paper has posted that "Uncle Tom" Powell is going out to do the bidding for "Massah" Bush. Gary Trudeau has even stepped in by suggesting that Bush calls Dr. Rice, "Brown Sugar." I'm sure Republicans are doing similar things in areas of strong Democratic support.

I just feel that if you want to paint a perception of a person based on their political actions, you have that right. People may not like it but that's part of politics. But calling for open violence against someone or using racial slurs just because you disagree with someone is a bit over the line.

While I'm in politics, I'd just like to rant on both candidates at the moment. I consider myself a right leaning moderate who will look at both candidates and what they propose. I was very much in favor of Senator Lieberman back during the Democratic primary. The country is very polarized right now and you're going to get about 70% of the country who is going to vote strictly based on whether the candidate has an R or a D next to their name. Since you have a narrow margin of people who pay attention to issues and camp in the middle, you would think that both parties would try and grab a centrist. Nope. Instead you have a tax cut happy, right winger in Bush and a spend, spend spend left winger in Kerry. Quite frankly, neither economic policy agrees with me and its a case of trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

To paraphrase Richard III, "A moderate, a moderate; my kingdom for a moderate."

Bonds vs. History

So, after all the hype and annoyance, Barry Bonds has hit his 660th and 661st home run, officially passing Willie Mays. Hats off to him. Despite my overall dislike of him, due to his topping of Mark McGuire, I have no choice but to respect his performance over the past 15 years. Whether it turns out he's been juiced for the past three or four years, remains to be seen. Innocent until proven guilty, but Barry, just go pee in the cup.

Anyway, I was watching Sportcenter and they were arguing for and against Barry Bonds being the greatest player of all time. I will be the first one to stand up and say that Bonds deserves to be considered in the top 10 (even though I might not put him there) but it seems unfair to say that he's the greatest ever. Let's take a comparison of what he has that other players did not:

-Bonds is able to hover over the plate and not worry about getting brushed back because he wears body armor over his entire arm. This still may not get him plugged in the back, but he drapes his body over the plate, effectively taking away the inside pitch. If you're not afraid of getting hit because it won't hurt, that doesn't say much compared to anyone else who has been up to the plate prior to the last 5-7 years.

-Pitching has degraded in baseball. The strike zone is smaller and pitchers are getting spread throughout a larger league. In the 50's and 60's, you would face about 7-10 clubs who had three or four strong starters lasting through 8-9 innings. Now, no one is leaving their pitchers out longer than 6 or 7 innings. They last longer over the course of time, but you need more pitchers and that drains the pool, along with expansion. 50 years ago, a lineup like the Cubs have would have been the rule and not the exception. Its easier to hit and walk more if you have more pitchers who either can't find the strike zone or hang it over the plate.

-Ballparks are smaller now. I know that Bonds plays in one of the largest and windiest parks in the NL, but they play 81 games in other parks which are smaller and cozier. Also, even if San Francisco is the hardest park in the NL, what does that say if you're only comparing it to easy home run parks. If you say that its as hard to hit a home run in SF as it was in Three Rivers, then you have a legitimate argument.

These are three points that I have thought of against Bonds or many other modern players. This doesn't even count taking pitchers into the mix. How can you readily relate and say that Barry Bonds is as good or better then Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, or Christy Matthewson? Its a very apples and oranges argument and someone who could stand astride both worlds, like Babe Ruth, would have to be considered a great player indeed.

So, Barry is a great player, but I believe that if you took players from the past and gave them Bond's advantages, they would be as good or better. Willie Stargil hit 500 home runs playing in Three Rivers stadium and no one hit home runs there. Imagine if he had played in a ballpark where it was only 400 ft to center and 370 ft on the lines. Or the hits Stan Musial would have gotten if he had been allowed to hang over the plate the way Bonds does. Its just different times and a different measurement stick.

50% Less Oxygen?

The question really is, what is the full impact of having only one nostril? A guy I work with has been having some swelling in his legs and after a bevy of tests, he's of the opinion that its due to some weight he's gained over the winter. This weight causes him to breathe less deeply and that could be leading to the swelling.

As I was thinking about this, I wondered how it might relate to my own situation. For most of the year, I usually have one nostril out of service. In fact, if you place a finger over one of them, I wouldn't even notice because no air is getting in that one to begin with. So what health effects do I suffer as a result and what is the ultimate cause? I can't say any major health effects other than consistent allergy symptoms. Although I do find that I don't feel rested unless I have lots of sleep, but that could also come from being a good 30-40 lbs overweight.

Now, the cause might relate back to when I was about 18 months. We had a big brown Chevy van. The old school ones that you see painted white in any movie involving an FBI conspiracy. Anyway, I fell out of the back of it when I was young and blackened both my eyes. I also may have knocked around some of the stuff in my nose. So who knows what's really wrong with me. I know, no one reading this really cares, but sometimes its fun to talk out loud about various ideas.

On a side note, I'm still playing with the reordering of history. I'm pretty sure we can peg down the fall of Jericho to about 1406 BC. It would be helpful if I could peg down the battle of Meggido fought under Deborah because that might give me a firm time point for Thutmoses III. But I'll keep researching. We shall just have to be patient.

Hockey in Egypt

No more basketball. UConn won both the men's and women's tourneys. I give myself a nice pat on the back and say let's move on.

For the few of you keeping track, its Denver vs. Maine for the NCAA Hockey Finals. I did manage to watch the tail end of the Maine-BC game. Pretty good of what I saw. Given that the final is being played in Boston, I give the edge to Maine, but it would be interesting to see Denver knock them off.

Stanley Cup Playoffs are underway and I don't have the foggiest idea what the rankings are. After we weed out the first round I'll pay a little more attention. Given that this most likely is the last season for a little while, its been a very sorry way to go out. At this point, I think hockey is close to dead anywhere south of Detroit. We'll get some thinning of the league over the course of the lockout and that may not be a bad thing.

Probably the thing that's been grabbing my attention for most of the past couple of days is some more ancient chronology work. Its interesting that many historians and archaeologists discount the bible (old and new testament) because they are so tied into certain ideas and when something doesn't jive with that, they dismiss it. One interesting point was the excavation of the city of Jericho conducted in the 20s and 30s. The archeologist in charge sorted through and noted the walls falling down due to a major catastrophe (earthquake or such) and then a major fire. The city was lightly rebuilt and then torched again. Then, after a dormant period, the city was rebuilt. The archaeologist's dating of the collapse of the walls and the first fire fell around 1400BC and the second fire about 200 years or so later. He didn't do much with it and a second archeologist came in around 1950 or so and claimed that he had been in error with his dates and that all this happened much earlier than he claimed so that the theory that the Israelites entered Canaan around 1250 could be preserved.

But, if you use that theory, then you have no evidence of the walls falling under Joshua's attack, or the burning of the Benjaminite cities during the first civil war (Judges 19-21) (Jericho was a manned outpost controlled by the tribe of Benjamin). So, modern scholars say that the stories of Joshua aren't true, because it wouldn't fit their timeline.

I'm still reading the pages and doing some independent research myself but the author does make for some interesting arguments. It also clears up a few problems I've had in my own mind. The biggest one I can think of is that the pharaoh during the Exodus has always been named as Ramses II, arguably the most powerful pharaoh of all time. Yet we've always just been led to believe that Ramses II continued on to greatness and glory after losing a vast slave workforce and a substantial portion of his chariot army? That's always bugged me. But under some of the new theories, Ramses II reign is pushed forward to the time of the Judges and Samuel, possibly even early David.

I'll post more information and how I work my brain around it later. If you want to read some of his theories yourself go to Bible Mysteries. Take some things with a grain of salt, but others bear definate consideration.

Random Rants

Don't you hate it when you have a good idea to talk about or research, then get distracted by something and can't remember what your great idea was? Hopefully it'll come back to me soon so I won't have to bore all 3 of you who read this.

No, I'm not going to talk about basketball. I'll save that for tomorrow or Thursday. Thursday we also have the Frozen Four semis. So we'll get all kinds of talk about sports then. Not that I'll be able to watch the games. The first one is at noon and the second is at 6. Maunday Thursday services start at 7 so no hockey for me that night.

I didn't really watch most of the game because I was watching Peter Jennings thing on Jesus and Paul. I watched the first hour, then had to tape the rest because I was talking to Mrs. X on the phone. I did get to catch the last half hour and I'll watch the rest tonight. What I did watch last night seemed interesting. Obviously I'm going to disagree with some of the "experts" they have on, but I think ABC did a good job of presenting a fairly objective interpretation of the situation, at least of the Jesus side of things. Now, I can't say if they did the same for Paul. I'll let you know more on that when I watch the rest tonight while Mrs. X is watching her American Idol.

Perusing the news we have Ted Kennedy setting the way back machine to 35 years ago. You ever notice how every conflict is Vietnam now? I remember two political cartoons that came out back when the war had just ended. The first one had a soldier walking and being chased by these little people with cameras saying, "Why haven't you won the war yet?". Then in the second panel, the soldier says that they won. In the third panel the camera people start saying, "Why haven't you won the peace yet?" The second cartoon was a one panel with an Uncle Sam being followed by a pack of dogs saying, "Is it Vietnam yet?"

Part of this problem is that life is still dominated by the baby boom generation who also seem to think that they are God's gift to this planet. John Kerry has been running on his Vietnam war service record and the media wouldn't let the story die about Bush possibly skirting Air National Guard Service during the war. You want to know what? I DON'T CARE! I don't give a rat's ass what a person did in a war that many years ago. FDR did a great job running a war and he never fought in combat. But, the baby boom generation has to make it an issue as long as they run things. NPR ran an editorial by a Gen X reporter who said expressly that what a person did in Vietnam doesn't matter. Its what they can or can't do now.

My own personal beliefs are that we just have survive for a little while until the baby boomers can be displaced. Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I just don't have any faith in my parent's generation. Obviously not all of them are like that, but just about anyone in power is. Moral cowards and hypocrites all.

Damn hippies.

Dual Championship?

It just wouldn't be early April if the UConn women and Tennessee women weren't playing each other. Yep. Since 1995 I think there were only 2 years that the two schools didn't play each other during the tournament and 4 times they have met in the finals. Although, how Tenn. has gotten there is just beyond me. They've had to come from behind in all of their tournament games and at least twice they got the blessing of lady luck. The Baylor game call was just stupid. Two people ran into each other going for a ball. No foul on either side. Then there was last night's LSU game. Game tied with 6 seconds to go. LSU ball inbounding from their end. Tenn. uses full court press and the best player LSU has, falls down. Tenn. recovers and lays it in for an easy 2 with 1.6 to go. Game over. Tennessee is either the luckiest team you have ever seen or there is a big conspiracy to get UConn and Tenn. to match up again.

You laugh but it may be true. Tennessee gets top ranking so they get first round bye. Then they get the "foul" against Baylor. They manage to get to the final four without being too incompetent and then they have luck again favor them to beat hometown LSU (final four in New Orleans). Meanwhile, despite being the No. 2 seed in the East, UConn plays all first four games in Connecticut. The first two games go the higher seed's home I think and then it was scheduled that the East Region finals and semi-finals would be in Hartford. It does seem to smack of conspiracy.

On the other gender, the UConn men will rematch with Georgia Tech. I have UConn winning in my bracket so I'll be rooting for them. Plus, experience would tend to favor UConn. Both teams played hard games Saturday night so I don't think either team will have a burnout advantage. Its just health and depth of bench. I think UConn is a little healthier, geared up, and looking to avenge the loss in the preseason NIT.

So, I think there is a legitimate possibility of a dual basketball championship for UConn. I would favor the men over Georgia Tech and the Tennessee women are just not impressing me with their wins. I would also take UConn there too. We shall see.

Entertainment Recap

Well, step 1 in the media process is done. Yesterday as I was finishing watching "West Wing," I saw a made for TV movie advertised. The movie will be on NBC, Sunday April 11. Its title is Homeland Security. While the description on NBC's website seems to make it look like its going to follow counter-terrorism agents in the field, the pictures I saw tell a very different story. It appears to me to be a movie of the events leading up to, during, and the retaliation for 9/11. While I'm sure its going to be very up with the people and we're so patriotic, it still bothers me. If its easy to make a movie about the event, how much time will pass before its just another big event in history, suitable for exploitation by Hollywood scriptwriters? That's still a big step away, but the little first step has been taken.

On lighter entertainment news, I enjoyed West Wing for the first time in quite a few episodes. I'm a little partial to CJ centered stories, mostly because she is the most well rounded and human character on the show. She's also the best actor on the show, possibly with the exception of Martin Sheen but its a thin separation at best. I also like the mockumentary style which gives it a more real look. Its easy to get emotionally invested in a situation like that. Similar but not quite as campy as the live ER episode a few years back.

Survivor is on tonight as well as the Apprentice. For Apprentice and American Idol information, please go to The Couch Critic. I don't really follow that show. Now, Survivor, I do watch. I can't make any speculation on it because of the twist coming up. What little stuff I've seen, leads me to believe that there will be a tribal mix up. Some preview pictures for tonight's episode showed Boston Rob in a green buff and some of the Mogo Mogo people in the red buffs. Rob and (L)Amber seem to be split up as well. Its really going to depend on how the tribes shake up. I think Jerri has the biggest target on her back, but until we can see how people have been placed fully, we won't know which alliances are intact. Should be interesting.

Passion Review

So, after it being out for nearly 6 weeks, I finally saw the Passion last night. I stopped by the theater for the 4:35 show after work. Surprisingly enough, I was not the only one in the theater. By the time the movie started, there were almost 15 people in. Fortunately, none of them were under the age of 18.

So, did I like it? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the fact that it is quite moving and personifies the torment inflicted. No in the sense that the movie lost some of its believability with the violence and I questioned some of the historical accuracy of some aspects of the movie.

My biggest complaint I would think is that I have a hard time believing that Jesus would not have collapsed and simply bled to death halfway through the ordeal as Gibson portrays it. In Mark, when Joseph of Arimathea comes to Pilate to ask for the body, Pilate seems surprised that Jesus is deal already. In Gibson's portrayal, I don't think Pilate would have been shocked if Jesus rolled over and died after 10 minutes of cross carrying.

That is my second complaint. As Jesus is led away to Golgotha, the two thieves are marched with him. The two thieves are only lashed to the crossbars. Jesus has to carry the crossbar and support pole. Why the double standard? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

My third complaint is regarding the acting of the men playing the Roman soldiers. I thought the leads did very well but the soldiers were just too over the top. Their breakdown fits of laughter and cruelty seemed too jovial and too forced. I don't deny that the soldiers would have been very cruel, especially if they were recruited from the surrounding provinces and not from Rome proper as has been theorized. But it seemed far too forced for me.

My fourth and final point comes from the fact that I'm not Catholic and Mr. Gibson is very old school Catholic. There were a number of things that did not jive with any version of the story I've read or with my own attitude about things. Examples: Jesus' face is wiped by a woman while carrying the cross, leaving an imprint of his face in blood; Claudia Procula (Pilate's wife) comes out and gives Mary, mother of Jesus, towels to wipe up the blood from the scourging; Jesus and his disciples are sitting at a modern table and chairs during the last supper flashbacks; after Jesus dies, a Roman soldier pierces his heart with a spear on the right side, not the left. These are just some and they just seemed out of place to me.

Now, I will say the things I did like. The film was not anti-Semitic. There were many instances of Jews in support of Jesus throughout the film. Ciaphas is clearly the driver of the whole thing but even he is not made to be an extreme over the top villain. He has religious convictions and is fulfilling them (albeit misplacingly).

I enjoyed the flashbacks, especially the ones with his mother showing Jesus prior to his ministry. It gives one a reminder of the human side of him. Performing in Aramaic and Latin made the movie more real and quite enjoyable. It was easy to engross yourself in the historical aspect of the movie. Despite the gore, I did find the overall movie very moving and touching. It was a good reminder of what we are and the sacrifices God made for us.

Overall, I'd give the movie a B-. If you are Catholic, I'd pull it up to a B. Irregardless, I'd recommend it to anyone interested.

Medical thoughts

Paper cuts suck. I didn't even realize I had one until I was peeling my orange. Then you get a little bit of citrus acid in the cut and it lets you know in a hurry that its there. Its at the base of my left index finger, palm side and like all paper cuts, its annoyingly painful. I asked my fellow coworkers if they knew where the first aid kit is. No one knows, which leads me to believe that we either don't have one or its in the private custody of either the secretary or the supply mistress. Since I'm not bleeding, I'll just wait until I get home. Still, annoying.

I was reading an article yesterday about how doctors can't quite figure out what is the "healthy" level of cholesterol. Some say that anything over 200 is bad, irregardless of the ratio. Others say it depends on how your HDL (good) stacks up against your LDL (bad). As a person who is going to have to worry about this someday, I would like an answer eventually. Last time I was checked, I had a good overall rating and my bad was ok. My good was low though so more fruit and veggies for me. But I carry a spare tire so the fat content will only go up.

The principle problem, in my opinion, lies not so much with the doctors but with the drug companies. Apparently Lipitor is one of the biggest drugs sold in the US with sales in the billions. When you have sales like these and the promotions that go along with them, I can imagine its beneficial to have some ambiguity in the system. If doctor A says your overall is okay but you need to lower your LDL and doctor B says your overall is too high, then all you hear is that something bad is happening and you should try to lower your cholesterol. Drugs are immediately recommended and its another hit to your wallet.

I've had some experience with this as I am mildly hypertense. I myself get far too uptight about things, plus I eat too much and don't get enough exercise. Ergo, my heart starts complaining. I was on medication for a while, but got off it when I was able to make some lifestyle changes that helped. It did open my eyes about how easy it is to go for the quick fix solution and not worry about changing other things that will do you good in the long run and not hit you in the wallet so bad. It just gives you a little perspective now and again.

Sports Recap

So the Final Four is set. I have three of the four teams: Oklahoma St., UConn, and Duke. My fourth team was Kentucky but I did have Georgia Tech in the Elite Eight and thought seriously about having them beat Kentucky in the match up. But at least both my finals teams are alive. I have UConn over Oklahoma St. in the final.

As far as Oklahoma St., I think that's a pretty good chance. No disrespect to Georgia Tech, but I think Oklahoma St. has fought through more and shown better resolve. They were the Big 12 regular season and tournament champion and you just have to give props to that.

As far as the other game, I'm in a toss up. Obviously I want UConn to win but I'm a little concerned. UConn has blown by opponents but they haven't faced anyone of high caliber yet. Duke had two close games with Illinois and Xavier. Both of them were scrappy teams and may have toughened Duke up enough to a point where they could just outmuscle UConn. With Okafor still suffering from his back and now a pinched nerve in his elbow, things are looking a little less definite.

In other sports news, the Frozen Four is also set. Thankfully Michigan was knocked out by Boston College. I'm not a Michigan fan in any way, especially in football and hockey. The biggest part was that Minnesota was upset by Minnesota-Duluth. So there will be no three-peat and some fresh excitement on the ice. Its just a shame that you can't watch any of the games until they reach the Frozen Four. I would have liked to have watched the Minnesota-Minn-Duluth game. Oh well. They other participants by the way are Denver and Maine. Records favor Maine, but with the contest is in Boston so I'd say BC is the favorite.

Baseball also starts this week. Time to go watch the Reds get their clocks cleaned. Really, there's a lot of expectations put on the NL Central this year. It'll be interesting to see if it lives up to the hype. But I'm going on record now, and we can check the archives when October rolls around, but I predict that there will not be a Boston-Chicago World Series. Its just a little too much of a pipe dream at this point. I just hope its not all Yankees, all the time.

None of the Above

An interesting idea was floated today at work amidst the political discussions. What if when you went to the polls to vote, the ballot looked like this:

W. T. Kat (R)
P. Opus (D)
M. Bloom (I)
None of the Above

Then you also have a stipulation where if the "none of the above" option gets greater than 50% of the vote, new candidates would have to be offered.

I know, it wouldn't be practical quite like that, but I would like to see some form of this. It might give greater spur to lesser candidates and crack the lock the Republicans and Democrats have on the system. You might be able to set multiple elections. The first would have a broad field where you would narrow down the candidates to a manageable field, say 10 or so. Then you would have a second election where you pick from those and include the none of the above option. If "none of the above" wins, the numbers of the candidates are evaluated and the parties can decide to either field that candidate or pick a new one for a follow up election a few weeks later. If "none of the above" does not win, then you take the top three candidates and offer them in the general election.

Its not perfect and we'd have to play with it, but I think it would catch on. It might also get rid of the idea of voting for a third party candidate as throwing your vote away. Imagine the fear that would run through the ranks of the major parties. No longer would you have to vote for candidate B just because you don't want candidate A to win. You can say, I don't like either. Give me someone who actually shares my views. Elected officials might actually have to get things done as well if they want to stand a chance to be reelected.

Personally, in the upcoming election, I think "none of the above" would crush all candidates by a large margin.

Treason or Anti-War?

I've generally tried to stay away from politics in this blog, despite my being a political junkie, but I read something that made me think a bit. A blog I read fairly regularly is GlennReynolds.com. Reynolds calls himself a libertarian and has generally conservative views. He's no ally of Bush but he's far more critical of large Democratic figures and especially the mainstream news media. His most recent post covered the smattering of anti-war protests that went on over the weekend. He breaks it down with supporting blogs (such as L.T.Smash) about how many of the "anti-war" protests are skirting dangerously close to anti-American or treason.

So I wanted to think: what is anti-war and what is treason? Certainly, feeling that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq in the first place would be anti-war. Everyone has their own opinions and to say that we shouldn't have gone is quite fair to say. I also think that positions such as Mr. Kucinich have are quite fair, immediate and total pull out. It may not be wise, but no one needs wisdom to have an opinion. To turn the operation totally over to the UN or Europe is also a fair option.

I think it crosses the line when you actively support the other side. To support the killing of your own country's troops and hope that the other side wins does constitute treason in my mind. Treason is actively defined as "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." Some might argue that holding demonstrations is not directly acting to aid the enemy. I think the purpose of a protest is to attempt to change public opinion. To change public opinion to a point of total opposition of the government and in full support of its enemies, does constitute a violation of this tenant.

The problem is that for the last 30 years or so, we've been taught that if you oppose a conflict, its okay to root for the other side. Jane Fonda made it very popular with her well published exploits supporting North Vietnam, even to the detriment of US PoWs (see the war experiences of Sen. McCain for further detail). Now, mainstream media sees opposition to the war and active support of the opponent as one and the same. So you push the envelope a little bit more and a little bit more.

Now, am I saying that we should sweep down and arrest all these people for treason? No. Never give any person or organization a chance to martyr themselves for an audience. I do think though that people should look very closely at what a person stands for before you buy into their philosophy. Too many fringe groups (left and right) get lumped into very general reporting. Watch what a person is saying and make sure you have all the facts when you make up your own mind.

Weekend Fallout

I was not immune from the fallout of this weekend. But, unlike other people I work with and am close to, I didn't get skinned as bad. I did have Kentucky in the Final Four, but I did not have them winning. I still have three teams in the Final Four, both of my finals teams and the champion still intact. So, to keep my bracket going, I need to root for Duke, UConn, and Oklahoma St.

But, if we choose to forgo the brackets and just root for teams we like, how cool would it be if Illinois knocked off Duke? Its not going to happen, but it would be neat to think about. Or, what if St. Joe, the one #1 that everyone was picking not to make it, is the only #1 to make it to the Final Four? This is also a possibility but rather rare as St. Joe still has to fight through Wake Forrest and either Pittsburgh or Oklahoma St. With they're lack of rebounding, its a little farfetched. But still cool to think about.

In other news, the soon to be Mrs. X and I made good progress over the weekend concerning wedding stuff. We locked down the flowers, cake, and tuxedos. We also made good progress towards picking out the wedding rings and got some more information on where we think we'll be holding the rehearsal dinner. Mrs. X is also meeting with the invitation person today. So I'm going to be considerably poorer at the end of the week, but good progress is worth that.

9/11 - Sponsered by Ford - Built Ford Tough

So there's been some discussion about Bush using the 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. Having seen it, (living in a battleground state) I don't think its that bad. Its quick and tastefully done. I also have very little qualms about the President using a tragedy as a rallying cry (FDR and Pearl Harbor) so long as its tasteful and appropriate. If Bush I had used Pan Am 103 in a campaign ad, I think he would have been stoned to death within minutes.

But this got me thinking about another comment I had made in an earlier post about tragedy as a backdrop for movies. Two of the most recent big budget movies have centered on tragic romances set in a horrible backdrop. Titanic was hailed as a great movie (despite the fact that the dialog was about as piss poor as I have ever heard) and it went on to win 11 Oscars. People came to their senses a little bit sooner when Pearl Harbor came around. It was generally regarded as a bomb although it made back its production costs.

We must also remember our penchant for "made for TV" movies of personal tragedies: the Peterson murder case, the Branch-Davidian fiasco, Tanya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of others. These are generally a bit more lowbrow and very low budget. They feed sensationalism and then die a quick death.

But, given what we have already done, how long will it be before some filmmaker decides it would be a good idea to create a tragic romance surrounding either Oklahoma City or 9/11? Think about it. We have a nice story build up where the couple has this happy getting together. Maybe the woman ends a "no-love" romance with someone involved in the tragedy (the financier of the attacks) and then they happily set about they're day. Then, the terror attack happens. One of them is trapped on the floors above the impact zone. The other tries to get there to rescue them but he/she is pulled by the firefighters right before collapse. Later he/she finds a special token among the rubble - end of movie. If you feel like throwing up, I congratulate you, you're human. Which is better than most of Hollywood. Give us a little time. I'm sure someone is already working on a script to suit this little story. People will call it a great memorial to the victims and when it gets aired on TV, you can have it broken up every 20 minutes by reminders to buy Ford, Campbells, or Huggies.

You are free to mock me if you like, but I think it will happen. I'm just cynical like that.

Working Distractions

Its amazing the variety of subjects you can get into so you can talk to people and put off doing work. A good list of people at various work locations and what we tend to talk about:
Bob (CT) - Anime and Japanese culture
Mike M (CT) - Physics and British Comedy
Joe (CT) - Sports
Lance (CT) - Sports and social commentary
Beth (CT) - Sushi and localized pop culture
Andres (OH) - Religion
Brian (OH) - Sports, Religion, local culture
Tracy (OH) - Culinary and domestic issues
Paul (OH) - Military strategy, historical issues
Vince (OH) - Shakespeare and British historical literature

With all this, you wonder how I get any kind of work done. But the key is to not allow yourself to get lulled into conversation when you're in the middle of a good working vibe. Of course if you feel bored and don't want to work, its very easy to find someone to talk to.

Example: Vince loaned me his copy of Titus, a mid-90's dramatization of Shakespeare's play Titus Andronicus. Very brutal, very nasty play. One of Shakespeare's first and its fairly obvious that its not his best work. But we were discussing that and just got to discussing our opinions of other treatments. He tends to like the more modern takes of the plays ( early 90's Richard III is a good example). I like some of these but I appreciate the way the story is told no matter what context its in. I like Hamlet while Vince does not, but I prefer the Mel Gibson version to Kenneth Brannagh's. Not because of the setting so much as because of the interaction. Gibson and his supporting cast seem to grasp the more real aspect of the play rather that getting swept up with the idea that they are doing HAMLET as Brannagh did. But this is an aside. I'm not posting this time as a critique on either Shakespeare or its various adaptations. I'll save that for another post.

But the tourney starts today so I don't doubt I'll have plenty of opportunity for avoiding work if I so choose.

Columbus Sniper Nabbed?

So they finally caught the man they believe may be the Columbus sniper. Word coming out around the city is that the suspect is a couple cards short of a full deck. Now I ask you, how does a man who may be a bit deficient in mental capacity buy up to five 9mm style handguns? His parents may be involved. Apparently his parents had access to his gun collection because they may have cut him off. His father certainly turned over all the remaining guns and ballistics managed to match one of the guns.

So, how much did they know and when did they know it? Nothing is confirmed, but rumor swirling about the office is that sometime during the spree, his family figured it out that it was him. Then someone fingered him and his family tried to talk him into giving himself up. He instead flees to Vegas and is caught.

In all likelihood, he'll get time in a mental facility for whatever his problem is and will never spend any real time in jail. But you never know. Either way, it should make for some entertaining court drama. I'm sure I'll sick of it long before its over. But at least I won't have to watch the overpass bridges as closely when I'm driving north next time.

Bracketology

They haven't announced the brackets yet. I think they're still working on the womens (GO UCONN). So I have time to gripe about the choices before I can actually see them.

Up until about 2 weeks ago, I was ready to give it all to Stanford or Duke, I wasn't sure about the final game yet. Now, I have no idea in heck. Yes, Stanford won the Pac-10 but it took a lot of luck in that final win over Washington, who might have been legitamately tired after they're fight with Arizona. Then, Maryland (who was ranked 6th in the ACC) upsets Duke to earn the nod, and possibly take away Duke's number 1 standing.

So who do we go for? St. Joe? They lost to Xavier (who won the A-10) and they still can't rebound. Stanford? Maybe, but they better have a powderpuff way to the Final Four because they can't handle getting slapped around. Duke? They're still the favorite, but they've shown none of the domination that you expect from them. I'm not buying yet. UConn? I'd like to see UConn win and I think that Okafor does give them that chance, but his health has been sketchy. I'll have to see who they have to go through. Kentucky? Maybe, Tubby's team has been a sleeper and they just won the SEC championship. I'll keep my eye out. Pittsburgh? Mississippi St.? Okhlahoma St.? Wisconsin? All possiblities, all having serious flaws to counter their attributes.

So, more than any other year that I've been playing brackets, I think this year's champion is dependant on the road. Who they match up against, who they get on a bad day, etc. Last year I picked Kentucky but some concilation when I put Syracuse in the final game. We have no Kentucky's this year and more than one Syracuse. It should be interesting.

Flu Sucks

In the words of the Emperor Augustus, shortly before he was poisoned to death by his wife Livia, "I feel sick." Today was actually supposed to be a good day. I was wrapping up a project at work, a group of us were going to leave early and see "The Passion" together, then I was going to go out and have seafood. Instead, I woke up with my head being used for an anvil, my throat clogged as bad as my nose, and a general feeling like I had just been run over by a cement mixer. Life's just not fair sometimes. Oh well, I'll do what I can to keep you informed of my general decline. If I've stopped posting for a week, you can assume I'm dead and delete this page from your bookmarks. ;)

McClellan Dies

I've been reading Shelby Foote's history of the Civil War. I'm still fairly early in the book, only just starting the Peninsular Campaign, but as I'm fairly familiar with the broad strokes of the war, its given me some time to think of alternate scenarios. Most people like to plan the war based on Lee's battle plan note being lost prior to the battle of Antietem. Of course, this leads to Southern victory and independence.

But I would like to go back to the point at the start of 1862. McClellan had trained the Army of the Potomac well but was too scared to used it, relying heavily on poor intelligence that vastly overrated Confederate strength. In February, he is struck down with typhoid fever, and takes nearly three weeks to recover. But what would have happened if McClellan had died? Prior to McClellan recovering, Lincoln had discussed invasion plans with the former head of the army, General McDowell. McDowell headed one of McClellan's corps and despite his defeat at the battle of Manassas, he was probably the best suited for the job. McClellan had not shared his plans about heading up the James peninsula with anyone by this point, so it stands that once a suitable mourning period was observed (coinciding with the roads south drying), McDowell would have moved his army south. Stonewall Jackson was operating a small army in the Shenandoah that would have drained some of McDowell's resources, but he probably still would have had around 100,000 men at his disposal. Johnston had backed up to Fredericksburg at this point. He might have stood and waited, but historical papers indicate that he was thinking about consolidating his lines further in front of Richmond. With General Burnside in North Carolina and threatening Norfolk, its probable that Johnston would not have been able to heavily call on either armies in the southeastern portion of Virginia (around 10,000 men each). So he would have faced McDowell, outnumbered close to 3:1. In all likelihood, Johnston would have lost the battle and possibly Richmond. Lee might have assumed command at this point, but McDowell would not have been bullied like McClellan was. With his resources dwindling Lee might have been forced to surrender or go to guerilla warfare. Either way, the war in the east might have ended in 1862 if one man had died early.

Gems

What is it about gemstones that grabs the attention? My fiancee loves her diamond ring simply because its very sparkly. I can see how that would be an attraction. I myself have an affection for sapphires, despite the fact that neither of us, or anyone in our immediate family, was born in September. I don't know, there's just something that really grabs me. I love blue and especially dark blues. Emeralds are also gems that grab my attention. At least I have good reason to pursue emeralds as my fiancee was born in May.

The real problem is pacing yourself so that you don't go after all the gems in one big blow. Its much nicer to buy them at random times and give them as gifts at special occations. Of course, you also have to find reasons for your fiancee to wear jewelry so that involves going to nice fancy parties and such. So that's even more money down the tube. Ah, to be rich.

Mystery Theme CD

You know, the only time I've ever sent in a request for information from a company was to PBS. I sent off an e-mail to ask if there had been any discussion of a compilation CD of the various Mystery themes. For those of you unaware, Mystery is a PBS program dealing with stories about various detective dramas. The productions are usually British so you won't find them as easily here in the US. Some of the most common ones are the Jeremy Brett versions of Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Morse, and various Agatha Christie mysteries (Poirot and Miss Marple being the most common of those).

Anyway, I got a response back from PBS saying that they were not working on it at that time. I imagine it might be a little difficult depending on the licencing agreements that PBS has to work out with the BBC. So, looks like it won't happen anytime in the near future.

This is why I've bantered about the idea for the last few months of trying to build the CD myself. I have copies of the Mystery theme, Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Morse, Miss Marple, Cadfael, and Poirot. I know what the source is for Adam Daughlish and a couple of other minor ones that were on. Its just a question of getting a hold of them. Then its up to me to either get a CD burner myself or enlist the aid of someone like my sister and brother-in-law who do have a burner. We shall see.

Biblical Chronology

Some of the theories you find when you are doing research are absolutely fascinating. I recently bought myself a copy of Jesus of Nazareth on DVD. While watching it, I was thumbing through my Bible, following along. While I was doing that, I ran across two passages in Luke that gave me pause. Luke 3:1 states that John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius (generally held to be AD 29). Luke 3:23 states that Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. This created a problem in my mind. The generally held death date of Herod the Great is 4 BC and Jesus had to have been born at least 2 years prior to Herod's death (maybe longer), which would put it no later than between 7 and 6 BC. If this is true, then Jesus would have to have been much older than 30 when he started his ministry.

To clear this question, I wanted to confirm Herod's death date so I searched on Google. What I found was this very interesting web site and ebook proposing a theory that would resolve the issue. The site is New Testament Chronology and the author used NASA software about solar and lunar eclipses, in conjunction with historical writings from the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese to correct various dates.

The first portion holds that there is a 4 to 5 year mistake when it comes to dating the Augustan era and prior time periods. For this the author makes use of several astronomical sources and supporting writings. An example is that Augustus did not die in AD 14 but in AD 10 instead. Another point using this astronomical data has Julius Caesar being murdered in 49 BC as opposed to the accepted 44 BC.

The second portion of the theory has that the emperor Tiberius noted the beginning of his reign from the time of his adoption by Augustus and not the death of Augustus. If we hold this true, the reign of Tiberius would be counted beginning in AD 4 which would then be pushed back to AD 1 by the first part of the theory.

Coupling these two theories with other writings, the author pushes the death of Herod the Great back to 8 BC and the birth of Jesus to 15 BC. Then using the revised reign of Tiberius, his 15th year would be in fact his 4th or 5th year of solo rule, or about AD 14-15. Thus, Jesus would now be about 30 years old, satisfying all the requirements. This would then put the death and resurrection of Jesus around AD 19.

I intend to look much more closely at this theory and work it into my story if possible. It seems to hold water and I can't wait to see what else I can make of it.

Outsourcing Pt. 2

Okay. Now that we have the talk about the Oscars out of the way, we can move back to the outsourcing of jobs. I must be perfectly frank when I tell you that manufacturing jobs are just not going to come back. The damage is already done. It just costs too much to pay a US worker and if you want to maintain quality, you drive costs even higher. This will continue until there are no poor countries desperate for low wage jobs in the world. That's not happening anytime soon. One of the hotbutton issues right now is that China is deliberately undervaluing its currency to keep its exports high and its imports low, undercutting the market. People cry foul but this is an agressive form of Capitalism. The Chinese play hardball. They will let their currency up at some point, but only until they have between 90-100% market share. Then they can dictate whatever price they want. You might be able to worm the Chinese out, but only if you used the same tactics and were prepared to put up some nasty shortages of stuff that the Chinese already have a lock on. I don't see that happening.

White collar job loss can be slowed, but its going to take a major disaster to do it. Management doesn't care about safety until it reaches up and bites them (see Sioux City airport crash). They care about costs. If they can continue to farm out the work to Poland or India, where the workers have lots of PhDs but no experience, then there is very little that can be done to stop them. It won't be until you get an airline engine that was fully designed by Indians explode due to shody design, that you'll see any backlash.

There have been some attempts to legislate the jobs to stay in the US, but legislatures are reluctant to put them in place because of the backlash from the companies. Instead of keeping jobs, the company will just pull out entirely from that state and relocate elsewhere. There will still be a demand for their product and they can just ship it in via other channels.

In the long term, the US must move towards becoming a service economy. Jobs that depend only on either a rising or a stable population, which we have. We are a nation of mass consumers and service sector jobs are the only ones that aren't going away anytime soon. Some people won't like it becuase the jobs out there are the ones being done by illegal aliens or Hispanic immigrants who ship most of their money back to their country of origin. But that's the only solution I can see at the moment.

Oscar Recap

I know that in my last post I promised I'd tackle part 2 of the outsourcing of jobs. However, I was away all weekend and we just had the Oscars. So I'm going to save that for my next post and give you my Oscar impressions.

I must start off with a pat on the back for myself. In all the Oscars given out last night, I correctly picked all but 5 of them. I even got things like best foreign film and best documentary short right. My biggest gaff was not picking RotK for Best Adapted Screenplay. I felt at the time, that they would give the nod to Mystic River since there had been much heralding about that book. But I did get Original Screenplay, all the acting, director and picture awards right. Now, some of that is due to the quickness of this year's Oscars. When you don't have as much turnaround time, its a lot harder to work up buzz for little indy pictures (think Adrian Brody or Halle Berry). But I was also right three years ago when FotR was first nominated. I said it wouldn't win then, but that RotK would. Now I'm right and can do the happy dance.

I also think that Will Ferril and Jack Black should be invited back to sing the "You're Boring" song every year. I was almost in tears I was laughing so hard at that. I thought they should be getting the Oscar for Best Song. I'm happy that Lennox won, though based on her performance, I was glad I didn't have any video to go with my copy of the song. Very intense eyes and I thought she was going to swallow the mike at a couple points. Second best performance went to "Kiss at the End of the Rainbow." Very funny and touching performance.

I can't really say anything about the speeches. I generally don't like them so I would flip to other channels during them and come back when they were done. I got pretty good. So I had a fun time also watching "Dirty Harry", "Patton", and "I Love the 80's Strikes Back: 1985." Given that I did catch a moment of Charlize Theron thanking her lawyer, I don't feel that I missed anything.

Billy Crystal was funny. I honestly think I enjoyed Steve Martin a little more last year but it was pretty good. His songs were funny, especially the "Old Man Eastwood" bit. I also liked the individual tributes to Bob Hope and Katherine Hepburn, but I was a little disappointed in the Bob Hope one. He did do a little more that hosting the Oscars. I would have liked to have seen a least a clip or two from some of the movies he did. It seemed a bit shallow to only denote his hosting of the show during the Oscars. But that's just me.

One more thing on RotK. People like to talk about how RotK is now tied with the Boat Movie and Ben-Hur for most wins. I would like to remind everyone that there were fewer categories when Ben-Hur won and it had to flex muscle in the acting categories which is something that The Boat Movie and RotK did not do. I personally feel that RotK was snubbed in acting nominations while The Boat Movie didn't deserve the two it did get as the acting was a bit melodramatic for my tastes. So, although they are tied, I would still rate them as Ben-Hur #1, RotK #2, and Titanic #3 and I would shove The Boat Movie lower if I could.

I'm going to stop now, but in a later post, I'll address my feelings on using great tragedies as backdrops for romance movies and the countdown for a 9/11 movie.