James Bond...The best & worst of - part 3

So Roger Moore finished his run in 1985 (2 films too long as previously discussed) and the search for a new actor to play James Bond was on. Originally, the producers wanted Pierce Brosnan for the role but Pierce was contractually bound to Remington Steele and NBC wasn;t going to let him do it. That led to Shakespearean trained actor TImothy Dalton. Dalton actually on a short list when they were looking for Connery's replacement but Dalton bowed out because at 22 he felt he was too young.

Dalton's contributions to the 007 franchise were The Living Daylights (1987) and License To Kill (1989). I recently watched Daylights again (I can not recall ever viewing it when it came on tv) and it was a lousy movie. Maybe not as terrible as A View To A Kill but lousy enough. The plot tries to be complex but the cast doesn't seem to either be able to or want to pull it off. The female lead is played by Maryam d'Abo, not to be confused with the more talented Olivia d'Abo. Maryam is about as annoying as you can get and I don't want to say that she's untalented (47 acting credits from 1983-2011) but it sure looks that way here as this was her first big studio picture. Dalton didn't fare much better. There are times when he's got that edge then they are times when he gets almost whiney. It didn't help that the writing was not that great either. The plot has its moments but they are few and far between, at least it wasn't the standard megamaniacal billionaire industrialist who wanted to destroy large portions of humanity.

License To Kill sees Bond quit MI6 to avenge to attack on his old CIA pal, Felix Leiter. He goes after a drug lord and leaves a trail of bodies in the wake. This should have been a good film. Bond is out on the edge bent on taking down an international drug lord, sounds good right? You'd think so but things just don't work out they way they should. Dalton is never really quite on the edge as you'd like him (in both of his films he just seems rushed to me) even when guys die a gruesome death (that one guy whose head explodes when it appears that he betrayed the drug lord thanks to Bond). The entire tractor trailer chase seen is so ridiculous it almost destroys the movie (I will say it hear now now that as Class A driver, it's never a good idea to have a tractor trailer chase scenes in a movie). This was the best of the two Dalton/Bond films but that's not saying much. It's the least forgettable of the two, that's better. Though a very young Benicio Del Toro has a cameo as henchman to the drug lord.

So it appears that Dalton was a failure but I don't think that anyone could've have saved those 2 films. Dalton then gets dropped (or quits) and Pierce Brosnan is able to take the role of 007 in 1995 after 6 years with no James Bond. Here's Brosnon's list of films:

• Goldeneye (1995)
• Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
• The World Is Not Enough (1999)
• Die Another Day (2002)

Pierce Brosnan did a really good job as James Bond. He brings the edge that Connery had as well as the debonair and charm that Moore brought to the character.  The Brosnan films were not nearly as campy as the Moore films but there are elements of the megamaniacal billionaire industrialist villain:

• Johnathan Pryce (Tomorrow Never Dies): He's a billionaire media mogul who wants to encite a war between China & Britain so he can get the exclusive rights.
• Sophie Marceau  (The World Is Not Enough): Her character's father (whom she has killed)  is a billionaire industrialist but she uses her fortune to help an international terrorist cause nuclear mayhem.
• Toby Stephens (Die Another Day): This guy is a billionaire industrialist (who was originally North Korean but had radical plastic surgery to become Caucasian) who is going to unite the Korea's under the communist yoke by killing several hundreds of  thousands (at least) Koreans in the process.

 All four of Brosnan's Bond films contain great plot elements but there's so much over the top stuff that it takes away from the plot. For some reason the filmmakers opted to throw in semi-ridiculous stunts and giant explosions that were just too much. Here are my rankings of Brosnan and Dalton's Bond films:

1. Tomorrow Never Dies: This gets the nod because I loved the teaming of Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh (from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon fame, an excellent film). Yeoh does a lot (if not all) of her own stunt work so a lot of the physical work is very believable.
2. Goldeneye: Judi Dench is the new "M" and now that the Cold War is over, things are different. She feels that Bond is a relic of the Cold War and doesn't care for his methods (she lets him know this in no uncertain terms). I didn't care much for the technical aspect of the film (the Goldeneye is a satellite that can do nasty things) and one of the main villains is a renegade Soviet general much like the villain from Octopussy.
3. Die Another Day: Big fan of Bond getting caught and disavowed (who saw that coming?!) then getting exchanged for a North Korean spy. Bond breaks out of quarantine in the Falkland Islands and sets out to find out the culprit who set him up. Eventually it all breaks down as the plot twists seem implausible and are just too ridiculous.
4. License To Kill (see above)
5. The World Is Not Enough: I just didn't like this film. Denise Richardson a nuclear physicist? Really?
6. The Living Daylights: I mentioned this film earlier and there's a scene where Dalton utters the films title in reference to taking a shot at Maryam d'Abo (that right there is a deal breaker).

 When Brosnan was nearly 50 after Die Another Day and whether he left on his own or was asked not to come was a good idea. He was too old.


Part 4 will deal with Daniel Craig and the final rankings. Thanks for your time.

Part 2: James Bond...The Best & Worst of

We left off the last post with Connery reprising the role of Bond in 1971's Diamonds Are Forever. As stated prior, Connery was losing the Bond edge in You only Live Twice & it was pretty gone by Diamonds.  Connery pretty much mailed in his last Bond performance (his last EON performance that is). Enter Roger Moore.

Moore had been briefly considered for the role of James Bond but producers went with Lazenby then went back to Connery. Moore had successful runs in several television series throughout the 60's. He got the job at the age of 45 and would make 7 Bond films from 1973-1985. Here they are:

• Live and Let Die (1973)
• Man With the Golden Gun (1974)
• The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
• Moonraker (1979)
• For Your Eyes Only (1981)
• Octopussy (1983)
• A View To A Kill (1985)

If Diamonds Are Forever was a little on the campy side, that would be prevalent throughout Moore's tenure as Bond. During this period Moore played Bond more as a charming, debonair playboy type than secret agent. Bond didn't have the edge he had in the early Connery roles (in Dr. No Connery guns down a villain in cold blood). The formula went a bit like this: Bond gets notified about mission whilst in the arms of whatever woman he's having sex with, Bond gets mission (which involves a trip to see Q at Special Branch for his gadgets), Bond proceeds to bed a woman who has information about the mission and discards her (or she's killed) when info is obtained, sometimes he gets involved with the evil henchwoman, he meets up with the female lead and after some banter & adventure he beds her as well and then he saves the world. There's a lot of champagne along the way and a fair amount of Bond's female conquests saying, "oh James!"

Live and Let Die was a pretty good film and it did well at the box office. Man With The Golden Gun would be Moore's lowest grossing Bond film and it showed. Christopher, who's usually an excellent villain, played Scaramanga (he has 3 nipples BTW) in a comical way (which would be a problem during this time) and had Herve Villachaize (Tattoo from Fantasy Island) as his butler, Nick Nack. Scaramanga had a deal with Nick Nack that if Nick Nack killed Scaramanga, Nick Nack would get all of Scaramanga's wealth. The weird premise about this film is that Scaramanga was this international assassin that everyone knows about, is so reclusive but manages to lead a lavish lifestyle that could have been featured on Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous!This just wasn't a good movie.

So far I'm going to give Moore a 1 for 2. His 3rd outing was The Spy Who Loved Me where he teams up with Soviet agent Triple X (who happens to be an uber-babe) played by Barbara Bach. In my opinion, Bach's hotness is only matched by her limited acting skills. In this film Moore actually gets the old Bond edge back because he seems really agitated about the villain's plans to set off a nuclear war and guns him down (only after Stromberg took a shot at Bond). Curt Jergens played Stromberg, a super wealthy industrialist who plans to obliterate life on Earth using American and Soviet ballistic missile submarines so that he and his new civilization can live out life underwater (this would mark the beginning of the demented wealthy industrialist looking to kill billions so he can start a new civilization phase). Stromberg isn't comical like Scaramanga but he kind dresses like a clown in an opera so it's hard to take him too seriously and he always seems to be at his giant dinner table. Spy is a fun movie to watch and despite Bach's lack of acting prowess, she has good chemistry with Moore. This film also introduced the audience to Jaws. A henchman for hire who kills his victims by ripping out their throats with his metal teeth. Jaws is kind of comic book like in a sense that he's indestructible (he gets dumped into a tank with a shark and it's Jaws that take a bite out of the shark - great scene!). All in all this is a good film and I watch it when it comes on TBS.

So now Moore has done 3 Bond films and 2 were good (since the franchise starting going in a different direction in 1971). Moore's 4th film was Moonraker. When I saw Moonraker as a 9 y/o, I thought it was really cool. As an adult it's a stupid film and that's being nice. After the huge success of Star Wars in 1977, producer Albert Broccoli wanted to use Bond to cash in on the it's coat tails. What you get is Moonraker, essentially a near re-make of the previous Bond film and here's why: Drax (the villain) is a wealthy industrialist who's secretly wreaking havoc with American space shuttle launches because he's a got a clandestine space station that he doesn't want discovered. Why does he have a clandestine space station discovered you ask? Well from there he will launch mutated flowers with spores that will annihilate the human race so he can repopulate the Earth with his chosen couples (who all just happen to be a bunch of extremely good looking men & women). Yes, he's going to commit genocide to save humanity from itself and start all over, a new Garden of Eden. Sounds a lot like Stromberg's plan but it's outer space instead of underwater.

For Your Eyes Only came out in 1982 and I remember I didn't think it was all that great as a kid but as an adult it's a really good film. There's no wealthy industrialist hellbent on destroying humanity or ridiculous henchmen it's almost a straight spy thriller. Bond investigates the sinking of a British warship and has to find a missing defense computer (or something, I don't know how to explain it) and finds that it coincides with a murder of marine archeologist working for the British Government. This was Moore's best Bond film and it probably should've been his last as he nearing 60 years old.

Moore's last 2 Bond film's were Octopussy and A View To A Kill. Both were bad films. Octopussy had some good moments that could've been salvaged but it's a bad film. Moore was clearly too old to play 007, it's a classic case of a star athlete who sticks around too long after his prime (Willie Mays comes to mind). It shows in these last 2 films although still charming and debonair,  he's clearly not doing his own stunts (it show's) and he's not in very good physical shape. As for A View To A Kill, it did give us Christopher Walken as Zorin,the villain. His goal was to flood Silicon Valley so that he could become the sole producer of microchips, kind of sounds similar to say Goldfinger? Goldfiner was going to detonate a dirty nuke at Fort Knox (thereby destroying the world's gold supply) so he can corner the market on gold and be it's only producer. See the parallels? Duran Duran did the them song to A View To  Kill and it's the only redeeming quality.

Here's how I would rank Moore's Bond films:

1. The Spy Who Loved Me
2. For Your Eyes Only: If this film was on a bit more often it might be #1.
3. Live and Let Die
4. Moonraker: It's got Jaws in it, Jaws beats Scaramanga any day.
5. Man With The Golden Gun
6. Octopussy
7. A View To A Kill

Remember, starting with Diamonds Are Forever, things started to go campy. Roger Moore did an excellent job of playing the Bond of this era. He wasn't asked to play Bond like Connery, times had changed. Of Connery's 6 turns as James Bond, 4 of the films were excellent and his last was garbage.

In part 3 I will go into the Dalton & Brosnon eras. Thanks for your time and as usual your comments and opinions are welcome & appreciated.

James Bond...The best & worst of - part 1

Skyfall, the 23rd James Bond film, is due to be released next year marking 50 years of 007. So it got me thinking about some of the best and worst moments of the franchise. This will be in a few parts as I will begin with the Sean Connery era and work my way through to Daniel Craig.

To start, there were 2 non-EON Bond productions, Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983). Please don't confuse the 1967 version of Casino Royale with the nearly excellent 2006 version. Because it was a non-EON production (not to get to lenghty but basically it wasn't a Broccoli & Saltzman produced film) the film was made as a satire with a 57 y/o David Niven as James Bond. I saw this film nearly 30 years ago and was taken aback at how ridiculous it was and I've never gone back to give it another chance as an adult. Since it was filmed in 1967 there's a kind of trippy, psychedelic feel to it (which I may not have understood as a kid). Woody Allen has an appearance as Jimmy Bond, 007's nephew, who's also the bad guy. The film has an all-star cast but I doubt anyone took it seriously. Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball starring Sean Connery and Kim Basinger. When I saw this in 1983 I thought it was kind of cool (not as good as Thunderball) but I came to find out later that since it was a non-EON production that's why they couldn't say certain lines are say the names of EON characters ("Q" was reffered to as Algernon for example). Though not a bad film it doesn't stand the test of time and Connery is pretty much there for the paycheck.

Suffice to say I will not count these films in the discussion to follow.

Sean Connery was the original James Bond (some say the best) and here are his films:

• Dr. No (1962)
• From Russia With Love (1963): Usually regarded as 1 of the 2 best Bond films ever.
• Goldfinger (1964): The second film regarded as one of the best.
• Thunderball (1965): My personal favorite, I love the underwater fight scene which won an Academy Award for SFX.
• You Only Live Twice (1967)
• Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

 The 1st 4 films have an average Rotten Tomatoes rating of 94.5%. Sure the SFX may not stand the test of time but the Connery is nothing less than awesome. SPECTRE and the other villains are great as well. Of course the "Bond Girls" are legendary. Ursula Andress as Honey Rider, Daniela Bianchi as Tatiana Romanova, the 3 girls of Goldfinger are worth mentioning; Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore, Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterton (she's the one who's murdered by being covered in gold paint) & Tania Mallet as Tilly Masterton (she tries to assassinate Goldfinger as revenge for killing her sister-Bond scores them both of course). In Thunderball, Claudine Auger played Domino Derval and Luciana Paluzzi played the evil Fiona Volpe.

Things start to turn south with You Only Live Twice. There are some good sequences but you can kind of see Connery start to lose interest in the character as he doesn't seem to have the same mean streak as he had in Dr. No through Thunderball. He seems more concerned about bedding the various women he's working with or against than anything else (except the mission of course). The 4 year gap is because Connery had had enough after You Only Live Twice, the next Bond Film, On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969 starring George Lazenby in the role of James Bond.

About Her Majesty's Secret Service, the movie itself isn't bad (probably better than You Only Live Twice), Diana Rigg (Mrs. Emma Peel from the tv series The Avengers) was great as the Countess Tracy Di Vicenzo and Telly Savalas was a competent Blofeld (certainly better than Donald Pleasence of You Only Live Twice). Which brings me to poor old George Lazenby. Lazenby, an Australian, was not the 1st choice to replace Connery but impressed the producers enough to get a 7 picture deal! However, Lazenby got his agent to reduce it to a one off as he felt that 007 wouldn't cut it in the 70's. The film did well at the box office but people didn't warm up to Lazenby (I'm going off of what I've read from Wikipedia and from talking to my parents & their friends about it since I was yet to be born in 1969). Connery was the original Bond & the franchise was very successful so it would have been difficult to replace him. I'd wager that it's an almost impossible situation (isn't there a saying that goes you don't want to be the guy that replaces a legend, you want to be the guy that replaces the guy that replaces the legend). This is also the film where Bond gets married but Tracy is killed by Blofeld after the ceremony in a drive by shooting. This would lead to Bond going back to treating women like disposable pleasures as he would never get too close to any woman again until the reboot in 2006.

Since Lazenby was only going to do the 1 film, the producers had to get someone else. Connery was not on speaking terms with Broccoli in 1967 but the producers were able to lure Connery back with a then whopping $1.25 million paycheck! That next film was Diamonds Are Forever (1971). Diamonds is by far the worst of the Connery Bond films. Connery clearly doesn't want to  be in this film (much like Mel Gibson in The Patriot) and has no edge to him at all, much like the entire film as a whole. In fact most of the characters were pretty bland as well. Jill St John's Tiffany Case, although beautiful is pretty much eye candy with no depth to the character and Charles Gray wasn't a very good Blofeld. This is the film where we start to see a comic aspect to the villain's henchmen, for this film those henchmen were Mr. Wint & Mr. Kidd.

Ranking Connery's Bond films is difficult because the 1st 4 are excellent and it comes down to personal preference but here it goes:

1. Thunderball: What can I say? I really like the underwater fight scene.
2. From Russia With Love: This is probably a lot of people's #1, the chase scenes after they jump off the train tend to drag out a bit for me.
3. Goldfinger: Again a lot of people may have this as their #1.
4. Dr. No
5. You Only Live Twice
6. Diamonds Are Forever

This wraps up the 1st ten years of Bond films. The 1st 4 Bond films brought us memorable characters such as; Odd Job, Goldfinger, Pussy Galore, Rosa Klebb and Red Grant (played by Robert Shaw who would be immortalized for his role as Quint in Jaws). After that, the characters, mostly the villains seems to be the point I'm making I guess, wouldn't be as memorable until Jaws. The next post will cover the Roger Moore years. Thank you for your time and as always your comments & opinions are welcome & appreciated.

Shale Gas Boom & other psuedo-related issues

I didn't know what shale gas was but apparently it's a form of natural gas and analysts expect that it could supply up to half of the shale gas in the U.S. by 2020. They say natural gas is cleaner form of fuel than oil or coal so it must be ok. However, I'm not writing this to debate clean fossil fuels (quite frankly I don't know enough about them). This entry will be more about the corporate greed that I'm sure will follow.

An article in the NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/us/towns-fighting-to-stand-ground-against-gas-drillers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=pennsylvania%20shale%20gas&st=cse&scp=1, stated that companies are drilling in densely populated areas with little to no regard for zoning issues and all that other stuff. The towns & municipalities want zoning control over the land probably to make a few bucks and to make sure things are done safely. The energy companies and the Pennsylvania State Legislature want to restrict a communities control over the land. You can probably hear the lobbyists for the energy companies opening up their checkbooks to make campaign contributions to he people who run Pennsylvania in in return for favorable legislation that leaves communities in the drilling areas with little to no control over the area and out in the cold. Let us not forget that Pennsylvania tried to sell off PA Turnpike revenue a few years ago but the deal fell through, http://www.planetizen.com/node/22126. On a side note the City of Chicago successfully leased the parking meters (for 70 years!) to a foreign company in exchange for money (lots of it anyway) to cover a budget gap. Experts say that the city greatly undervalued the potential income and now the company that owns the rights can make up the rules as they go along, http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/12/24/chicago-sells-right-to-city-parking-meters-for-1-2-billion.aspx. My other source of the Chicago parking meters was from Matt Taibbi's book Griftopia (a very good read by the way).

The energy companies will talk about how the plants and drilling will create jobs and bring in revenue to the communities because workers will need housing, construction jobs and the economic growth that follows these types of booms. Be advised, the recent discovery of oil in North Dakota will bring similar issues as well. There's no doubt that economic growth will be a beneficial side effect (and the U.S. needs it) but at what cost? Make no mistake, the energy companies DO NOT care about the community, the care about PROFITS! Much like Wall Street during the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008 (for info about that read Griftopia). Sure they'll put on a happy face, hire a big time PR firm to make commercials about what a community orientated company they are (much like to the BP ads that state how everything is fine in the Gulf..."what oil spill? Long term effects, get out of town! Things are great here!").

I do feel that the communities should have some say in this matter to keep everyone honest. There has to be a happy medium somewhere. Hopefully it won't follow the quick-fix trend (like the Chicago parking meters) and people will think about the long term effects. The shale isn't going anywhere, so can't a deal be made where everyone comes up a winner and is environmentally beneficial?

Be advised...I am not against shale gas drilling. America needs to end it's dependency on foreign oil so if it helps then let's get at it. What caught my eye was that Pennsylvania was looking to limit any say these communities had that were going to get these pants near them. Once again it would be a situation where the average person gets left out.

Thanks to all the soldiers who served in Iraq over the last 8 years and who sacrificed so much for their country. In fact, thanks to all the men & women who have served & are currently serving in the U.S. armed forces.

Breaker! Breaker!

Breaker! Breaker! is the title of a 1977 Chuck Norris film directed by Don Hulette. I just finished watching this film and to say the least it was heinous! But be advised...this film is groundbreaking in the sense that it clearly inspired the likes of Over the Top & Roadhouse, yet still manages to be terrible! This film is definitely MST3K material. Scene after scene I found myself either laughing or commenting on how ridiculous the scene was.

Norris (beardless btw) plays truck driver JD Dawes, who's such an awesome driver that when he pulls into a truck stop in the opening moments of the film, he doesn't need to drop his trailer in a spot (since I have a Class A CDL, I found that scene very amusing). Norris then sends his brother to pick up load for delivery as Chuck has business to tend to at the truck stop. That business is ARM WRESTLING! Didn't see that one coming did you? The cast of dudes playing the truck drivers is something to see. In fact it's almost as if Over the Top jacked the entire scene 10 years later. As Norris is winning the match his opponent punches him in the face. Bad move, when Norris comes face to face with the guy 30 seconds later, Chuck delivers a massive roundhouse kick to the dude's chest (the 1st of many roundhouses in the film).

While Chuck is having fun at the truck stop, his brother gets caught in a speed trap in a corrupt town (can ya see where it's all going yet?). I want to backtrack for a moment. This run is Billy's 1st solo run. Chuck manages to give him trucking advice like, don't let them overload the reefer & once loaded get the trailer weighed (Billy still manages to be overweight anyway). When Billy gets brought before the judge he looses his cool and gets hunted down. We don't see Billy until the end. Naturally when Billy doens't show up later JD starts to worry & finds out that Billy may have gone through Texas City (the corrupt town in California btw), a town where truckers dare not go.

This is where Chuck busts out his bitchin' Ford Van (complete with an airbrushed giant eagle design. It's a badass van!) to go find Billy. While searching for Billy, Norris manages to do the following:

• get pulled over & get his van impounded
• fight the 2 crooked cops (and win)
• fight his way out of the court house (he went in on his own)
• fight the townspeople (and win!)
• get his van back
• bed the corrupt Judge's daughter in law,(she's a widower, relax) in the van no less!
• recaptured by the bad guys

Then comes the climax! The Judge's daughter in law manages to get a hold a CB & call all the trucker to help rescue Chuck from execution (despite the fact that California stopped using the death penalty in 1972). The truckers come through and begin wreaking havoc. Norris makes his escape and finds his brother getting beat up by the corrupt deputy (the town's other corrupt cop Sgt Strode tried to put a road block to dissuade the truckers, didn't work). When Chuck sees the deputy beating up his defenseless brother, he lets out a scream, charges the cop & delivers a flying kick so devastating that the deputy goes through the barn! Norris manages this with a bullet wound to the abdomen (its a flesh wound as the bullet bounced off his rock hard abs, its Chuck Norris for crying out loud bullets don't stop him!).

With Billy safe, Chuck now has to take on the remaining corrupt cop. The final battle takes place in a stable where a horse is running about (I guess its symbolism but it went over my head). The bad guy is sitting on a fence waiting for the showdown and then he takes a few swigs of Wild Turkey?! Exactly what you want to do when facing Chuck Norris in the final battle (actually his fate was sealed when Norris came to town so why not have a few drinks I guess)! After Chuck wins the fight the last shot of the film is of the horse jumping over the fence. WTF!?!

I would like to add that for such a macho film, the scenes where Chuck 1st meets Billy & when he rescues him at the end have a few homosexual overtones. Not that there's anything wrong with that it's just weird & a bit humorous.

As bad as this film is (and it is BAD) it was a good laugh. I recommend my CDL co-workers to watch it whilst having a few cocktails of course. I just had to share this with other people that's why I wrote this. Thanks for your time.

The NBA lockout...The gloves are off!

Just when the optimists thought a 72 game season was going to happen, the players decided to tell the owners to take their stinking proposal and stick it. The NBPA is taking the litigation route. They are going to decertify, with a disclaimer (whatever that means) and sue the owners on anti-trust issues. Much like the NFL players union did over the summer. The difference being that the NFLPA decertified whilst still in the off-season whereas the NBPA waited until the 11th hour.

After the NBPA announced that they turned down the owners latest proposal, Commisioner David Stern, in an interview on ESPN, basically said that the players have shot themselves in the foot and stand to lose a lot of money. He felt that they got bad advice from Billy Hunter and that the season could very well be cancelled (more or less, if you really need to see the interview go to espn.com as I'm sure its still there somewhere). Stern added that the NBPA has retained the attorneys that represented the NFL players (Kessler) & the NFL owners (Boies I think is his name or something to that effect) during that labor strife. To be honest, Mr. Stern did sound a bit condescending in his comments but that's my opinion.

I'd like to point out that I agree with sports talk radio personality Chris "Mad Dog" Russo statement that Kessler is a "litigator" not a "deal-maker." If you bring in a guy like that, the negotiations will end because Kessler gets paid to go to court. Kessler has been allegedly pushing for the players to decertify because he can't go to court unless they do so (legal mumbo-jumbo). Kessler did have success in the decertification of the NFLPA as a judge did grant an injunction lifting the lockout. Then the owner's lawyer went to another judge who overturned the injunction & the lockout was back on. As I recall it all happened in the same week. That's the thing about going to court, it never seems to go quickly and it just plods along. One NBA pundit noted that the only ones getting paid now are the lawyers (today was the 1st day players would've started receiving checks).

In all honesty the drama of the lockout has been very addictive. There's the obvious battles for good press and to have the fans believe one side over the other. The hazy definition of negotiating in "good faith." There was even talk about union president, Derrick Fisher, going behind the NBPA's back trying to secretly negotiate a deal. Michale Jordan being one of the hard-line owners who want to stick it to the players (it's interesting to note that Jordan during the last labor unrest in 1998 famously told Abe Poulin, then Washington Wizards owner, that he should sell the team if he can't make any money). Quite honestly it will start to get boring now that litigation has reared its dull head.

I've been loosely following the lockout and from what I've seen, it appears that the NBPA have been the ones doing a lot of the negotiating. The owner's negotiating tactic is more along the lines of "take this deal now or it will get worse in the foreseeable future." The NBPA went from 57% of the BRI (basketball related income if you haven't been keeping up) to 50%. The owners stance was 50% now or 47% later. It's been a long time since I've negotiated on a regular basis (used to work in auto claims in my other life) but I'm pretty sure that's not how ya do it.

Regardless of the fact that I agree with the players on a few things, I do believe they're delusional about the status. Right now, NO ONE cares that their is no NBA (I'm not a huge NBA fan anymore but I will miss NBA games once the NFL season is over & I'm in a area that doesn't care about hockey or my internet connection stinks and my NHL Gamecenter keeps breaking up). There hasn't been a bunch of players going overseas and there are no new leagues forming anytime soon. Like the NBA pundits say, the players have no leverage. I can kind of agree with both side but neither side will get my sympathy. Players want unrestricted free agency to be able to sign wherever they want when their contract is up, kind of like the rest of us. But the owners don't want the stars to form super teams (the 2010-11 Heat come to mind) with their buddies. Super teams that would most likely be the Knickerbockers, Lakers, Bulls, Celtics or Heat (the cities where players want to play) not Sacramento, Milwaukee or Toronto. The league wants to penalize teams (in the form of a luxury tax) that go over the salary cap and the players want to system similar to baseball (spend whatever you want like the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox and let the Royals and Pirates go pound sand). What the NBPA needs to realize is that teams would fold faster than Superman on laundry if that became a reality and that would mean a loss of union jobs (as I've discussed before).

Please forgive me for being all over the place. It seems like there's no coherent thought (ya think!) and I'm all  over the place but then I'm not a writer. After reading a recent Bill Simmons article on the caeer of Eddie Murphy, I thought to myself, "this should've been me. I could've been a writer." Of course that would have meant having some modicum of creativity after the age of 12 and an iota of interest in writing at all in my life.

Since it was Vetern's Day last week I would like to thank those who have served in the US Armed Forces. Thanks for your time.

Congress afraid for their jobs?...They should be.

Came across this article in the NY Times the other day, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/politics/voter-rage-has-congress-worried-about-job-security-its-own.html?partner=rss&emc=rss. Naturally it was an online article as the only way I'm getting the NYT is a t a Starbucks & I'm not a big newspaper reader unless its the sports section (like most people sadly).

I write this as I am listening to a podcast of Real Time which aired on 10/21/11. In the panel discussion they talk about possible backlash against the Republicans for all their stonewalling against the President. I for one agree, but it shouldn't be against just the Republicans, there should be backlash against all of them. The Republicans for opposing the President (they hated Clinton back in the day make no mistake but man they REALLY hate Obama) & not even be willing to work with him to get the country back on track. Also the Democrats who sat around and watched or did very little. Democrats wrested control of the House & Senate in 2006 & did very little, at least I don't remember anything on the "liberal media" about them making radical change. When Obama became President, they all had a chance to do something or at least appear that they were going to do something but they decided to rest on their laurels and then proceeded to lose control in the 2010 elections. More power to the Republicans who saw an opportunity and seized it. The same thing happened when Clinton became President. The Democrats were in control & decided to savor their victory while doing nothing. This allowed the Republicans to take back a lot of what they lost during the 1994 elections. They got what they deserved.

I say vote them all out! This is the only way politicians get fired. If you or I did our jobs so incompetently (or not at all in some cases) we'd be out on our butts. Personally I feel we need politicians who want to get together and put the country back on the path. Granted that may be a bit naive on my part but it has happened in the past (Reagan worked with a Democrat controlled House & Senate, Republicans worked with Clinton, when they weren't trying to get him convicted) so it can be done.


Thanks for your time.

Big East Basketball is dead.

The Big East started as a basketball conference in 1979 when Syracuse, Georgetown, Seton Hall, Connecticut, St. John's, Providence & Boston College got together. Villanova joined in 1980 and Pittsburgh rounded it out in 1982. 1982 saw the emergence of Georgetown, Patrick Ewing's freshman year, as the dominant team. The Hoyas would make 3 Championship appearances during Ewing's tenure (1982, 1984 & 1985). The Hoyas won in 1984 by defeating an Akeem (later Hakeem) Olajuwan led Houston team but their losses were 2 of the most classic finals in NCAA history, 1982 to a last second shit by Michael Jordan, losing to UNC 63-62 and the  Villanova game on April Fools Day 1985, 66-64.

For those who didn't go to high school in the 80's, the Big East was arguably the premier college basketball conference. It reached it's apex in 1985 when 3 teams; Georgetown, St. John's & Villanova made it to the Final Four. If I'm not mistaken it was the 1st time a conference put 3 teams into the Final Four. As we all know Villanova completed an improbable run by defeating an almost invincible Georgetown Hoya team led by Patrick Ewing. In 1987, 2 more Big East teams made the FInal Four; Syracuse (losing to eventual champions Indiana) & a plucky Providence team coached by Rick Pitino & led by Billy Donovan (whose coached Florida to back to back NCAA titles, how's that for pedigree!). 

 As the conference went into the 90's it started it's 1st wave of expansion by adding traditional football schools; Virginia Tech, Miami & West Virginia along with Rutgers & Temple. Miami enjoyed great football success in the 80's as an independent and opted for the Big East because it brought back it's basketball program and wanted to mop the floor with the less powerful football programs in the Big East (at least that's my theory). Other expansions included Notre Dame in 1995, hoops no football, and the the poaching of Conference USA (most of the old Metro Conference) in 2005. In 2004 Virginia Tech & Miami bolted for the ACC (2 of the schools that were going to bring football prominence) and in 2005 Boston College would leave for the ACC as well. That's when the cracks started to show and that seems that football became more important that basketball. Connecticut started pouring money into it's football program (Coach Calhoun won hoops titles in 1999, 2004 & recently in 2011) in an attempt to gain national football prominence.

At present time, Syracuse & Pittsburgh are leaving after the 2014 season & West Virginia is suing the conference for the right to leave for the ACC after next season. To combat this the Big East has raised it's exit fee to $10 million and it's made to bones about trying to poach several schools into the conference (they offered TCU as spot for the 2012 season but TCU has opted for greener pastures in another bloating conference).

Football rules what's left of the Big East. Football and the landslide of money it brings (that's a topic for another time). The great tradition of Big East hoops is dead & gone. It is now a bastardized, Frankensteinian creation looking to create its own cable channel (a la the Big 10). Suffice to say I am sad to see it go but that's all in the past. Big East Basketball gave us hall of fame coaches like John Thompson & Lou Carnasecca, future legends; Calhoun, Pitino (he wasn't a PC very long but now he's got Louisville) and Jim Boeheim. It's in the past like the glory days of 1985 & 1987. To paraphrase the last line from The Road Warrior, those days exist only in my memories.

*******************************************************************************************************************

After I wrote all that, the Big East is now counter-suing West Virginia on breach of contract in bolting for the Big 12. Make no mistake, money rules college football. That's why there's no playoff, why Boise St will NOT get a crack at a BCS title game and why players will soon be paid for play, http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7177921/the-beginning-end-ncaa. Thanks to my old friend Scott Goodrich for bringing the article to my attention.

The 2011-12 NBA Season in jeopardy! Does anyone care?...part 2

Yesterday I drove from Natick, MA to Harrisonburg, VA and pretty much listened to sports talk radio on the Sirius all day. To be specific the Mad Dog Radio channel. While listening to the afternoon/evening line-up, Chris "Mad Dog" Russo & Dino Costa, there was a lot of talk about the NBA lockout. Even this morning there's more talk about it with Mike & Mike in Morning (Stern was just interviewed earlier this morning). Since there's more buzz, I'm going to chime in with my relatively worthless opinion.

 It was no secret that the NBA was going to have labor issues not too long after the Mavericks came back to beat "the Heatles." It's another topic for sure but I watched the finals, Miami should not have lost that series and LeBron deserves a lot of the flack for his play in the 4th quarter. Michael Wilbron mentioned it while the NFL was negotiating their new labor deal over the summer, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon-110630.

 Personally, I don't care about the size of the player salaries. The amount of money they make seems absurd but there's no doubt that when LeBron comes to town, his presence puts fannies in the seats. The same held true for Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. The same holds true for an actor getting $20 million for a film, that's just the way it is (it also applies to CEO's who sit around a table in the board room but that's a topic for another time). To add a bit to the Carmelo Anthony reference, Denver had little choice to trade him because if Melo walked (which he made it clear he was going to do), Denver would not receive any compensation. By dealing him, they got players in return. The issue is Melo held them hostage by only wanting to be traded to the Knicks. Quite frankly, the Knicks have been so awful over the last few years they didn't really have any players the Nuggets wanted. In fact the Knicks & Nuggets had to bring the Timberwolves into the mix in order to pull it off (be advised...the T'Wolves took Eddy Curry & his ridiculous contract off the Knicks hands so they're a doomed franchised and they deserve what they get for that one). While I'm on it, Eddy Curry is probably another reason why the owners want a new labor deal. Curry had a great year for the 33-49 Knicks during the 2006-07 season then injuries, weight & a general poor attitude got him into 69 games over the next 3 years, none in 2010-11, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryed01.html.

One of the reasons for the expansion to cities where they probably shouldn't have gone is money. Owners get millions in franchise fees from an expansion team. The players association likes expansion because it adds jobs for the union. As the article I referenced in the prior blog about the Simmons article on the Maloofs holds true, the NBA doesn't care how you run your team as long as the check to the other owners for the franchise fee doesn't bounce.

There are a lot of problems with the NBA. Chris Russo stated that the regular season is too long, too many teams make the playoffs (16 teams in a 30 team league) almost making the regular season meaningless and the same arguments about players only trying in the last few minutes of a regular season game or the playoffs. Davis Stern says that there are 22 of 30 teams that operate in the red. In an interview with Mike Francessa of WFAN (I think it was this one but I'm not sure as Stern is making the rounds), Stern said that the union believes only 8 teams are losing money (the union believes this despite having financial records from all the teams & being offered to have accountants from both sides review the books together according to Stern).

To be honest, NFL excluded, the regular season for the NBA, NHL & MLB are too long. Now a shorter season means less revenue for owners & players so that will not happen. The NBA & NHL send too many teams into the playoffs (during the 80's the NHL had a 21 team league & 16 teams made the playoffs. Prompting multiple playoff appearance by my hapless Hartford Whalers) but tio change the system would mean a loss of playoff revenue for owners & players, so that's not going to happen.

The NBA should contract franchises (good idea for MLB & NHL as well but its another topic for another time). Especially when the NOLA Hornets don't have an owner, Mark Cuban has stated he's not happy about having to prop them up while they get to compete against his team simultaneously. That's not going to happen. The owners would then have to admit they're wrong (billionaires are NEVER wrong) in the fact that a franchise shouldn't be in a certain city and the players association won't have because it would mean losing jobs. You can argue that the problems with the Hornets stem from a previous owner, George Shinn, but NOLA couldn't support the Jazz in the 70's (they moved to that basketball hotbed...Utah!) and they've had a tough time supporting the Hornets. Plus, the league has been running the Hornets since at least last season and I haven't heard about the line forming to buy them. Contraction would indeed eliminate jobs but one could argue that it would raise the level of talent. With 30 teams I feel that the talent pool is a bit diluted.

I touched upon Amare Stoudemire's statement about forming a new league on the last post. Since then I've heard people (Dino Costa & Colin Cowherd) pretty much mock that statement. Both Dino & Colin were critical of the business acumen of the players but I won't do that (stats show that most of professional players are broke within 3-5 years out of the game). Where's the line of billionaires forming to own a team? Who's going to negotiate a TV contract? Who's going to book the travel? Who's going to set-up the leases with arenas? It isn't going to happen & even if it did, how long before they run into the same problems? Also, when the labor issue gets settled, the players in this "new league" would jump ship the 1st chance they get.

That's it for me. As I get ready to enter the hot tub in my hotel room, I will leave you with a link to an article by Michael Wilbon about how the players seem to think that the fans are on they're side, http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/wilbon-111013/public-ridicule-disdain-force-ends-nba-lockout. When millionaires argue with billionaires it turns everyone off. I'm not for ownership but I'm not siding with the players either. Sure I watch the NBA but I don't start paying attention until after the Super Bowl. I just wish the NHL get get on TV a bit more.

Thanks for your time.

The 2011-12 NBA Season in jeopardy! Does anyone care?

The NBA has been in lock-out mode for over 3 months with almost no progress. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering NBA pundits were bringing this up during the NFL lockout. The owners have taken a real hard line towards the players. It seems very clear that they want to make sure the players miss paychecks so they rush to the bargaining table to make a deal that's favorable to them. The owners are claiming that the league is losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year so they need change now (whereas the NFL owners had to lockout the players because they weren't making enough profits).

The NBA does appear to be in trouble financially. The New Orleans Hornets are currently owned by the league and the Sacramento Kings, according to the owners, need a new arena or they need to move out of town. Other small market franchises claim to be losing money hand over fist. It is my firm belief that the owners & the league itself are at fault for their problems and here's why:

• Owners are the one's handing out max contracts to players that are not worth it (Rashard Lewis & Johnson coe to mind). The teams offer these guys the contracts so now the owners are asking the union to help them control their own spending because the owners can not do it themselves. Here's an arrticle by ESPN's Bill SImmons and Jonathon Abrams about some bad contracts teams have gotten themselves into & would love to get out of, http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7026680/welcome-amnesty-20-nba
• The league expanded too fast when the times were good (the NHL, MLB & the NFL are all guilty of this) and went into places that maybe they shouldn't have gone into . The Grizzlies open up in Vancouver in 1996 but moved to Memphis in 2002 (and stillhave trouble drawing). The Charlotte Hornets entered the NBA in 1989 then moved to NOLA in 2003, now they have no owner and the league runs their day to day operations to make sure they can honor the player contracts. The Timerwolves have had 6 straight losing seasons (5 in row with 50 or more losses) punctuated by going 15-67 in '09-'10 & 17-65 in the '10-'11season (ownership even took out an add in the newspaper asking the fans to be patient while the team sucks for a few seasons during the rebuilding process). Charlotte's new team, the Bobcats, entered the league in 2004 and have had 1 winning season in that span and having trouble drawing spectators. 
• There are a lot of owners who are no good at what they do. Take for example the Maloof Brothers in Sacramento. The Maloofs were billionaires with a lucrative beer distributorship (I think that's how they got their fortune, inherited if I'm not mistaken) and they owned the Palms hotel in Vegas. During their tenure as owners, the highwater mark for the Kings was their appearance in the 2002 WCF & subsequent shady way the lost the series to the Lakers (the infamous game 6), they've managed to take a small market franchise that has drawn well for years (an old SI article stated that the Kings fans would say "it's our team bad or worse but it's our team!), enjoy a nice playoff run which saw 7 straight appearances and see the team throw it in the tank with 5 straight losing seasons. For more info on the Maloofs check out this Bill Simmons article on them from earlier this spring, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba.

The players are guilty of being out of touch with fans, case in point the Carmelo Anthony nonsense from last season. Here's a guy who was in the final year of his contract and made it clear that he wasn't going to re-sign with the Denver Nuggets. However, only the Nuggets would be able to sign him to a max contract (roughly $22 million/year). If Melo goes free agency then he gets less money (around $15/year). See the problem? So in order for Melo to get a max contract, the Nuggets have to do a sign & trade with another team (or teams). However, Melo really only wants to play for Knicks and he pretty much stated such. So Melo makes this all public and even goes so far as to pat himself on the back for staying "focused" despite all these "distractions," which he brought upon himself! In the midst of a poor economy & joblessness, who exactly was feeling sorry for Melo? I wish he would've been quiet about it because it's tough to feel sorry for a guy who holds his employer hostage so he can make $7 million more a year and the Knicks & Melo took flack because they didn't turn into an elite team overnight.

I haven't bothered to confirm this (it's probably easy too) but a max contract for a player re-signing with his current team is 6 years for $132 million. So if that same player decides to sign with another team the max becomes 6 years for $90 million (that's a lot of money left on the table!). So I don't have any issue with a player wanting that extra $30 million, my problem is taking those issues public & trying to garner sympathy especially during the present economic climate!

Players also pretty much want to play for certain teams that either have good year round weather, no state income tax or in a big city. Those teams are the Heat, Knicks, Chicago, LA (Lakers only) & Dallas (too a lesser degree Boston, Orlando and perhaps San Anotonio & Houston). I agree with Bill Simmons, in the article I linked about the Maloofs, that a player should play where he wants to when he becomes a free agent. If had a choice to play in Miami or NYC  as opposed to Indianapolis or Sacramento, I'm choosing Miami or NYC. Not to say that Sacramento or Indianapolis are bad, but they can't compare to Miami or NYC (in my opinion). That makes it difficult for the other 24 teams to attract free agents. It's also clear that most players don't really play until that last 2-5 minutes of a game & that they save it for the playoffs (although these criticisms have surfaced periodically for decades).

This is just a theory I've kicked around for a few years but the NBA's key demographic is 18-30 year old males, especially Black males. The problem is the NBA doesn't necessarily want this demographic (that buys the NBA video games, jerseys, hats & have a passion for the game) in the arena. The NBA wants the corporate (passionless), 40-55 year old crowd to fill the arena because the average fan probably can't afford season tickets (the same hold true for the NFL & probably to a degree). Gone are the days when the "average guy" can afford good seat season tickets. It's just another bogus mathematical theory of mine so there's probably a validity issue. Although I think that all the major sports want corporate money to fill the seats of the stadiums/arenas.

Fact of the matter is, I just don't care if the NBA plays at all this season. Be advised I was a HUGE NBA fan when I was younger and had the NBA package on DirecTV (when I lived a domesticated life in the mid-90's). I enjoyed the drama of the playoffs last year and have had in the past when interested. I've even heard the 73% of people also don't care if the NBA plays or not but that might have more to do that most casual sports fans don't care about the NBA until after the Super Bowl.

Recently, Amare Stoudemire stated that the players should go out and form a new league (or something to that effect). NBA pundits have stated that what he really meant that the players should barnstorm or something. Whatever he meant, a new league would eventually lead to the same problems. Add to the fact that most fans only care about 10-15 players anyway. So barnstorming wouldn't help the 8th guy off the Clippers bench. The owners also don't seem to care about players going overseas to play.

It will be interesting to see how everything turns out for the owners & the players. I hope that the NHL can take advantage of all this somehow. To me, the NHL is a better product (the NBA still runs marketing circles around the NHL) than the NBA but I also realize that's it's barely on the map compared to the Big 3; football, baseball & basketball.

Moneyball revisited

As we enter the next round of the baseball playoffs (LCS), the big market teams (Yankees & Phillies) have exited early. Add in the fact that the Red Sox (payroll $162 million) had an epic September collapse to allow the Tampa Bay Rays (payroll $41 million) to make it into the playoffs. With all those recent big money acquisitions (Lackey, Crawford & Gonzalez) the Red Sox had a September stretch where they went 6-18 in their last 24 games. The Rays (whose payroll is about as much as the 3 Red Sox I mentioned) went 16-8 in the same 24 game stretch overtaking the Sox by 1 game. Boston's 2 pitching aces (Beckett & Lester) went a combined 2-5 in September. To paraphrase ESPN's Bill Simmons, neither Beckett nor Lester was able to step up during the spiral and put the team on his back. To add insult to injury the Red Sox were picked by everyone in the pre-season to represent the American League in the World Series.

Boston aside, the Phillies (payroll $173 million) won 102 games, had a tough line-up and easily the best starting rotation that baseball has seen in a long time, http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2011.shtml. The Phillies were beaten by the Cardinals in 5 games. Phillie ace Roy Halladay pitched a great game, 8 IP 1 ER, but Cardinal ace Chris Carpenter pitched magnificently, CG 3H 10ks. Let's not forget the fact that the Phillies beat up on the Braves at the end of the season allowing the Cardinals in slip in (the Braves collapse would be historic if not for the Red Sox being epically historic). The Cardinals are not a small market team, they just spend a bit more wisely than other teams. The Phillies were the odds on favorite to not only represent the National League in the World Series but to win it all.

That leaves the New York Yankees (payroll $202 million). The Yankees have had the highest payroll for years. They charge a lot of money so ownership has felt that they need to field a championship caliber team every year. Getting into the playoffs for the Yankees isn't enough, only hoisting the World Series trophy is considered a successful season in the Bronx. The Yankees have been taking a lot of heat for losing to the Tigers at home in an elimination game. They didn't get a lot of production from their 4,5 & 6 hitters A-Rod, Teixeira & Swisher (the 3 were represented as the Three Stooges on the back page of the Daily News or whatever after the game 5 loss). A-Rod makes about $30 million and Teixeira made $22.5 million, not quite the bang for the buck the organization would have like to have seen in a big spot.

What's left is the Detroit Tigers (10 highest payroll at $105.7 milion), St. Louis Cardinals (11th highest payroll at $105.4 million), Texas Rangers ($93 million) and the Milwaukee Brewers ($85 million, 17th highest). Only the Brewers are in the lower half of the league in payroll. Both the Brewers & the Cards face a dilemma in re-signing their best player. Prince Fielder, Brewers 1st baseman, is in the final year of a contract that pays him $15.5 million. Many believe that they will not be able to meet his asking price (probably somewhere in the Mark Teixeira neighborhood). The Brewers weren't able to re-sign Sabathia when he became a free agent, allowing the Yankees to back the Brinks truck up to CC's home. Albert Pujols made it clear before spring training that he wanted a long term deal that would make him one of the highest paid players in the game. As I stated earlier, the Cards spend money but a 10 year $300 million contract (the numbers being thrown about at the beginning of the year) would be difficult for them (probably difficult for any team but the Yankees but they've got A-Rod & Teixeira locked up for awhile so they're out).  In my opinion, Pujols, 3 time MVP, didn't help himself with what could arguably his worst year as a pro; .299 BA, 37Hr, 99 RBI, 105 R & led the NL in grounding into double plays (95% of all players would love to have a crappy year like that but when you compare it to the rest of his career it's a bad year. Don't take my word for it see for yourself, http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml).

Make no mistake payroll is an issue. The top 2 payrolls won the most games and had home field advantage in the playoffs until the World Series. However, the 3-9 highest payrolls did not make the playoffs (some teams, let's say the Mets & the Cubs for example, were terrible) including the 2010 Champs the SF Giants (8th highest at $118 million). You also had the Diamondbacks win the NL West (25th payroll at $53 million) and the Rays (see above for their payroll info) making the playoffs as well. Being able to spend money helps but it obviously doesn't guarantee you a championship or a playoff appearance for that matter.

There's just a whole lot of factors that come into play. The Minnesota Twins were considered the blue print of a small market team that had made it to the post season with frequency, since 2002 they've made the playoffs 6 times but only got to the LCS in 2006 and they got swept. This year ( a payroll of $112 million) after getting a new stadium and re-signing their best player, Joe Mauer, they proceeded to won only 63 games. Injuries played a big factor for the Twins. Injuries are always be a problem, A-Rod missed 63 games this year (I even heard a caller on the Chris "Mad Dog" Russo show say "if A-Rod can't juice, he can't produce" in reference to his steroid issues) the Red Sox had injuries within the pitching staff. In addition to injuries there can sometimes be bad decisions by upper management (the Mets & Dodgers vault to the forefront here) and of course guys who just don't produce even when healthy.

In regards to poor decision making, the Yankees are going to be in a tough spot over the next few years. A-Rod will be into his 40's y the time his massive contract expires and his production has dropped off a bit and he's missed 150 games since 2008. Teixeira hit 39 homers but a measly .248 batting average (since BA has gone down since his arrival in the Bronx, I've even heard Yankee fans call in & say that he doesn't hit in the clutch). Jeter is old but he's still got it despite a slow start in 2011 but in his late 30's he may not be able to cover the ground he was did. Sabathia may opt out and demand more money (he made $23 million this year) and more years as well as  taking heat for being too fat. Stephen A. Smith of ESPN wrote that the Yankees can pay him more but they shouldn't give him a long term deal, he's not the only person to take that stance. The Yankees blinked when A-Rod opted out a few years ago and they made a bad deal because of it so I think they're too smart to make the same mistake but who knows.

It will be interesting to see who ends up in the World Series. So far the playoffs have been great to watch. I don't have a dog in the fight so I wouldn't mind seeing Milwaukee & Detroit in the Fall Classic but I think the Tigers & the Cardinals is the more compelling match-up.

Not really sure if I went anywhere with this but if someone reads it, thanks for your time.

2012 GOP Platform

I've been loosely following the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates over the last few months and these people are quite a bunch. Here's what you've got (in no particular order):

• Mitt Romney: Mitt is a Mormon, which alienates a lot of people. He served 1 term as Massachusetts Governor after a successful run as Chairman of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee (you know the one that was uncovered for bribing officials to grant SLC the 2002 Winter Olympics). Mitt's a super rich guy who's probably not in touch with the average working man (this has been the comedy gold for a lot of talking heads).
• Newt Gingrich: Newt is a staunch conservative who preaches family values. Don't forget he was cheating on his cancer stricken wife while going after Clinton for getting a BJ. Newt was at the forefront of the "Contract with America" after Republicans won back majority on the House & Senate in 1994. I don't remember much about the "contract with Amercia" so my opinion is that it really wasn't all that significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America. Suffice to say I glanced over it on Wikipedia & it didn't seem all that significant. 
• Michele Bachmann: A Tea Party favorite who has periodic dialogues with the Lord Almighty (he often gives her advice). She's recently fallen from grace if you want to call it that & no longer seems to curry the favor of the Tea Party. After reading an article about her in Rolling Stone & hearing Bill Maher go off on her, it's almost inconceivable that a rational human being would vote for her. She's against things like farm subsidies but she's taken them in the past. I brought her up in a previous post. 
• Rick Perry: Governor of Texas. Rick was in office when he urged Texans to pray for rain to end a drought (another candidate who converses with the Almighty). Rick went toe to toe with Romney in a debate awhile back & seemed to generate some steam. Then he kept talking & whatever steam he gathered soon dissipated. His record as governor appears spotty at best.
• Herman Cain: To be honest all I knew about this guy until today was that he was the token non-white guy. This morning I watched an interview he gave on some Sunday morning talk show (I was under the influence of cold medication so that's my excuse). He seems to feel that African-Americans should be voting Republican (despite the fact that the GOP has done very little to meet or care about the needs of the Black community, as pointed out by the interviewer) and have been "brainwashed" by the Democratic Party. Herman's a business man who recently did real well in a some sort of straw poll or something so he thinks his chances are getting better.
• Ron Paul: Ron ran as an Independent candidate in 2008 but has since gone over to the GOP. He's got a loyal (almost cult) following but he's got some opinions that the hard core conservatives don't agree with. Seems like a reasonable guy.

There are others of course but they all are running on one underlying theme...to expunge Barrack Obama from history. I saw clips of a debate & they all said the same thing, their 1st "acts" will be to undo anything Obama has done. That's it. Apparently once that's done everything will just get better. That's the best solution that these clowns can come up with. If I cared to do the research, I would better dollars to Little Debbie Snack Cakes that their "solutions" to America's problems are not that original and each candidate's "solutions" seem eerily similar to the others. I'm reminded of a World War I documentary about the Dardenelles Campaign. The British wanted a 2nd front to alleviate pressure on the Western Front. The original plan was all naval as few if any ground forces could be spared. The plan was simple, the Royal Navy was to sail up the Dardenelle Straits right to Constantinople. The Turks would either surrender or runaway at the mere sight of the Royal Navy. Suffice to say that plan didn't work. That's just what these clowns have come up with. Somehow undo what Obama has done & everything will fine.

Speaking of other GOP candidates, what is the deal with this country's weird fascination with Sarah Palin? The Tea Party has been falling all over her since she sabotaged McCain's bid for President. She quit her job as Governor of Alaska halfway thru, she's into family values but tried to keep the father of her grandson out of the baby's life. What's she ever accomplished? Seriously? To my knowledge she's yet to declare her candidacy but she gets public money for it (like her little summer bus tour where she "happened" to show up in New Hampshire when Romney was there to announce his candidacy thereby stealing his thunder). During this tour she got the gist of Paul Revere's ride all wrong, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w, when she visited the Old North Church during her bus tour. Most grade schoolers can give a better answer (she gives a rebuttal on Fox News, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CLQTcZwbykw, where she denies getting wrong & tries to rewrite history). Inconceivable!

The pool of talent is so shallow for the GOP that they're begging NJ Governor Chris Christie to announce his a run. Christie seems like an everyman but he's got some views (gun laws) that don't jibe with the hard core conservatives either.  We'll see what happens.

Thanks for your time & thanks again to all the the men & women in the US Armed Forces.

Moneyball

So I finished reading Michael Lewis' Moneyball, about the Oakland A's and their GM Billy Beane's unorthodox approach to talent evaluating. It was actually recommended to me in 2009 and since the film is coming out I decided I wanted to read the book first (a rarity). I"m not going to write a review of the book and I'm undecided on whether to see the film or not.

Billy Beane was a former "can't miss" baseball prospect in the late 70's. Suffice to say, his playing career never panned out. He would eventually become a scout for the A's, the last team he played for, and work his way to General Manager of the team ins 1998.

The Oakland A's were a powerhouse in the late 80's & early 90's. They went to 3 consecutive World Series but only managed to win 1. Their Series losses in 1988 & 1990 (Dodgers & Reds) were to teams that didn't have the talent the A's did. After the A's lost to the Blue Jays in the 1992 ALCS, the team pretty much fell apart and they won just 68 games in 1993 and wouldn't post another winning season until 1999. Ownership change after the 1995 season forced the A's into becoming a cost conscious organization. Sandy Alderson, Beane's predecessor, then set out to find talented players that the team could afford by using sabermetrics. Long story short, sabermetrics is a more an empirical approach to evaluating baseball talent. It wasn't new but it was seldom (if at all) used. Using this system of talent evaluation along with some great young pitching & some wheeling & dealing, the A's put together a nice run from 2000-2006 (5 playoff appearances & 4 Division titles).By the way, the A's lost in the ALDS 4 years in a row, including the classic series with the Yankees in 2001 (that's the series that Jeter cut off a bad throw from the outfield by running from his shortstop position to the 1st base line in order to grab the ball & throw out Jeremy Giambi at the plate. Easily the most heads up play, probably ever) that saw the Yankees come back from a 2-0 deficit to win the series 3 games to 2.

I applaud the way Oakland went about putting together a winning team with a small budget. They used a different system that went against the time honored baseball tradition of talent evaluation and did well for themselves (although the team hasn't has a winning season since 2006). There have been a lot of critics of Beane & the A's, more so now with the movie coming out. Michael Lewis went out to acknowledge some of the ridiculous criticism in the post script (I read a Kindle edition). It seems to me that a majority of the criticism came from guys who read excerpts from the book but not the entire book (it's not just politicians who jump to conclusions before getting all the facts...it's all of us).

The book kind of comes across as Beane being the smartest guy in baseball but it never states that he invented sabermetrics as critics suggest.  He also comes across almost as if he's some sort of Jedi using the jedi mind trick to take advantage of weak minded GMs. Beane is also not a big believer in the importance of managers either. Art Howe, the manager of the A's from 1996-2002, comes off as lackey who's there only as a calming influence on the players. Draw your own conclusions but Oakland continued to win under Howe's replacement, Ken Macha, while Howe went on to manage the Mets to a 137-186 record in 2003 & 2004. The Mets had a much larger payroll than the A's and had talent but they were lousy.

I've been listening to  Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on the SIRIUS and he's been going off on it. He correctly points out that a big (perhaps even huge) factor in the A's success from 2000-2006 was because of a great, young pitching staff that consisted of Barry Zito, Mark Mulder & Tim Hudson. You can check out their stats on www.baseball-reference.com. Russo pointed out that 2 of the A's big sluggers, Jason Giambi & Miguel Tejada, during their run were "juicing (as was Russo's favortie SF Giant Barry Bonds)." Russo had on Larry Bowa, a former player & manager who's been in baseball since 1970 (he's old guard), who went so far to say that Beane & the likes of the sabermeticians are "ruining the game." I think that's a bit much.

The battle rages on between the small market (A's, Brewers & Royals) v. big market teams (Yankees, Red Sox & Phillies). The book brings up a chart that showed how the A's (lowest payroll) were in 1st place of the AL West while the Rangers (biggest payroll in the division) were in last place. There's a lot that could go wrong with sabermetrics (as well as the traditional methods) but things fell into place during that time and that shouldn't be overlooked. I've always felt that it's not how much a team spends it's who they spend it on. For years George Steinbrenner paid fortunes to big hitters but couldn't win. When the Yankees put that money into pitching then their fortunes changed (1996-2001, 4 World Series Championships, WS appearances in 2001 & 2003). Of course they gave AJ Burnett $85 million and he may not make the post season roster for the 2nd year in a row. In 1999, Peter Angelos (owner of the Baltimore Orioles) signed slugger Albert Belle to huge contract ( 5 years $60+million - big back then especially). Well Belle played only 2 years and the O's were saddled with a massive contract & the team threw it in the tank (of which they are still in).

All in all, it's a crap shoot. Beane, despite the teams lack of success over the last 5 seasons continues to stick to his guns (although there have been a few changes) on his "scientific approach" to evaluating talent. In 2009 he stated, "It's all about evaluating skills and putting a price on them. Thirty years ago, stockbrokers used to buy stock strictly by feel. Let's put it this way: Anyone in the game with a 401(k) has a choice. They can choose a fund manager who manages their retirement by gut instinct, or one who chooses by research and analysis. I know which way I'd choose."

Beane states in the book (as well as the movie) that the team is counting cards and trying to level the field as they say. So sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. The A's and other teams like them are trying to do what they can. Good luck.

Why do athletes say these things?

Gone are the days when I used to care about the Sawks/Yanks rivalry with any real passion (granted I thought it was amazing to see Boston come back from 3-0 to defeat the Yankees). It's still one of the best in baseball (if not the best) but I'm just not into baseball as I was when I was a kid.  Mind you I've had some good times at the ballpark. Most recently at Wrigley Field for the Giants v. Cubs.

While checking out the ESPN New York app on my Android I came across an article about how Yankee catcher Russell Martin, "hates the Red Sox!" My first thought was, "who's Russell Martin?" Then I looked him up, http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/martiru01.shtml. Basically he's a guy who grew up in Canada, drafted by the Dodgers & signed a free agent contract last winter with the Yankees. I'm curious to know how a kid growing up in Ontario learned to hate the Red Sox? If he had signed with the Blue Jays would he still be a Sox hater? 

 Why do pro athletes say stuff like this? It reminds me of when CC Sabathia was a free agent & after the Yankees offered him a contract that dwarfs the GNP of most countries he stated something along the lines that it was always a dream of his to pitch for the Yankees. I'm sure that the money had nothing to do with it. The same goes for Carl Crawford who grew up in Houston & how he was so happy the Sox signed him. It's because these teams throw ungodly sums of money at them and that's it. I'd bet that Sabathia's dream would've been to play for whomever offered him that much.

What I wouldn't give to hear a pro athlete just once say, "you know what I didn't want to sign with so & so but they made me an offer that floored me so I signed on the dotted line." After Carlos Beltran had his great run in 2004 and became a free agent he was courted by a lot of teams. When the Mets got serious it came out the Beltran was hesitant about playing in NYC. We there probably wasn't a much hesitation after a 7 year $100 million contract was dangled in front him. After that I'm sure that he always wanted to play int New York.

We live in a world where it's all about the money. Just admit it. I don't see pro athletes as money grubbing carpetbaggers, it's the owners that pay them (or overpay in some cases) but I'm tired of hearing how much guys want to play for whatever the team that offered them a ton of money.
 

The GOP War on Voting...seriously?

I came across this article in Rolling Stone Magazine, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830. Quite frankly I was setback in slackjawed disbelief. Once again this goes under the category of "this stuff isn't made up." But it makes sense. The GOP ran the show for 8 years, got a taste (or an addiction) of the power & they want it back. In a bad way.

All the historical allegories to Jim Crow are right on the money. It's sad really. The GOP's big soap box is that Obama & the Democrats want to turn the U.S. into a new socialist state. All while trying to take voting rights away from taxpaying citizens. Inconceivable. These guys give the term "sore loser" a new meaning. They seem to be trying to stack the deck for the 2012 election. It isn't bad enough that the GOP seems to drag their feet when trying to come up with solutions to our economic problems (please note that both sides seem to be content with pointing fingers at the other side but the GOP, to me anyway, just appear more stubborn than the rubber backboned Democrats) they have to eliminate voting rights.

The best part about the article is how the GOP is doing this under the guise of going after voter fraud. The stats show that most of the "voter fraud" are results of  people who were not aware of their status. Of course their actions just happened to be aimed at traditionally democratic voters. Thanks for the favor! Aren't there more important issues in these states (Ohio & Wisconsin are mentioned) than worry about trying to eliminate voting rights in order to stack the deck in 2012? The Republican Kansas Governor stated that an actual dead man voted. It turns out that the alleged dead voter was indeed very much alive. Once again these people just make stuff up, I'm certain of it.

According to the article, as early as 1980 this has been a GOP issue. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980, "I don't want everybody to vote, as a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Here's the Wikipedia link to this guy if you want to know more or get the full quote, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich.

The GOP has targeted those long standing perpetrators of "voter fraud" like Rock the Vote &the League of Women Voters. If the GOP gets there way in certain states these organization's members could be arrested. Wasn't there a big stink about 20 years or so ago about countries calling for sanctions against South Africa for not allowing it's Black citizens to vote? Yet here we are watching something similar, yet there isn't really a big stink. Where are the alleged "liberal media" that people like Ann Coulter are always railing against? I read this in Rolling Stone not in the NY Times or saw an expose on CNN or MSNBC. In fact Jesse Ventura mentioned stuff like this in a chapter of his book entitled, American Conspiracy.


In the film, Capitalism: A Love Story, director Michael Moore put together a segment in which some financial institution (that was involved in bringing about the financial meltdown in 2008) was worried that if regular people (i.e. the working class) exercised their voting rights, their running rough shot over Wall Street & netting billions in profits, could come to an end. So they were scared of people voting! Think it's possible that their lobby is throwing  money toward the GOP? It's a safe bet. On a side note, regardless of your personal feelings on Michael Moore, this film is worth watching as it paints a pretty good picture of who was responsible for the recent financial meltdown. It concentrates more on how it affected working class families than the global outreach like the film Inside Story.

As I've said before I'm politically neutral but I do feel that both the Democrats & the GOP serve their own interests. I recently read an old Playboy interview with Jesse Ventura in which he mentioned that when the country was founded, anybody could run for office. You could be a farmer, serve in office then go back to farming. Now it's an occupation. These guys get in office and don't want to leave. Once they get in, they no longer care about solving the problems of the country, they only care about the issues that will get them re-elected. My personal feeling is that a lot of the guys on Capitol Hill have been there too long. These people are no longer in touch with the working class (I say working class because I think that's what most people fall into. We all go to work everyday to raise a family and what not.)

That's it for now. Thanks again to all the men & women serving in the military. Your dedication & sacrifice are well appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Again, you can't make this up

So Republican Presidential candidate and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann made a "joke" about God sending the recent earthquake that struck the east coast as well as Hurricane Irene, http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bachmann-claims-hurricane-earthquake-were-god-messages-politicians-155051199.html.

God sent the earthquake & hurricane as a message? Really? Joke or not it's a dumb thing to say, especially if you're not a comedian. Since the person who said it is a sitting US Congresswoman, then it's really stupid. Unfortunately there probably are people who think that God communicates in this manner ( I don't want to judge but let's face it...they're kooks.)

As impossible as this may sound, Ms. Bachmann has actually gone on record as having communicated with The Lord on a few occasions. According to Bill Maher, Bachmann has stated that (paraphrasing here) God told her to get married & stay with her husband despite the fact that she didn't love him and that God gave her career advice in becoming a lawyer. For the record I haven't checked these facts but quite frankly the mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, etc) and elected politicians seldom fact check so why should I. But it isn't the first time I've heard that.

In addition, Ms Bachmann has a tendency to not always speak the truth when making public statements, http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/statements/. Of the 30 statements sampled on 5 are half true or better. That means that over 80% of her statements are mostly false or worse (including 7 "pants on fire!") President Obama has 318 statements on PolitiFact & by their count he's at 70% half true or better & he only has 4 "pants on fire" quotes for 1.2%. Whereas Bachmann, with only 30 statements, has a "pants on fire" percentage of 23%. On a side note, I don't know where these elected officials get their info. Does someone tell them? or do they just throw it out there?

Over the last 10-12 years it seems like there's been a decline in the "facts" by politicians (what a surprise) and the media. Once again this is nothing new. In the 50's, Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed that there were hundreds of card carrying communists working for the Defense Department. Where did he get the numbers you ask? He made them up.

It seems the worst offenders are the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter & Glenn Back. Quite honestly I don't know who the liberal talking heads are (NPR maybe?) because they aren't able to cause the ruckus that these 3 do. Al Franken used to be that liberal guy but he actually put his money where his mouth was & ran for office. And won! This is off the subject a bit & should be another topic altogether. To be fair, Rush, Ann & Glen are good at what they do. They've all made millions in radio, books & TV. They can all be checked out on politifact.com.

I got a bit off topic there but back to the subject. In June of this year Matt Taibbi, writer for Rolling Stone Magazine delivered this article about Ms. Bachmann, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622. He basically states that Bachmann as nutty as she may appear (follow some of the links in the article and judge for yourself) she is gaining steam. It seems ghastly weird to me that someone running for the POTUS who doesn't know American History, claims to converse with the Almighty and believes in outlandish conspiracy theories has any real chance of getting the GOP nomination. But it's happening! As the title suggests, you can't make this up. Inconceivable!

I'm hoping that reasonable intelligent people will eventually grow tired of Bachmann and her followers  (who must be somewhat intelligent people) will in time wake up & smell the coffee. Bachmann & her husband own a farm and have received farm subsidy checks. So there's a bit of hypocrisy involved considering she's a conservative who's against such things but doesn't mind taking a hand out herself.

It also makes me wonder where Sara Palin fits in. She wants to make a run for POTUS in 2012 (at least that's the impression everyone got when she was McCain's running mate) and she's making all the rounds (stealing Romney's thunder in New Hampshire) but she's made no announcement. She clearly enjoys (and probably wants) the attention but she could feel that 2 crazy women would cancel each other out. Who knows. With any luck it could get interesting.

Thanks as always to the men & women in the Armed Forces for their dedication. Thanks again for your time.

War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

While in Winston-Salem I watched this film in my hotel room. I found it very interesting. It traces the Presidential office's use of force and the media's going along with it from 1964's Gulf of Tonkin Incident, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Norman Solomon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Solomon, wrote the book of the same name in 2005. Solomon traces the history from Viet Nam to the present day.

It's amazing to see how little differences there were between the US entering Viet Nam and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It's interesting because I am a believer that the powers that be seldom learn from history  (subsequently repeating past mistakes) but they're in reality selective historians. They repeat the things that will help their cause and ignore the overall helpful lessons.

LBJ was less than honest about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that led the US into Viet Nam, although Eisenhower was footing 80% of the French bill during the First Idochina War and Kennedy had sent "advisers" and was involved the the South Vietnamese gov't early in his administration (on a side note for those interested in the America's history in Viet Nam read David Halberstam's book, The Best and the Brightest, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest). Much like how President Bush made up the evidence about Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda and WMDs. So it's nothing new, it's all been done before. One could argue that it goes back to the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898, a direct cause of the Spanish-American War. At the time it was believed that the Maine struck a mine and gave us the battle cry, "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!" Several different investigations lead to different disputed conclusions but in 1898 a mine was all that was needed to send the country into war.

In addition to Viet Nam (Nixon gets some blame as well) and Iraq, the film also touches upon President Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983, President Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989, the First Gulf War, President Clinton's use of military action in the Balkans and Somalia, President GW Bush's wars and President Obama's subsequent follow-ups in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the President's from LBJ to the present have blood on their hands. It also touches upon how the mainstream media has gone along in lock step with the various administrations and how the Presidents use (or manipulate) the media to get their point across.

It's interesting note how each President says almost the same thing about how it's "with a heavy heart" that the US needs to use force and how they don't want to do it, yet they all did. Also, the Bush administration wasn't the first administration to call dissenters cowards and unpatriotic, that goes back to Viet Nam. "Cut & Run" also dates back to Viet Nam, again selective history is in place. I thought it was ironic that the "Hawks" turned Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Viet Nam vet and 2 time Purple Heart recipient, into a traitor! Much like Bush managed to turn his Republican opponent for the 2000 Presidential nomination John McCain, a Naval pilot who spent several years in captivity at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton," into a wimp. Bush's people managed to turn John Kerry, another decorated Viet Nam veteran, into a non-patriot during the 2004 Presidential Election.I also found it funny that President Bush killed McCain & Kerry for being "dove-ish" despite the fat that Bush never saw any combat.

I could probably go on for hours but I'm going to cut it short. The film is very eye opening and it will make you think, as probably was it's intention. The film makes another interest point about how civilian casualties have risen steadily, since WWI, and the adminstrations seem to fail to recognize the damage they're causing (US casualties, civilian casualties and the destruction to the areas with civilians). The film gave me the feeling that the politicians who make these decisions are detached from the perils of war. Which is true because Reagan (served in the Army but did not serve overseas in WWII due to nearsightedness, Clinton, GW Bush (served in the "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard) and Obama never saw combat. LBJ served in the Navy and received a Silver Star but his own biographer noted that it was the "the most undeserved" citation in history. GW Bush was a decorated Naval aviator during WWII.

Once again, I am not political (I feel that the Republicans & Democrats as a whole are equally inept and out for their own personal gain) and this film hammers the Republicans, Democrats and mainstream media equally (despite having Sean Penn narrate as his views of President Bush are unflattering to say the least). It blasts MSNBC & Fox News equally and takes no sides other than the side of the facts. I interpreted these facts as not only are politicians untrustworthy (since they're bought & paid for, they're not but that's my opinion) but you can't out too much faith in the mainstream media as well.

In the end I just think it's an interesting thought provoking documentary that is worth seeing. That's why I wanted to bring it to people's attention. Formulate your own conclusions. Once again, thank you to all the men & women in the military for your service and dedication to your country. Thanks for your time.

Don't ya hate it when...

This is a subject that I have strong feelings about. I really dislike it when people sit next to me at an uncrowded bar and/or restaurant. Like some people I enjoy sitting at the bar, or doing the "lean" as taught to me by Leigh Hawkins. When an establishment is crowded, it's every person for themselves in terms of getting a spot and that's understandable. Even if the bar isn't that crowded but there's enough people spread out that if someone wants a seat at the bar they're going to have to sit next to someone, I've been in that situation but when the establishment isn't crowded, that's a different story.

Take this evening for example. So I'm staying in Winston-Salem and I'm sitting at the sushi bar of an Asian Bistro. As I walk in, around 7:15ish, there's maybe 10 people in the place and NO ONE at the sushi bar. At this particular sushi bar there are 8 seats, or so, at the bar and I take the 3rd seat from the right, maybe the 4th but it was close to the middle but not the middle of the sushi bar. I'm enjoying my sashimi/sushi dinner combo when 2 gentlemen come in and plop right down next to me, mind you I was the only one sitting at the sushi bar. In fact one of the guys made the other sit next me as he changed seats at the last minute (I did shower about 45 minutes to my arrival but it was raining when I walked over so maybe I smelled a bit musty.) Now there were at least 2-3 seats to the left of the dude who was originally going to sit next to me but made his friend do it instead.

My 1st thought was, "just gonna sit down right next to me with no one else at the bar? Really?" Now, I didn't let this spoil my dinner and Sapporos. But it got me thinking about some of the other times that this sort of thing happened. Here are the 2 most popular incidents in my life:

* July/August 2007: I was working the Eerie County Fair in Hamburg, NY. We were there for 10 days I think, it might be less but it seemed like forever, and I had actually befriended a a temporary staffer, I rarely have talked to temp staff over the last 7 years much less befriend any of them. So on the last night after we tear down, the staffer and I decide to have a drink at a bar close the the fairgrounds. We're at this small establishment and there are 5 people in the bar; the bartender, another couple, my friend & myself. The other couple seemed to know the bartender and they appeared to have been there awhile. I don't remember the guy's name, he kept to himself, but the woman's name was Patty. Patty was from Canada and had probably been drinking for quite some time. IN addition to engaging us in conversation, Patty felt the need to give us her opinions and regale us with stories. To be honest, I wasn't putting out my normal "please leave me alone & don't talk to me" vibe as I was with someone and wanted to be friendly, as well as to show my new friend that I wasn't a total jerk (which I pretty much am so yeah I was lying to the kid.) But Patty went above and beyond the normal level for polite conversation. She even got in our faces about her marriage or something like that. As I recall the guy she was with may have even apologized for her (as did Patty, several times.) All I was looking for was an enjoyable evening, instead I had to deal with drunk Patty from Canada (I don't hold Canada responsible for Patty's actions. It's one of those things.)

* I cant' remember when this took place exactly but I'm pretty sure it was summertime somewhere between 2004-2006 and the location was the Little Sisters Truck Wash in Bakersfield, CA, my CDL brethren know the spot well. I was getting my truck & trailer washed and decided to wait it out on a bench. Eventually I'm joined by 2 other drivers waiting for their trucks. Then without warning one of the drivers starts talking about his life. He just jumps right in with no small talk leading up to it or nothing, BAM! He just proceeds to tell his life story. After hearing about the death of this guy's relatives, the other driver (leaving me with the talker) gets up and leaves. Without missing a beat, this guy focuses on me and continues (to this day I don't remember if the driver who left even got his truck. I think he just left the truck wash. It was like Airplane when everyone who sat next to Robert Hays committed suicide after hearing his story.) This guy talked about how his family had died off and how he's inherited a lot of land because of it. He even mentioned that he got a settlement from a farming accident that left him near dead and that his wife had left him for whatever reason. I was all alone with this guy. The guys at the truck wash couldn't finish fast enough. I may have made the mistake of encouraging the guy as I nodded and grunted as if I was really interested. It seemed like 6 weeks but I managed to make my escape when the truck was finished.

Suffice to say I believe that the truck stop incident made me more introverted. I told the story to a friend of mine and he said that the poor guy was probably "lonely." I spend a lot of time alone but I pray to the gods on Olympus that I never tell my life story to a total stranger who just happen to sit next to me.

Is it worse to have someone sit next to you, in an uncrowded establishment, and start talking to you or to have people involve you in their lives because they're talking loudly or they're on the phone (the on the phone while at dinner with people is a subject for another time...excuse yourself from the table please!). Tough call. There's always a possibility that the stranger next to you may be interesting or even find you interesting but that's rare. That has happened to me before but it was at a crowded bar so it doesn't really apply (I think we found each other reasonably interesting...maybe).

Maybe it's because I am an introverted jerk that this kind of thing bothers me. After all these guys didn't include me in their conversation, thankfully because they seemed real boring (that's saying something because I'm a card carrying dullard). I think only one of them had anything to eat, he got a few sushi rolls and a Diet Coke while his pal had a few beers.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people out there have had a similar memory about something along these lines as it's not uncommon. That's how it is I guess, I mean how much fun would it be if we got everything we wanted?

Thanks for your time.