One by one, the teams I was rooting for were plucked off, and now I'm left with my two least favorite teams of the original twelve playoff teams: the Eagles and the Patriots. I really don't care about either of them, but it's the Superbowl, so I have to root for someone. But who?
My initial response is the Eagles. They're an NFC team, where most of my favorite teams are, including teams from two cities in which I've lived for several years. And I hate the Patriots. They've already won two Superbowls in the last three years---it's somebody else's turn, don't you think? They broke records for consecutive win streaks. Tom Brady's undefeated in the playoffs. They're just too good! Besides, they beat one of my teams, the Rams! Why root for them?
But the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward rooting for the Patriots, much to the chagrin of some of my friends. First, the Patriots play as a team. There's no superstars, and you don't hear much about cocky players and controversy or any of that stuff (see "Sports: More Honorable Quarterbacks" for more). They're a good solid team both on offense and defense. They are a team.
On the other hand, you have the Eagles. I already don't like Terrell Owens because of his haughtiness and cockiness. Then he got injured. But he's not the only hot shot on the team, apparently. Another wide receiver, Freddie Mitchell, recently made fun of the Patriots secondary, saying he only knew their numbers and not their names. Now that's just kinda playful banter or whatnot. But he also said, "I'm a special player. I'd like to thank my hands for being so good."
What? Where's the character in that? T.O. hasn't been able to show off lately, so Freddie fills in for him. I just can't like players who show off and are prideful and selfish about their talents. I can't. Look how dichotomous these two teams are! The Eagles, with two cocky wide receivers, and the Patriots, a good solid team.
I still have a week to make my decision, but I'm leaning toward New England. And there's not really any reason not to root for them---except the emotional ones---"oh, they beat the Rams" "oh, they're too good." But those aren't real reasons. Those are just excuses. I may actually root for the Patriots this Superbowl. And I never thought I'd be saying that.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
Palestine Politics: Hamas Wins Most Council Seats
The radical Islamist terrorist group Hamas won a majority of political offices in a recent election in the Gaza Strip. So much for Abbas' moderate terrorist-ending plans. He's apparently been negotiating with Hamas, but with this much political power, I simply cannot believe from their history that they have any ulterior motive besides Israel's destruction, or the death of every single Jew. What is Hamas going to do? Are they going to pretend to accept a cease-fire, so they'll have a better position to attack Jews later? Or are they not going to bother keeping their motives secret and keep attacking Israel, since most of them would rather die than make peace with Israel.
It sounds like I'm being stereotyping and close-minded about these guys here, but it's simple historical facts: They're a terrorist groups who has vowed to get rid of Israel and has consistently shown that they want to do so. Why should that change now? We'll have to wait and see how this political power will affect their terrorism against Israel.
(Source: www.latimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
It sounds like I'm being stereotyping and close-minded about these guys here, but it's simple historical facts: They're a terrorist groups who has vowed to get rid of Israel and has consistently shown that they want to do so. Why should that change now? We'll have to wait and see how this political power will affect their terrorism against Israel.
(Source: www.latimes.com)
Edmond the Hun
Current Events: Victory Against Frivolous Lawsuits
Every now and then you hear a crazy story about someone suing somebody over something stupid. Well, it happened again, but fortunately, it came to no avail.
Peer Larson, a junior in Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit (with his dad) against his school for giving him too much math homework over the summer for an honors pre-calculus class. He claimed it gave him an "unfair workload and unnecessary stress." He was also a camp counselor during the summer, and somehow this meant that he had no time to do homework.
Please! He signed up for the course; he knew what he was getting into.
Thankfully, the complaint was declared "unmeritorious." Not only will they not get any money; they may be ordered to pay the lawyers' fees for all the unmeritorious mess they've caused.
Thank you very much, attorney general, whatever your name is! Let this decision ring from the rooftops all across the nation! If people realize that they might not only receive no money for a frivolous lawsuit, but that there's a possibility that they could lose money for a frivolous lawsuit, then perhaps people will stop pretending to be stupid just to make some money. And the world will be a safer place.
(Sources: www.wlbt.com; www.freep.com)
Edmond the Hun
Peer Larson, a junior in Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit (with his dad) against his school for giving him too much math homework over the summer for an honors pre-calculus class. He claimed it gave him an "unfair workload and unnecessary stress." He was also a camp counselor during the summer, and somehow this meant that he had no time to do homework.
Please! He signed up for the course; he knew what he was getting into.
Thankfully, the complaint was declared "unmeritorious." Not only will they not get any money; they may be ordered to pay the lawyers' fees for all the unmeritorious mess they've caused.
Thank you very much, attorney general, whatever your name is! Let this decision ring from the rooftops all across the nation! If people realize that they might not only receive no money for a frivolous lawsuit, but that there's a possibility that they could lose money for a frivolous lawsuit, then perhaps people will stop pretending to be stupid just to make some money. And the world will be a safer place.
(Sources: www.wlbt.com; www.freep.com)
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Defending the Teaching of Intelligent Design
A Pennsylvania school is in an uproar because a couple paragraphs of a textbook said that evolution was not the only theory out there, that there are others including intelligent design, which says that the universe is too complex for chance and implies an intelligent designer. It didn't promote Christianity or creationism; it didn't even teach the finer points of ID. It merely said that other such theories exist, and made the students aware of one of them. But several parents have filed complaints with civil-liberties unions (of course) saying they don't want their kids exposed to it and all that rubbish. Somebody set a trial date for September 26, which I think is ludicrously late---what's going to happen during the rest of this school year?
Anyway, why all the fuss? While many scientists believe that evolution is strongly backed by scientific facts, experiments, and discoveries, it has 1) never been proven, and there are 2) other credible theories out there, including Intelligent Design. But I'm not going to argue the validity of Intelligent Design, although I certainly could. What's a bigger issue is the mere fact that people don't even want it to be taught.
They base their argument on the constitutionality of separation of church and state. Once again, they show their ignorance of the important document. What the consitution really says is that Congress can't make any laws respecting a religion or prohibiting the exercise of one. Congress making laws isn't even remotely related to things being taught in public schools. So the separation of church and state is invalid here.
Why are these people so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught---not even taught, but being merely alluded to!---in a public school? Is there something wrong with telling students to have open minds, to realize that evolution is not the only theory out there? Someone, anyone---give me one good reason why only one theory regarding something should be extensively taught in textbooks, with no mention at all to any other theories, despite their existence? It's completely irrational. It's the liberal double standard of crying out for tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
But most of all, it's the fear of God. The only reason they're being irrational about teaching alternate theories is because there's an indirect implication of God in Intelligent Design, and these people want to take God out of everything and anything that he is still in. That is their only agenda. Disagree? Then give me a logical reason why one should be close-minded and not look at more than one side of an issue! There is none. Their irrationality exposes their secular agenda.
And don't give me the rubbish that evolution has never been disproven and is strongly supported by science and all that. That's merely what evolutionists say. Scientists who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there are problems that evolution cannot and does not explain, and that their theory is strongly supported by science. They both believe they're right. So why let one side be the only voice that's heard in public schools? If this irrationality continues, it will be the death of America.
Edmond the Hun
Anyway, why all the fuss? While many scientists believe that evolution is strongly backed by scientific facts, experiments, and discoveries, it has 1) never been proven, and there are 2) other credible theories out there, including Intelligent Design. But I'm not going to argue the validity of Intelligent Design, although I certainly could. What's a bigger issue is the mere fact that people don't even want it to be taught.
They base their argument on the constitutionality of separation of church and state. Once again, they show their ignorance of the important document. What the consitution really says is that Congress can't make any laws respecting a religion or prohibiting the exercise of one. Congress making laws isn't even remotely related to things being taught in public schools. So the separation of church and state is invalid here.
Why are these people so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught---not even taught, but being merely alluded to!---in a public school? Is there something wrong with telling students to have open minds, to realize that evolution is not the only theory out there? Someone, anyone---give me one good reason why only one theory regarding something should be extensively taught in textbooks, with no mention at all to any other theories, despite their existence? It's completely irrational. It's the liberal double standard of crying out for tolerance while being intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
But most of all, it's the fear of God. The only reason they're being irrational about teaching alternate theories is because there's an indirect implication of God in Intelligent Design, and these people want to take God out of everything and anything that he is still in. That is their only agenda. Disagree? Then give me a logical reason why one should be close-minded and not look at more than one side of an issue! There is none. Their irrationality exposes their secular agenda.
And don't give me the rubbish that evolution has never been disproven and is strongly supported by science and all that. That's merely what evolutionists say. Scientists who believe in Intelligent Design believe that there are problems that evolution cannot and does not explain, and that their theory is strongly supported by science. They both believe they're right. So why let one side be the only voice that's heard in public schools? If this irrationality continues, it will be the death of America.
Edmond the Hun
Sports: More Honorable Quarterbacks
Well, guess what? Peyton Manning isn't the only humble AFC quarterback. And since the Colts got shot down and kicked out of the playoffs, let's look at Doors number 2 and 3.
First, door number 2: The Patriot's Tom Brady. He's famous. After all, he's won two Super Bowls. But he doesn't seem to be haughty about it. Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi says "Tom is a guy that wants to work. Tom knows that he can't win a game all by himself. Tom says, "You go out, you put the work in like everybody else. You hold yourself accountable. You gain respect from your teammates by working hard, and preparing, and not asking anything more of them than you would ask of yourself." Kudos for humble Tom, even if I'm sick of the Patriots winning.
And door number 3: The Steeler's Ben Roethlisberger. I was already impressed with his external accomplishments---while his numbers aren't spectacular, he was undefeated in all 13 games he played in the regular season, including two against the stellar teams of Philadelphia and New England. And he's a rookie. No rookie quarterback has ever led their team to the Super Bowl. And compared to teams like the Patriots, who have already won two in recent years, or the Eagles, going to their fourth straight championship game, along with their cocky receiver Terrell Owens... well, Ben's a likable guy. You want to root for the underdog rookie who's doing pretty good.
But besides all that, he's apparently a cool humble guy, too. Dolphins coach Nick Saban recently released a book which includes an anecdote about Roethlisberger that is very revealing about his character. Saban used to coach the college football team at LSU, and when they beat Ben's team in 2002, Ben e-mailed Saban, saying that LSU was the best team that he had ever played. He also said that LSU "had the most class of any team that I have ever played against in high school or college, and I commend you for that. Many of the players, including your big-name players, came up to me after the game and congratulated me and told us good luck and have a safe trip home." Isn't that nice? Ben's not a sore loser.
I don't know if Ben and Brady's off-the-field behavior is as worthy as their football-related comments and behavior, but from what I have heard about them, they seem like cool likable guys. And when you juxtapose them with NFC players like Moss and Owens, well, it's pretty obvious who has more character. So, yay for AFC QBs.
Edmond the Hun
First, door number 2: The Patriot's Tom Brady. He's famous. After all, he's won two Super Bowls. But he doesn't seem to be haughty about it. Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi says "Tom is a guy that wants to work. Tom knows that he can't win a game all by himself. Tom says, "You go out, you put the work in like everybody else. You hold yourself accountable. You gain respect from your teammates by working hard, and preparing, and not asking anything more of them than you would ask of yourself." Kudos for humble Tom, even if I'm sick of the Patriots winning.
And door number 3: The Steeler's Ben Roethlisberger. I was already impressed with his external accomplishments---while his numbers aren't spectacular, he was undefeated in all 13 games he played in the regular season, including two against the stellar teams of Philadelphia and New England. And he's a rookie. No rookie quarterback has ever led their team to the Super Bowl. And compared to teams like the Patriots, who have already won two in recent years, or the Eagles, going to their fourth straight championship game, along with their cocky receiver Terrell Owens... well, Ben's a likable guy. You want to root for the underdog rookie who's doing pretty good.
But besides all that, he's apparently a cool humble guy, too. Dolphins coach Nick Saban recently released a book which includes an anecdote about Roethlisberger that is very revealing about his character. Saban used to coach the college football team at LSU, and when they beat Ben's team in 2002, Ben e-mailed Saban, saying that LSU was the best team that he had ever played. He also said that LSU "had the most class of any team that I have ever played against in high school or college, and I commend you for that. Many of the players, including your big-name players, came up to me after the game and congratulated me and told us good luck and have a safe trip home." Isn't that nice? Ben's not a sore loser.
I don't know if Ben and Brady's off-the-field behavior is as worthy as their football-related comments and behavior, but from what I have heard about them, they seem like cool likable guys. And when you juxtapose them with NFC players like Moss and Owens, well, it's pretty obvious who has more character. So, yay for AFC QBs.
Edmond the Hun
Friday, January 21, 2005
Letters to the Scribbler
"is the war/ongoing skirmishes between Israel and Palestine a result of Ishmael and Isaac from the Bible? cuz if it is, i thought it was prophecied to never ever be resolved or something. and if that's right. . .is there any reasonable hope that peace can be made, or is it "fated" to go on forever? (i.e. can we change, not history, but um the future or whatever) just some questions that popped up. -Sanguine"
This is a very good question by my good friend Sanguine. I must confess I am not an expert on Abraham's kids and related prophecies. I do know that all Jews are descendants of Isaac, and I believe all Arabs are descendants of Ishmael. At the very least, I haven't even heard claims to the contrary, and I seem to recall reading or hearing that even Muslims believe they are descendants of Abraham and Ishmael.
Gen 16:12 says, regarding Ishmael, that "he shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him." This doesn't necessarily or specifically claim that he shall be at war with Isaac, or that it will last forever, or that it even applies to his descendants at all. However, that's just one verse I found, and there could be more. Quite frankly, I don't know.
Whether or not there are prophecies regarding Israel and Palestine's enduring conflict, I do know that there are far too many Muslims/Arabs who absolutely hate all Jews and want to kill them all. Abbas is trying to work out a deal with the radical Hamas group, but I'm skeptical as to it actually happening. Pragmatically, I don't expect fighting to end until the Antichrist comes and finds a devilish way to appease all the Jew-haters.
But even if peace will never come, we can still try to get peace to come, or at least try to minimize the loss of life and make things as good as they can get, however good that is. Even if it's "fated" to go on forever, that doesn't mean we should give up on them.
Hope that helps. Any insight from a Jewish or Christian scholar who randomly finds and reads this blog would be most welcome.
Edmond the Hun
This is a very good question by my good friend Sanguine. I must confess I am not an expert on Abraham's kids and related prophecies. I do know that all Jews are descendants of Isaac, and I believe all Arabs are descendants of Ishmael. At the very least, I haven't even heard claims to the contrary, and I seem to recall reading or hearing that even Muslims believe they are descendants of Abraham and Ishmael.
Gen 16:12 says, regarding Ishmael, that "he shall be a wild man; His hand shall be against every man, And every man's hand against him." This doesn't necessarily or specifically claim that he shall be at war with Isaac, or that it will last forever, or that it even applies to his descendants at all. However, that's just one verse I found, and there could be more. Quite frankly, I don't know.
Whether or not there are prophecies regarding Israel and Palestine's enduring conflict, I do know that there are far too many Muslims/Arabs who absolutely hate all Jews and want to kill them all. Abbas is trying to work out a deal with the radical Hamas group, but I'm skeptical as to it actually happening. Pragmatically, I don't expect fighting to end until the Antichrist comes and finds a devilish way to appease all the Jew-haters.
But even if peace will never come, we can still try to get peace to come, or at least try to minimize the loss of life and make things as good as they can get, however good that is. Even if it's "fated" to go on forever, that doesn't mean we should give up on them.
Hope that helps. Any insight from a Jewish or Christian scholar who randomly finds and reads this blog would be most welcome.
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Middle East: Palestine Terrorism Angers Israel
(What's New?)
First off, I'm wondering why this article got stuck in the back of the news section of the Post Dispatch. But that's irrelevant.
As you all know, or should know, some guy named Abbas won the Palestinian elections, and he says he'll stop terrorism and violence against Israel in order to get Palestinians the statehood that they all want. The problem is, there's still racist radicals who still want to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth.
There was apparently some talking going on, or talk about some talking, or, well, some kind of communication that was or might be happening between Abbas and Sharon, Israel's prime minister. But that all stopped after some Palestinian terrorists killed six Israelis. Sharon says Abbas must halt militant attacks if he wants peace talks. Good luck, Abbas.
It's interesting that the paper reports the death of six "Israelis." Not militants, or soldiers, just "Israelis." I think I can infer that means "civilians." So why don't they say civilians? Why does everyone want Israel to look so bad and Palestine to look so good? They just killed six more innocent civilians! Whenever Israel kills something, the news blurbs always say "Israelis kill two Palestinian militants" or something like that. Militants. Soliders. The Israelis try hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians all the time and don't care. Alan Dershowitz has clearly pointed that out in his book The Case For Israel, which is an amazing book on the truth behind Israel and Palestine and the incredible international media bias against Israel. And the everyday news headlines only confirms that fact.
But let's forget about the media bias for a second, because that's not going to change, unless everyone reads Dershowitz's book. (Yes, I'm plugging that book. I never plug things on my blog. So here's one thing I'm plugging. You should all go read it. Now.) Let's try to focus on the big question: Is there any hope for peace between Israel and Palestine? The obvious answer: not as long as there's still the racist radicals who hate every single Jew and want to kill them all.
Former Palestine leader Arafat turned down a peace compromise with former Israeli leader Barak in 2000. Dershowitz says that it's because "major terrorist groups... oppose the existence of Israel... they have pledged to continue terrorism against Israel's Jews until all of Palestine is liberated and not one inch of it is under Jewish control... The real reason why Arafat turned down Barak's offer is that he was afraid to make peace with Israel... He knew that radical Islamic groups...would regard anyone who accepted it as a traitor, deserving the death that had been meted out to so many others...who had previously accepted Israel's right to exist."
Even if Abbas's motives are completely pure, which I don't necessarily believe anyway, he's never going to be able to create a compromise as long as these terrorist groups still exist. They're going to keep attacking Israel regardless, and if he tries to make peace with Israel, they'll probably try to kill him.
This has always been true, but now it's coming to a head, because Israel has said they won't talk anymore unless Abbas can stop them. Can Abbas stop them? Will he try to stop them? Does he want to stop them? Only when these questions are answered can the "big question" of peace be answered. Call me pragmatic, but it's not happening any time soon.
Edmond the Hun
First off, I'm wondering why this article got stuck in the back of the news section of the Post Dispatch. But that's irrelevant.
As you all know, or should know, some guy named Abbas won the Palestinian elections, and he says he'll stop terrorism and violence against Israel in order to get Palestinians the statehood that they all want. The problem is, there's still racist radicals who still want to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth.
There was apparently some talking going on, or talk about some talking, or, well, some kind of communication that was or might be happening between Abbas and Sharon, Israel's prime minister. But that all stopped after some Palestinian terrorists killed six Israelis. Sharon says Abbas must halt militant attacks if he wants peace talks. Good luck, Abbas.
It's interesting that the paper reports the death of six "Israelis." Not militants, or soldiers, just "Israelis." I think I can infer that means "civilians." So why don't they say civilians? Why does everyone want Israel to look so bad and Palestine to look so good? They just killed six more innocent civilians! Whenever Israel kills something, the news blurbs always say "Israelis kill two Palestinian militants" or something like that. Militants. Soliders. The Israelis try hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians all the time and don't care. Alan Dershowitz has clearly pointed that out in his book The Case For Israel, which is an amazing book on the truth behind Israel and Palestine and the incredible international media bias against Israel. And the everyday news headlines only confirms that fact.
But let's forget about the media bias for a second, because that's not going to change, unless everyone reads Dershowitz's book. (Yes, I'm plugging that book. I never plug things on my blog. So here's one thing I'm plugging. You should all go read it. Now.) Let's try to focus on the big question: Is there any hope for peace between Israel and Palestine? The obvious answer: not as long as there's still the racist radicals who hate every single Jew and want to kill them all.
Former Palestine leader Arafat turned down a peace compromise with former Israeli leader Barak in 2000. Dershowitz says that it's because "major terrorist groups... oppose the existence of Israel... they have pledged to continue terrorism against Israel's Jews until all of Palestine is liberated and not one inch of it is under Jewish control... The real reason why Arafat turned down Barak's offer is that he was afraid to make peace with Israel... He knew that radical Islamic groups...would regard anyone who accepted it as a traitor, deserving the death that had been meted out to so many others...who had previously accepted Israel's right to exist."
Even if Abbas's motives are completely pure, which I don't necessarily believe anyway, he's never going to be able to create a compromise as long as these terrorist groups still exist. They're going to keep attacking Israel regardless, and if he tries to make peace with Israel, they'll probably try to kill him.
This has always been true, but now it's coming to a head, because Israel has said they won't talk anymore unless Abbas can stop them. Can Abbas stop them? Will he try to stop them? Does he want to stop them? Only when these questions are answered can the "big question" of peace be answered. Call me pragmatic, but it's not happening any time soon.
Edmond the Hun
Update on Immature Mooning Moss
I criticized Moss earlier this week for his butt-shaking / fake-mooning antic at the Vikings-Packers playoff game Sunday. Since then, two things have come to light. One slightly (but ever so slightly) vindicates him, and another convicts him beyond all doubt.
First, it became known that it is a tradition in Green Bay for some of the fans to really moon the opposing team's bus after a win. So, one might argue, all Moss was doing was paying the fans back for what they do to everyone else---including him, one might infer, since the Packers beat the Vikings at home this year. At the very least, is sheds some light on why he did what he did---it wasn't just a completely random antic. However, even that fact alone does not completely vindicate him, because 1) it is not all the fans who participate in that event, and I'm sure many of them would be and/or are disgusted at the fans that do that. 2) Those fans, as despicable and lowly as they are, are not doing it on national television. So, even with that fact alone, Moss is still guilty of being rude and inappropriate.
But don't worry, there's more. Moss was fined $10,000 by the NFL for the act, and guess what his reponse was. Repentant? Ashamed? Sorry? Nah. I doubt those words are even in Moss's vocabulary. Here's what Moss had to say about the antic and the ensuing fine: "It ain't nothing but 10 grand. What's 10 grand to me? What's 10 grand if you're rich?" Not only is Moss not even sorry, but he's an angry little brat who doesn't even care---because it's not costing him anything! He's allegedly planning to do something else in tomorrow's game, whatever that might be.
Moss is really getting on my nerves. He's such a great skilled and talented athlete, and he'll probably be in the Hall of Fame someday. But he's got the maturity of a five year old! He's losing the respect of anyone who ever had his respect before. Randy Moss, you won't ever find this blog any more than the president would, but I'm gonna say it again: Will you please grow up?
And what makes things worse is that he's just as bad as the Eagles' Terrell Owens. The only reasons Moss has been getting more spotlight lately is because Owens is injured and the Eagles had a first-round bye, so there hasn't been much chance for antics lately. And Owens's antics are more of a cocky look-at-me I'm-better-than-you nature, where as Moss's antics are more of a nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo I-don't-care-about-anyone nature. They're both immature. And the unfortunate thing is that one of their teams is by default going to win tomorrow and have a shot at the Super Bowl.
If anyone deserves to make it, it's Peyton Manning.
Edmond the Hun
First, it became known that it is a tradition in Green Bay for some of the fans to really moon the opposing team's bus after a win. So, one might argue, all Moss was doing was paying the fans back for what they do to everyone else---including him, one might infer, since the Packers beat the Vikings at home this year. At the very least, is sheds some light on why he did what he did---it wasn't just a completely random antic. However, even that fact alone does not completely vindicate him, because 1) it is not all the fans who participate in that event, and I'm sure many of them would be and/or are disgusted at the fans that do that. 2) Those fans, as despicable and lowly as they are, are not doing it on national television. So, even with that fact alone, Moss is still guilty of being rude and inappropriate.
But don't worry, there's more. Moss was fined $10,000 by the NFL for the act, and guess what his reponse was. Repentant? Ashamed? Sorry? Nah. I doubt those words are even in Moss's vocabulary. Here's what Moss had to say about the antic and the ensuing fine: "It ain't nothing but 10 grand. What's 10 grand to me? What's 10 grand if you're rich?" Not only is Moss not even sorry, but he's an angry little brat who doesn't even care---because it's not costing him anything! He's allegedly planning to do something else in tomorrow's game, whatever that might be.
Moss is really getting on my nerves. He's such a great skilled and talented athlete, and he'll probably be in the Hall of Fame someday. But he's got the maturity of a five year old! He's losing the respect of anyone who ever had his respect before. Randy Moss, you won't ever find this blog any more than the president would, but I'm gonna say it again: Will you please grow up?
And what makes things worse is that he's just as bad as the Eagles' Terrell Owens. The only reasons Moss has been getting more spotlight lately is because Owens is injured and the Eagles had a first-round bye, so there hasn't been much chance for antics lately. And Owens's antics are more of a cocky look-at-me I'm-better-than-you nature, where as Moss's antics are more of a nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo I-don't-care-about-anyone nature. They're both immature. And the unfortunate thing is that one of their teams is by default going to win tomorrow and have a shot at the Super Bowl.
If anyone deserves to make it, it's Peyton Manning.
Edmond the Hun
Monday, January 10, 2005
Sports: Moss Misses Maturity
Or, Will the Real Randy Moss Please Grow Up?
The Vikings pulled a surprise upset over the Packers in the NFC wild card game yesterday. Randy Moss caught two touchdown passes. But that wasn't the only kind of upsetting that he did.
In Randy's first couple years in the NFL, he showed a severe lacking in maturity. And I'm not talking your silly simple dance-in-the-end-zone kind of immaturity. I'm talking things like squirting Gatorade at referees. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he ran into someone with his car, too) He was a very good player, but he wasn't the humblest and most likable guy.
Well, we thought maybe there was a chance he was starting to grow up. He had talked about being a leader. He seemed more content when they were winning games, even if he didn't get the ball as much as he may have liked. He didn't squrit any more referees. Maturity?
Not a chance.
In the last regular season game, Moss left the field with two seconds left in the Vikings loss to the lowly Redskins. It's not like they had a chance at pulling off a win anyway, but the point is, he left an ugly, apathetic, resigned image by walking off the field. Everyone made a big deal about it. And he didn't care. In an interview he said something like, "It's what I felt like doing, and I'd do it again." (not an exact quote)
Then in this game against the Packers, after Moss scored his second touchdown, he shook his butt at the crowd and pretended to pull down his pants. Commentator Joe Buck made a big deal out of it, calling it "classless" and a "disgusting act." Granted, it wasn't that big of a deal, especially compared to some football-related antics in recent history, if you know what I mean. But this isn't the kind of thing that we should have to see professional football players doing. Moss said, "I was just very enthused and that's what I felt like doing." (exact quote)
I'm sorry, Randy, but when you're a professional football player in the national football league, with as much talent as you have, with people looking up to you, you're a role model and a leader for people whether you like it or not. You're not entitled to do "whatever you feel like doing." I don't care how good he is. I don't care that he plays for my favorite sports team in the whole wide world. Because of the high position he has earned, he has an obligation to show maturity and be a postive role model.
The number one thing that stops me from liking professional sports players is a prideful, selfish attitude of one's talent (That's why I can't like Terrell Owens). Close behind at number two---immaturity.
There's a reason it's called professional sports. I like the Vikings, Randy, but I just can't like you. Will you please grow up?
Edmond the Hun
The Vikings pulled a surprise upset over the Packers in the NFC wild card game yesterday. Randy Moss caught two touchdown passes. But that wasn't the only kind of upsetting that he did.
In Randy's first couple years in the NFL, he showed a severe lacking in maturity. And I'm not talking your silly simple dance-in-the-end-zone kind of immaturity. I'm talking things like squirting Gatorade at referees. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he ran into someone with his car, too) He was a very good player, but he wasn't the humblest and most likable guy.
Well, we thought maybe there was a chance he was starting to grow up. He had talked about being a leader. He seemed more content when they were winning games, even if he didn't get the ball as much as he may have liked. He didn't squrit any more referees. Maturity?
Not a chance.
In the last regular season game, Moss left the field with two seconds left in the Vikings loss to the lowly Redskins. It's not like they had a chance at pulling off a win anyway, but the point is, he left an ugly, apathetic, resigned image by walking off the field. Everyone made a big deal about it. And he didn't care. In an interview he said something like, "It's what I felt like doing, and I'd do it again." (not an exact quote)
Then in this game against the Packers, after Moss scored his second touchdown, he shook his butt at the crowd and pretended to pull down his pants. Commentator Joe Buck made a big deal out of it, calling it "classless" and a "disgusting act." Granted, it wasn't that big of a deal, especially compared to some football-related antics in recent history, if you know what I mean. But this isn't the kind of thing that we should have to see professional football players doing. Moss said, "I was just very enthused and that's what I felt like doing." (exact quote)
I'm sorry, Randy, but when you're a professional football player in the national football league, with as much talent as you have, with people looking up to you, you're a role model and a leader for people whether you like it or not. You're not entitled to do "whatever you feel like doing." I don't care how good he is. I don't care that he plays for my favorite sports team in the whole wide world. Because of the high position he has earned, he has an obligation to show maturity and be a postive role model.
The number one thing that stops me from liking professional sports players is a prideful, selfish attitude of one's talent (That's why I can't like Terrell Owens). Close behind at number two---immaturity.
There's a reason it's called professional sports. I like the Vikings, Randy, but I just can't like you. Will you please grow up?
Edmond the Hun
War In Iraq: Blog Censorship
Michael Cohen is an Army surgeon serving in Iraq. He had a blog where he would recount day-to-day stories about the war and people in the war doing heroic things. Well, the Army ordered him to close it down. They said, "Sometimes a blog might contain subtle nuances from which you can put together a complete picture of our operations, which insurgents can use to attack us."
There has to be more to this. Liberals aren't giving it the usual spin of "He's telling the truth that the war is bad, and the conservative nuts in power don't want people to know that, so they try to hide all the truth that the war is bad and just give you lies." No, they're just giving it the basic "free speech vs. censorship" spin. From the blog clips Kevin Horrigan pasted in the newspaper, there was no anti-war tone to Cohen's writing - it was just simple stories of what he and others were doing in Iraq. And I don't know that I could have done anything with them if I was an insurgent.
It is certainly possible that current information about the war released to the public could be dangerous. But he's not reporting plans. He's telling about things that have already happened! Does the Army really view this as a potential hindrance? How so? But why else would they shut it down?
I'm not ready to give a verdict, especially since I've only heard the story from an editorial viewpoint of a liberal, and liberals tend to be anti-censorship in general. However, from what I can tell, this seems to be an improper infringement on free speech. If nothing else, maybe they can work out a compromise. Perhaps the Army can screen his posts before he posts them to make sure there's no dangerous informational content in them. Or maybe he can write them down and publish them as a book of sorts when he's done serving.
Is this blog shutdown a crime against free speech? Or is the Army just not wanting to take any chances? Hopefully I can dig around and shed some more light.
Edmond the Hun
There has to be more to this. Liberals aren't giving it the usual spin of "He's telling the truth that the war is bad, and the conservative nuts in power don't want people to know that, so they try to hide all the truth that the war is bad and just give you lies." No, they're just giving it the basic "free speech vs. censorship" spin. From the blog clips Kevin Horrigan pasted in the newspaper, there was no anti-war tone to Cohen's writing - it was just simple stories of what he and others were doing in Iraq. And I don't know that I could have done anything with them if I was an insurgent.
It is certainly possible that current information about the war released to the public could be dangerous. But he's not reporting plans. He's telling about things that have already happened! Does the Army really view this as a potential hindrance? How so? But why else would they shut it down?
I'm not ready to give a verdict, especially since I've only heard the story from an editorial viewpoint of a liberal, and liberals tend to be anti-censorship in general. However, from what I can tell, this seems to be an improper infringement on free speech. If nothing else, maybe they can work out a compromise. Perhaps the Army can screen his posts before he posts them to make sure there's no dangerous informational content in them. Or maybe he can write them down and publish them as a book of sorts when he's done serving.
Is this blog shutdown a crime against free speech? Or is the Army just not wanting to take any chances? Hopefully I can dig around and shed some more light.
Edmond the Hun
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Palestine Politics: Abbas Wins Election
Abbas won the presidency for Palestinians by a wide margin. He says he wants to stop terrorism against Israel. Appraently, a majority of Palestinians do too. But there's a lot still in the unknown. Does Abbas really mean that, or is that just rhetoric to increase popularity? Even if Abbas wants to stop terrorism, will the militant radical groups such as Hamas stop just because he's the leader and he wants them to? Will groups such as Hamas try to assassinate Abbas if he gets in their way (that is not unprecedented in Palestinian political history)? Will Palestinians come any closer to getting any land? We'll have to wait and see.
Edmond the Hun
Edmond the Hun
It's An Oddball World 5: Fat Man Loses Weight
Patrick Deuel once weighed 1,072 pounds. For the last several months, he couldn't even get out of bed. He was dying of heart failure. So they took him to the hospital, and he underwent several treatments. Now he's down to 610 pounds. He can even walk around a little bit now! The before and after pictures for this guy are amazing! He was disgustingly fat before, now he's only fat. I'm just amazed at how fat this guy got! He hopes to get down to 240 pounds. Hopefully he's learned his lesson about being a lazy glutton.
(Source: www.foxnews.com)
Edmond the Hun
(Source: www.foxnews.com)
Edmond the Hun
Correction (Regarding the Failed Jump)
Apparently I need to clarify a few things regarding the 18-year-old who couldn't jump two-and-a-half feet (See "It's an Oddball World 4: Cranially Challenged Teen" - January 3, 2005). First, I think I implied that he got immediately stuck, but I think the article said he fell several stories. So it's possible that the hole he got stuck in wasn't two-and-a-half feet wide.
Secondly, an anonymous commenter asked "does jumping ability have anything to do with intelligence?" Not directly, but indirectly. To exaggerate the point: Whether or not I can jump over a chasm of 20 feet has nothing to do with my intelligence. But whether or not I try to jump 20 feet has a lot to do with my intelligence. If this guy couldn't jump two and a half feet, the fact that he tried says a lot about his intelligence. Does that make more sense?
Edmond the Hun
Secondly, an anonymous commenter asked "does jumping ability have anything to do with intelligence?" Not directly, but indirectly. To exaggerate the point: Whether or not I can jump over a chasm of 20 feet has nothing to do with my intelligence. But whether or not I try to jump 20 feet has a lot to do with my intelligence. If this guy couldn't jump two and a half feet, the fact that he tried says a lot about his intelligence. Does that make more sense?
Edmond the Hun
Monday, January 03, 2005
Current Events: Tsunami Aid & Iraq
Inevitably, right after I criticize the American government for being stingy, President Bush ups the pledge ten-fold to $350 million. Alright, good job, that's even over a buck a person. Although I didn't hear any news about the raise happening because Congress passed an official resolution or anything. Maybe I don't have enough facts. But it sounded like just another spontaneous number. So why couldn't he have said that in the first place? At any rate, I congratulate our government for finally starting to show some muscle in this ordeal.
Since last time I commended the world and criticized the government, and now that I've commended the government, it's time to criticize the world. Why is everyone (excluding a few ubiquitously magnanimous countries like Britian) so eager to give money for aid to tsunami victims, but they cry out that the war in Iraq is a waste of time? Hello, world! What are we doing in Asia? Helping innocent civilians who have become victims, enabling them to survive and live a better life. Right? Well, what is the US doing in Iraq? Could it be... helping innocent civilians who have become victims, enabling them to survive and live a better life? No way---they're almost identical! Gasp! So why is the rest of the world so dichotomous? (sorry 'bout the big words ~ it happens when I get upset)
Maybe it's because giving money to help Asian victims doesn't take much of a sacrifice. Microsoft donated $5 million? So what? They're worth billions---what does that cost them? People from countries all over are shelling out money, but I bet the average is only a few bucks a person, and only wealthy people are giving the bigger chunks, which is proportionally no sacrifice for them. On the other hand, helping Iraqi victims does take a lot of sacrifice. Many have to give their life. And that's not quite as popular.
There's a reason why people are so much more eager to help Asian victims than Iraqi victims. There's a reason why there's a huge coordinated effort for aid to Asia, while Bush can barely keep a coalition together for Iraq. There's a reason for this double standard. What is that reason?
No one wants to sacrifice.
Edmond the Hun
Since last time I commended the world and criticized the government, and now that I've commended the government, it's time to criticize the world. Why is everyone (excluding a few ubiquitously magnanimous countries like Britian) so eager to give money for aid to tsunami victims, but they cry out that the war in Iraq is a waste of time? Hello, world! What are we doing in Asia? Helping innocent civilians who have become victims, enabling them to survive and live a better life. Right? Well, what is the US doing in Iraq? Could it be... helping innocent civilians who have become victims, enabling them to survive and live a better life? No way---they're almost identical! Gasp! So why is the rest of the world so dichotomous? (sorry 'bout the big words ~ it happens when I get upset)
Maybe it's because giving money to help Asian victims doesn't take much of a sacrifice. Microsoft donated $5 million? So what? They're worth billions---what does that cost them? People from countries all over are shelling out money, but I bet the average is only a few bucks a person, and only wealthy people are giving the bigger chunks, which is proportionally no sacrifice for them. On the other hand, helping Iraqi victims does take a lot of sacrifice. Many have to give their life. And that's not quite as popular.
There's a reason why people are so much more eager to help Asian victims than Iraqi victims. There's a reason why there's a huge coordinated effort for aid to Asia, while Bush can barely keep a coalition together for Iraq. There's a reason for this double standard. What is that reason?
No one wants to sacrifice.
Edmond the Hun
It's An Oddball World 4: Cranially Challenged Teen
Just when you think there might be hope for our generation, someone comes along and does something stupid. 18-year-old Timothy Bargfrede and a friend realized they were in the wrong parking garage, so they just figured they'd jump from one to the other. The St. Louis Post Dispatch said it was about a two and a half foot leap. The friend jumped across fine, but poor Timothy couldn't make it, and he got stuck. Police had to cut him out and stuff.
A two and a half foot leap? That's not even a yard! And this guy couldn't make it? I can jump over six feet from a standing point, and over a dozen from a running start. Yeah, Edmond, you might say, but you're kind of athletic. True. But still... two and a half feet? How could you NOT be able to make it? Maybe this guy's really obese. Maybe he was tired. Maybe he was drunk. I don't know. But surely any teenager can jump a simple two and a half feet! And if he couldn't... don't you think he would know he couldn't and he wouldn't even try?
I don't like calling people stupid. I really don't. It's kinda rude. But this guy's really pushing the definition of "stupid." And the sad thing is I know he's not the only cranially challenged teenager out there, either. It's these people who will be running the country in a few years. Should I be scared? Or are there enough smart rational somewhat intelligent teenagers out there who can jump more than two and a half feet?
(Sources: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/1/2005, seattlepi.nwsource.com)
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)