Oprah Winfrey is refusing to have Gov. Sarah Palin on her program. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. I do wish, however, that Oprah would just admit the reason for this decision. Oprah is a huge Obama supporter, and that's fine. She attended the DNC, and that's fine too. Obama has been on her show twice, and that's also fine. It's her show, and she can do exactly what she wants to do. BUT, here is Oprah's quote on the subject:
"When I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates."
That's just not true. Oprah talks about Obama frequently. And, again, that's fine. If I had a talk show, I might just use it to promote my chosen candidate too. That's America. But don't tell me the reason you're not having her on is because you don't want to use your show that way. That's just a lie. Come out and admit that you're concerned about the boost your show might give Palin (and, in turn, McCain). There would be nothing wrong with saying that. And, if you did, I'd certainly respect your integrity more than I do now. As it is, I think you're just a liar.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The New Number One?
Step aside Georgia. Move over USC. Get out of the way, Oklahoma. The best resume in college football currently belongs to East Carolina? That's right. East Carolina has two Top 25 wins over teams that are supposed to win their respective BCS conferences. East Carolina destroyed a Top 10 team that some thought might sneak into the National Championship game. Who's sneaking now? What's more, look at the remaining schedule:
9/13 @ Tulane
9/20 @ North Carolina State
9/27 Houston
10/11 @ Virginia
10/18 Memphis
11/02 @ UCF
11/08 Marshall
11/15 @ Southern Miss
11/22 @ UAB
11/28 UTEP
Is it so crazy to think ECU might go undefeated? And, if they do, they won't be like Boise State or Hawaii with no big wins. They'll have two big wins. In a year where every other team is likely to have a loss, it could be interesting. I love it. It's September 7, and I'm already talking BCS controversy.
9/13 @ Tulane
9/20 @ North Carolina State
9/27 Houston
10/11 @ Virginia
10/18 Memphis
11/02 @ UCF
11/08 Marshall
11/15 @ Southern Miss
11/22 @ UAB
11/28 UTEP
Is it so crazy to think ECU might go undefeated? And, if they do, they won't be like Boise State or Hawaii with no big wins. They'll have two big wins. In a year where every other team is likely to have a loss, it could be interesting. I love it. It's September 7, and I'm already talking BCS controversy.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Facts and Fairness
For those who can't tell, I tilt a little to the right. So you may think what I'm about to say is just my spin on what's actually going on. If you think that, you're wrong.
Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain's running mate on Aug. 29, 2008. I write this on Sep. 3, 2008. In the last five days, all of you have heard about Palin's daughter. All of you have heard about the investigation going on in Alaska about her brother-in-law. All of you have heard that her husband got a DWI when he was 22 years old.
Contrast that with Barack Obama, who is running for PRESIDENT, not vice-president. Have you heard about his ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Have you heard about Obama's connection to a minister who says that 9/11 was America's fault? Have you heard about Obama's campaign in the Marxist party in the mid-1990s?
If you have heard these things, I'm impressed. It means you're really looking into and evaluating this election. If you've not heard of these things, it's because the media outlets aren't talking about them. Why, you ask? Because the media decided a long time ago that it wanted Obama as our next president.
I don't care what your politics are. What's going on in the media is absurd. You want an example? Here's an example. Contrast these two covers of the same magazine, published two months apart:
I'll leave it at that.
Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain's running mate on Aug. 29, 2008. I write this on Sep. 3, 2008. In the last five days, all of you have heard about Palin's daughter. All of you have heard about the investigation going on in Alaska about her brother-in-law. All of you have heard that her husband got a DWI when he was 22 years old.
Contrast that with Barack Obama, who is running for PRESIDENT, not vice-president. Have you heard about his ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers? Have you heard about Obama's connection to a minister who says that 9/11 was America's fault? Have you heard about Obama's campaign in the Marxist party in the mid-1990s?
If you have heard these things, I'm impressed. It means you're really looking into and evaluating this election. If you've not heard of these things, it's because the media outlets aren't talking about them. Why, you ask? Because the media decided a long time ago that it wanted Obama as our next president.
I don't care what your politics are. What's going on in the media is absurd. You want an example? Here's an example. Contrast these two covers of the same magazine, published two months apart:
I'll leave it at that.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Jimmy Carter Needs to Shut Up
Jimmy Carter has alleged that John McCain is "milking his POW experience" for his advantage in the presidential campaign. This just plain ticks me off. And, it does so for two reasons:
1. First, John McCain was a prisoner of war while fighting for our country. In my view, he can talk about that 24/7 if he wants to. If you disagree with me, go spend 18 months being tortured by Vietnamese soldiers and see how you feel about it;
2. Second, McCain really isn't milking it at all. The only thing Carter could point to to prove his argument was ONE interview that lasted ONE HOUR. So, Carter doesn't even really know what he's talking about. McCain isn't talking enough about his POW experience as far as I'm concerned. Have people forgotten that we're at war? Don't you think military experience might help a future commander in chief? Maybe, just maybe?
Look Jimmy, you can disagree with McCain's politics, and I'll still respect you. But if YOU have no respect for a man that gave up his freedom for yours, then you need to just shut the he!! up.
1. First, John McCain was a prisoner of war while fighting for our country. In my view, he can talk about that 24/7 if he wants to. If you disagree with me, go spend 18 months being tortured by Vietnamese soldiers and see how you feel about it;
2. Second, McCain really isn't milking it at all. The only thing Carter could point to to prove his argument was ONE interview that lasted ONE HOUR. So, Carter doesn't even really know what he's talking about. McCain isn't talking enough about his POW experience as far as I'm concerned. Have people forgotten that we're at war? Don't you think military experience might help a future commander in chief? Maybe, just maybe?
Look Jimmy, you can disagree with McCain's politics, and I'll still respect you. But if YOU have no respect for a man that gave up his freedom for yours, then you need to just shut the he!! up.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bleeding Hearts At Their Best
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/08/25/pitcher.toogood.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
In arguably the most pathetic news story I've seen in a while, a nine-year-old boy has been told that he is too good to play for a little league baseball team. Because he is "too good," his fellow teammates might not get to play either. I mean, really? Is that what we've come to? We're so concerned about "fairness" that we won't let a talented kid play baseball? That's just silly.
Um, Tiger Woods is too good to play golf. The other golfers don't like him.
Michael Phelps is too good to swim at the Olympics. The other swimmers are getting upset.
ESPN can't cover sports anymore, because the other networks aren't getting as many viewers.
This is so friggin' stupid that I really don't know what else to say. I'm done now.
In arguably the most pathetic news story I've seen in a while, a nine-year-old boy has been told that he is too good to play for a little league baseball team. Because he is "too good," his fellow teammates might not get to play either. I mean, really? Is that what we've come to? We're so concerned about "fairness" that we won't let a talented kid play baseball? That's just silly.
Um, Tiger Woods is too good to play golf. The other golfers don't like him.
Michael Phelps is too good to swim at the Olympics. The other swimmers are getting upset.
ESPN can't cover sports anymore, because the other networks aren't getting as many viewers.
This is so friggin' stupid that I really don't know what else to say. I'm done now.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Phelps Phenomenon
It's been a long hiatus, I know. But, what can I say? I've been busy. I've been busy preparing for trials, and watching swimming. The Olympics have been captivating for one reason, and one reason only: Michael Phelps. I have a little built-in bias here, because I am friends with Phelps' sister, but come on. This guy is amazing. He is, simply put, the best swimmer ever. And it's not close. Not even remotely close. Not only that, he's the best Olympian ever. And, no, that's not close either.
Look, you may make the argument that Phelps gets to compete in a sport that allows you to win a lot more medals than, say, a volleyball player. But, consider this. If it's so easy to win a bunch of medals in swimming, why isn't everyone doing it? The truth is, most swimmers specialize in one or two events. Aaron Piersol, for example, is considered on of the best swimmers in the world. But have you ever seen him swim anything other than backstroke. It's kind of like, Chris Paul is considered one of the best basketball players in the world. But when is the last time you saw him in the post taking on Tim Duncan?
Swimmers, like all other athletes, specialize. But Phelps is good at everything. And not only is he good at everything, he's potentially the best in the world at more than half of the events on the heat sheet. Imagine Chris Paul being the best point guard, small forward, and center. Imagine Tom Brady taking a play off at quarterback so that he could block on the line of scrimmage. Then, on the next play, he goes long as a wide receiver. Oh, and imagine he's the best in the world at doing that. That's what Phelps is doing. The Olympics have been going on longer than any other sporting event that any of us follows. And in all that time, the most gold medals ANYONE has ever won is nine. Nine, in a lifetime. Phelps has 13, going on 14, and he's only going to be 27 next time around. Brace yourself for 20 gold medals people. Will that make you agree with me?
Look, you may make the argument that Phelps gets to compete in a sport that allows you to win a lot more medals than, say, a volleyball player. But, consider this. If it's so easy to win a bunch of medals in swimming, why isn't everyone doing it? The truth is, most swimmers specialize in one or two events. Aaron Piersol, for example, is considered on of the best swimmers in the world. But have you ever seen him swim anything other than backstroke. It's kind of like, Chris Paul is considered one of the best basketball players in the world. But when is the last time you saw him in the post taking on Tim Duncan?
Swimmers, like all other athletes, specialize. But Phelps is good at everything. And not only is he good at everything, he's potentially the best in the world at more than half of the events on the heat sheet. Imagine Chris Paul being the best point guard, small forward, and center. Imagine Tom Brady taking a play off at quarterback so that he could block on the line of scrimmage. Then, on the next play, he goes long as a wide receiver. Oh, and imagine he's the best in the world at doing that. That's what Phelps is doing. The Olympics have been going on longer than any other sporting event that any of us follows. And in all that time, the most gold medals ANYONE has ever won is nine. Nine, in a lifetime. Phelps has 13, going on 14, and he's only going to be 27 next time around. Brace yourself for 20 gold medals people. Will that make you agree with me?
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Taking Vitale To Task
It's been a while since my last post. I guess I was just waiting for the right topic. Found it!
Dick Vitale is one of about ten people on the planet who have made college basketball what it is today. He is, and should be, a hall-of-famer. I have a REALLY BIG PROBLEM with this though. Since May 7, 2008, Vitale has written two articles that completely contradict each other.
First, http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/080507kentuckyrecruit.html. In this article, Vitale discusses Billy Gillispie's "wacky" recruitment of a 15-year-old. He complains: "Gillispie made the offer, but I don't think it is healthy and good for college basketball....Kentucky got a lot of headlines out of the Avery story. The bottom line is that this is not good for the game."
Fast forward to this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=3481407. Vitale discusses Billy Donocan's recruitment of a 15-year-old. He praises: "He can flat-out recruit … he's a salesman deluxe, baby!" He continues: "It is a win-win situation for the Gators, the Rivers family, and a young man who gets to play for a coach that relates well to the modern-day athlete."
Um, really? I've listened to Kentucky fans for years talk about how Dick Vitale hates Kentucky. I always thought it was a bit of a joke. I truly don't believe there too many commentators out there that "hate" a given school. Rather, I think they more likely "prefer" certain coaches. Well, here you go. Vitale's hypocrisy in this matter is just ridiculous.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter much. Both kids will go play for their schools, and by the time they are there, no one will remember all of this. But, Dicky V., come on! What makes this worse is that after Gillispie signed the 15-year-old, the National Association of Basketball Coaches came out with a statement that kids that young shouldn't be recruited. Then, Donovan "struck gold." At least Gillispie inked his kid before being told not to do so. Donovan, on the other hand, listened to what the NABC had to say, then flipped them the bird, and did it anyway. Yet, according to Vitale, Gillispie's actions "aren't good for the game," and Donovan's actions are a "win-win."
Good job, Dicky V. Way to stay consistent.
Dick Vitale is one of about ten people on the planet who have made college basketball what it is today. He is, and should be, a hall-of-famer. I have a REALLY BIG PROBLEM with this though. Since May 7, 2008, Vitale has written two articles that completely contradict each other.
First, http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/080507kentuckyrecruit.html. In this article, Vitale discusses Billy Gillispie's "wacky" recruitment of a 15-year-old. He complains: "Gillispie made the offer, but I don't think it is healthy and good for college basketball....Kentucky got a lot of headlines out of the Avery story. The bottom line is that this is not good for the game."
Fast forward to this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/dickvitale/news/story?id=3481407. Vitale discusses Billy Donocan's recruitment of a 15-year-old. He praises: "He can flat-out recruit … he's a salesman deluxe, baby!" He continues: "It is a win-win situation for the Gators, the Rivers family, and a young man who gets to play for a coach that relates well to the modern-day athlete."
Um, really? I've listened to Kentucky fans for years talk about how Dick Vitale hates Kentucky. I always thought it was a bit of a joke. I truly don't believe there too many commentators out there that "hate" a given school. Rather, I think they more likely "prefer" certain coaches. Well, here you go. Vitale's hypocrisy in this matter is just ridiculous.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter much. Both kids will go play for their schools, and by the time they are there, no one will remember all of this. But, Dicky V., come on! What makes this worse is that after Gillispie signed the 15-year-old, the National Association of Basketball Coaches came out with a statement that kids that young shouldn't be recruited. Then, Donovan "struck gold." At least Gillispie inked his kid before being told not to do so. Donovan, on the other hand, listened to what the NABC had to say, then flipped them the bird, and did it anyway. Yet, according to Vitale, Gillispie's actions "aren't good for the game," and Donovan's actions are a "win-win."
Good job, Dicky V. Way to stay consistent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
