Absent-Minded Ramblings

2007-12-30T04:39:00.000-08:00

The Case For A National Primary

Hey, did you know we're picking our President in about a week?

Well, probably not you. You most likely don't have a say in the process. But a bunch of people in Iowa are picking the President for you. (Note: There are some people who would say that no actual citizen chooses the President. That He or She is selected by a Global Elite to better serve the interests of the Conglomeration of Doom. For the purposes of this post, we're gonna pretend Democracy exists.)

But wait! You live in Florida, New York, California, Texas, or one of the other non-Iowa states. Your state has a lot more people in it than Iowa. Surely your state should have a say.

Tough.

On January 3rd, Iowa will hold their caucuses, and a winner will be announced in each party. It will then be nearly impossible for anyone else to overtake them. Why?

Americans are a bunch of pack animals.

Think back to 2004. Just before Iowa held their caucuses. Remember who was leading in most National polls for the Democratic nomination? Howard Dean. Know who was running in the back, pretty much given up for good? John Kerry. Know who was even farther back, practically ignored? John Edwards.

But John Kerry and John Edwards cleaned up in Iowa. Dean was tossed down into third place. Richard Gephart was completely crushed. With his Iowa momentum in hand, Kerry went on to win big in New Hampshire and the race was over. John Kerry was the Democratic nominee for President.

And we all know how that worked out for the Democrats.

Thing is, going into Iowa, he wasn't really on the radar. So what happened? Easy. He won. The rest of the nation said something like, "Wow. Iowa picked Kerry. He spent a lot of time down there. They must know something we don't. I'm gonna vote for him, too." or perhaps, "Well, it's going to be Kerry, so I may as well vote for him and get this primary over with so we can start bashing Bush instead of other Democrats."

So a bunch of Iowans got to choose the Democratic nominee, screw the rest of the country.

This year will be no different. Right now, if you look at the national polls, the Democratic nominee ought to be Clinton, and the Republican nominee is a bit of a toss-up between Giuliani and Huckabee.

Watch what happens after Iowa.

On the Republican side, Giuliani isn't even expected to do well at all. Maybe not even third. See if he's anywhere near the lead on January 4th in the national polls. As for Clinton, well if Obama or even Edwards knocks her off (right now, the three of them all have a shot), then watch her lead shrink faster than Bill's libido under Her icy gaze. Just like that, the race will crystallize and we'll have our nominees.

You think I'm wrong? No other state matters anymore. None. Giuliani made the mistake of thinking he could skip out of Iowa (and the next contest, New Hampshire) and still have a shot. He's an idiot. He's toast. Romney gets it, and has put all of his eggs in the Iowa basket. Until Huckabee's rise, it was a smart move on Romney's part. But now that Huckabee's gathered the Evangelical Vote around him, he's gonna beat Romney in Iowa, and that will permanently damage Romney's chances.

Edwards also got it, and put all his eggs in this basket. If he pulls it out, he's got a chance. If not, he'll drop out in the blink of an eye and his supporters will gravitate to Obama. If Obama has won Iowa, then he'll pull off one of the biggest upsets in political history by knocking off Hillary Clinton. If Clinton pulls Iowa out of her hat, then the Democratic race is truly over.

Is this a good thing? Years ago, perhaps it made some sense. Candidates couldn't get their message out to everyone at once, so they focuses on small places- Iowa, New Hampshire- to really talk to the voters and give them a chance to see the candidates for who they really are. Or at least, who they have really tried to be. But today, with the Internet and 24-hour cable news, everything a candidate says or does is transmitted across the country in a heartbeat. We know these people. We know who they are, what they want, what they say. The information is out there and easy to get. We don't need a bunch of Middle-America Folks telling us who made the best impression on the Butter Princess at the State Fair. Who gives a flying crap if Fred Thompson spurned the Butter Princess? That says nothing about Fred Thompson the possible President of the United States. It simply tells us that Fred Thompson isn't very good at RUNNING for President. (But then, if you've been paying attention, you knew that.)

Did Barack Obama pet the prize pig? Did John McCain smile when he shook the hand of the farmer with the biggest pumpkin? What does that have to do with running the United States of America? You know what you get when you focus on electing someone who makes everyone laugh and seems like a regular guy? You get bad government.

So let's take this national. Let the candidates make their case to their parties all at once. Debates all over the country. Appearances in big cities as well as small. Anything they say will be broadcast into your home if you're in Alaska or Arkansas. If you really care about the primaries, you'll have all the information you need. No matter where you live.

And then we can all vote. And we can see that while the 20,000 caucus-goers in Iowa decided that they really liked Huckabee's down-home charm, the rest of the country's Republicans went for the leadership of John McCain or the moderation of Rudy Giuliani. Because maybe those guys represent a larger share of Republicans than the Baptist Minister who lost 100 pounds. (Damn, Huckabee sounds like a fluff piece from People magazine, doesn't he?)

I live in one of the zillions of states voting on February 5th. A big state. One of the biggest. All the big states vote on that day. Most of the population of America will be voting on Feb. 5th. And it won't matter, because our choices will have been made for us. Kucinich will have pulled out a surprise win in Iowa because of his great take on Ethanol subsidies and the Sheep of our Nation will have fallen in line behind him.

Screw Iowa. Screw New Hampshire (supposedly the "brain" to the "heart" of Iowa in this process).

We're selecting national leaders, it should be done by the nation.

2007-12-05T12:47:00.000-08:00

Why Did Disney Make A Princess Movie I Can't Take My Disney Princess-Obsessed 4-Year Old To?

Like any parent of a 4-year old girl, I was very excited to learn about Disney's new movie, Enchanted. It was a Princess movie! A silly, spoofy, Princess movie! My 4-year old would eat this up with a healthy serving of bliss.

We don't watch much TV, so we managed to avoid the commercials, but I don't think there's a bus stop within fifteen miles of our house without that witch and her apple staring at us. Naturally, Daughter noticed the posters, recognized the apple, and put two and two together even before I did.

"Daddy! It's the Evil Queen!"

"What? Where?"

"Right there! The Evil Queen from Snow White! Look, she has the apple!"

"Oh. Huh. You're right."

"Does that say Disney?"

"What do mean... you can't read."

"That says Disney! It says Disney!"

She can't read, but she can recognize a corporate logo when she's seen it in front of Snow White and Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid often enough until it's been carved onto the underside of her skull. So thanks to the fact that we have to drive her to pre-school every day, she was now aware that something Snow White/Poisoned Apple/Disney-ish was afoot.

I checked out what I could, which at the time wasn't much more than a teaser trailer online. It was a movie. A movie all about a Disney Princess.

That's all Daughter needed to hear.

Suddenly, she couldn't wait to see the new Disney Princess Movie. It was manna from Heaven, as far as she was concerned.

Me? I was stoked, too. I love movies. Love, love, love them. And taking my kids to the movies, to movies they WANT to see, is one of the true joys in life to which I've been looking forward for years. Finally, the time had come. Daughter wanted to see Enchanted.

Rock on.

Then the reviews came out.

Some loved it, some didn't. But all said that it was, well, more for adults than children. Perhaps the Tweens would like it, but the really little ones, who aren’t ready to see the Disney Princess Line openly mocked, should shy away.

Shy away? How am I supposed to tell my 4-year old that she needs to shy away from a Disney Princess Movie? Has the world gone completely mental?

She took the news fine, to be honest, and I quickly transitioned her into another viewing of Beauty and the Beast before she had time to think about it. But that doesn't mean I'm not miffed.

Disney, you heartless schmucks, how could you? You sell your Disney Princess line to 3, 4, and 5-year olds (there are costumes specifically their size) with capitalistic glee. You know they're hooked, you know they're ready to feed from your trough. You grab the Thanksgiving weekend slot, shove a multi-zillion dollar ad campaign down everyone's throat, create a trailer that mentions all those lovable G-Rated Disney movies from days of yore, then release something rated PG that's not fit your audience?

Were you feeling especially evil that day? I mean I'm well aware of the stench of cruelty that emanates from your offices in Burbank, but that's one meeting that must have curdled the blood of every Wicked Stepmother within the city limits.

"In 2008, we're going to release a new Disney Princess movie over Thanksgiving weekend."

"Fantastic. Families will eat it up. The Disney tradition continues."

"Yes. Except, no. It's a spoof of the Disney Princess movies."

"Well, OK. Spoofs can be funny. Still cute, right? Still animated?"

"In New York."

"An animated New York?"

"No. Real New York. And we'll throw in a scene between the Princess and a Hooker" (EDITOR'S NOTE: Such a scene was actually written in the script, but was not included in the final film.)

"A Hooker?"

"Right. We'll advertise it with images of fairy tales that everyone knows. The goody-goody Disney Fairy Tales."

"You're growing horns as you speak. Are you OK?"

"We'll get every pre-school girl in America begging to see this movie. And then it'll be rated PG."

"Is your face actually bubbling puss right now?"

"Millions of girls will either explode from sheer misery at not being able to see the film, or will be driven insane from the nightmare of seeing horrific images on screens a hundred times the size of their TVs."

"You know, I'm normally right there with you, Boss…"

"We'll rid ourselves of a generation of women! Boys will once again be rulers of the playground!!!"

"There's smoke pouring out of your ears. Should I call someone?"

"Death to Little Girls!!!!!!"

And thus, you created Enchanted.

I hope you're happy with yourselves. Childhood-murdering Bastards.

2007-11-30T06:23:00.001-08:00

My Kids' Pediatric Nurse Was Almost Sent to Iraq - After 6 Years of Inactive Duty

As father of two young children, one of my rituals is the seemingly monthly visits to the Pediatrician's office. If you don't have kids, then you can't possibly understand the bonds that are created between parents and the people who stick our kids with needles every visit, but they grow exponentially through familiarity and repetition.

Yesterday we popped by so that 4-year old Daughter could get her flu shot. She knew what was coming, had told me that she was OK with getting the shot, was ready, willing, and able for the trauma.

In fact, it was her lucky day, because she went in thinking she'd be getting two shots, but only got one. So, armed with this good news, she sat in my lap, sleeve rolled up, face towards me, eyes crammed shut in anticipation.

The Pediatric Nurse, a friendly woman in her mid-30s, promised Daughter that the ordeal would over in the blink of an eye. She explained that, as Daughter knew, there would be a quick pinch of pain, but that she, the Nurse, had been doing this for so long that she was an expert and Daughter wouldn't notice a thing and oh, by the way, we're done.

And Daughter gasped and looked down at the tiny Tweety Band-Aid already on her shoulder, in awe. I thanked the Nurse. This had, indeed, been quite easy.

"Oh, that was nothing. Your Daughter's great. Heck, I've stuck soldiers who were bigger babies than her."

At the word "soldiers" my ears perked up. Soldiers?

"I spent years in the Army. Just got my Honorable Discharge last month. Finally."

"They let you out? I thought they were pulling 70-year olds back in to make quota."

"It wasn't easy."

I asked for the story.

"I was in Desert Storm. Not fighting, of course, but as a nurse. I trained soldiers on CPR, basic first-aid. Taught classes over there."

"You were in Desert Storm?"

"Yeah. Talk about life-changing. But it was good. Anyway, that was years ago. I moved into the Reserves, did my weekends. Thought I was more or less done. I was inactive for almost six years."

"Inactive? Then this Iraq thing started and they activated you?"

"Not right away. I had back surgery four years ago that didn't go so well. So that left me on their inactive list. But about six months ago, I got the call. I was shocked. But the orders were just to start teaching again at the base. So I figured I could handle that. Teaching first-aid is always a good thing."

At this point, 2-year old Son started banging the window blinds and Daughter squirmed out of my lap. I wrangled Son away from the blinds.

"Sorry about that. I think he bent one of the blinds."

"Oh, and he'd be the first toddler to do that."

"Right. Sorry. You were saying? You got recalled?"

"Yeah. I went, no problem. Held a few classes. But then we got word they were shipping the entire unit to Iraq. Me included. I was going to be triage. Riding in on helicopters and picking up wounded in combat zones."

"What?"

"No way was I doing that. I'd been inactive for six years. My back was supposed to keep me out of Iraq. They knew, it was in my file."

"What happened?"

"They don't care anymore. They need bodies. Too injured to work? A little sun and sand'll do you wonders."

"There's a lot of sun and sand in Iraq."

"My doctor started writing letters. Bless him, but he wrote two a week, objecting. But I never heard one way or the other. A week before we were supposed to ship out I was going nuts figuring out what I was going to do."

"You're here. You're not there."

"I got my Honorable Discharge. It showed up in the mail. That's how they told me. And I was freaked out, because it came in a huge, thick package. I assumed the package was my travel orders. It was so thick. But I open it, it's 100 copies of my Honorable Discharge."

"100? Really?"

"I counted. So I've got 100 copies of my Honorable Discharge, in case anyone ever asks."

"Congrats."

"It's like I was given a new lease on life. I mean what they wanted me to do, on the helicopters, that's a death sentence over there. The mood of the soldiers is so different then I remember from Desert Storm. Back then they were young, happy, felt good about what they were doing. They were regular people. But the ones I taught this time, they're surly. Angry. Bitter. Older. I enjoyed teaching in Desert Storm, but not this time. They didn't want to be there, and neither did I. It's a different army."

And it was time for us to go. I thanked her for her story, Thanked her for jabbing a needle into my daughter's arm. Told her I'd see her in two weeks when we came back for another shot.

We went out, paid the cashier, got free stickers, and went home.

But the Nurse's story stuck with me. How bad has it gotten that the Army tries to send someone inactive for 6 years, someone with a documented back injury, over to Iraq? That's the best they can get? This woman had already served, with honor, the first time we were over there. She's served her time.

I've heard the stories, of course. World War II Veterans accidentally getting notice that they're being shipped out. It's funny, because it's an obvious clerical mistake.

For now.

2007-11-29T09:00:00.000-08:00

Publically-Financed Adultery? Pulverizing the Myth of Rudy Giuliani

Why is Rudy Giuliani the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination?

Do Republicans even know who he is?

Forget the fact the he's pro-choice, gay-friendly, and otherwise socially liberal. Do Republicans know that he had an affair? Aren't they the family values party?

Pop Quiz:

Which is worse?

A) A man has an affair, is found out, apologizes to his wife and family, and tries to rebuild his marriage.

Or…

B) A man has an affair for years, then decides to dump his current wife for his mistress during a press conference.

Which, to you, smacks of moral values?

OK, true, they both have some trust issues to deal with, but Chelsea Clinton still likes her father. Rudy Giuliani's daughter isn't even planning on voting for him.

So want, you say? Why should we care if a man has an affair? What does that have to do with what kind of President he'll be? Well first, if you say that, I hope you were saying that back in 1998. But second, at least Clinton wasn't making U.S. Taxpayers foot the bill for his infidelity.

[Politico:]

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

Oops.

But wait, what does that mean? Obscure city agencies could be anything, like, say, the Official City Agency To Get the Mayor Laid. Why is this news?

The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.

When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.

But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.

But he's a Republican, so this can all be filed under "Family Values" right? He was valuing his family by trying to hide his adultery and having New York taxpayers pay for it.

As we toss yet another Giuliani disaster onto the pile, right next to all the glorious Bernie Kerik stories, it's time to take another look at why Rudy Giuliani is the Republican front runner.

Hmmm…..

It's on the tip of my tongue….

His massive Foreign Policy experience… no… that's not it.

How he lines up perfectly with Republican core values… no. That's not right..

Hmm…

OH YEAH! He was Mayor of New York City on 9/11!

How could I forget? Rudy was America's Mayor! Gosh, you'd think he'd mention that a few thousand times on the campaign trail to remind everyone.

Oh wait, he does.

Seriously, if 9/11 doesn't happen, Rudy Giuliani is touring the lecture circuit in the private sector. That's it. All his scandals would have broken by now, stopping any and all Giuliani political designs in their tracks. He'd be done. An afterthought.

But 9/11 DID happen. And Rudy "God Bod" Giuliani was born.

Why was he so special on that day? What did he do? Well, he walked around. He made good speeches. He walked the sister of a fallen 9/11 firefighter down the aisle a few days later.

And of course he didn't let the firefighters continue searching for the bodies of their fallen comrades. He allowed everyone back into Ground Zero when he knew the air was toxic, overruling the City's Department of Environmental Protection. He offered to remain Mayor longer than his term of office because he thought it would help the healing process.

And leading up to 9/11? Well, you've heard about the radios, right? The really bad radios that the New York Fire Department had to use on 9/11 because Giuliani… well, The Huffington Post says it best:

Radios used by the FDNY on 9/11 were the same ones that malfunctioned during the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers. When - eight years later - Giuliani finally purchased new communications equipment for $14 million from Motorola, it was never field-tested. A week later, the equipment was recalled after a firefighter's mayday went un-heard. Giuliani reissued the old batch of radios. And on 9/11 when a police helicopter warned that the North Tower could collapse, more than 120 firefighters remained inside.

By the way, that Motorola contract was no-bid.

Sound Presidential to you? Sound like someone who made sure his first responders were prepared?

And then there's the glorious story of Giuliani's Emergency Command Bunker, which he placed in the only known terrorist target in America, the only place already attacked, the World Trade Center (Building 7). This was despite all the expert advice to locate the command center out in Brooklyn, where it would be safe from any possible attacks and therefore useable during an emergency.

Why did he place it in a complex that known terrorists had vowed to one day destroy? Because he wanted it to be within walking distance of his office.

And let's not even go into how on 9/11, WTC 7 became just the third building in HISTORY to collapse due to a fire. And the FIRST that hadn't been hit by an airplane a few hours earlier. (9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, start your engines!)

Basically, when you look into Rudy Giuliani, really look into his record, America's Mayor begins to look like America's Mistake. So why hasn't anyone done this digging yet?

Easy.

Democrats don't want to expose this stuff yet, because they want Giuliani to get the Republican nomination, and THEN they'll let it out and rip him down.

Republicans don't want to expose this stuff, because Giuliani is the only true moderate they have. All the others, while far more Republican and Conservative, will get crushed by any and all of the Democratic candidates. America is moving back to the center, Giuliani is the only Republican with a prayer of keeping up with them, Remove him, and their standard bearer will be WAY to the right of most America, and he will get creamed in the general election.

So right now, no one WANTS this stuff to come out.

Unfortunately for them, getting John Q Public to pay for your adultery is just too good a story to keep buried.

Maybe now we can stick a fork in Giuliani. He's done.

Rudy Giuliani is no hero. He was a controversial Mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists.

End of story. End of Myth.

2007-11-28T05:12:00.000-08:00

It's Not Christmas Until the Grocery Store Sound System Says So

It was the Friday after Thanksgiving. Black Friday. Retail Friday. Start the Diet Friday. Whatever you want to call it. Two-year old Son and I were at the grocery store, buying something, anything, that wasn't turkey or mashed potatoes.

Son was not in a helpful mood. He was dilly-dallying in front of the iced fish section, fingering the carp. He was banging a wooden spoon on the bars of the Pirates of the Caribbean Jack Sparrow Cookie display. He was rearranging the Jesus candles in the Hispanic food aisle. He was not listening to me at all.

"Son? Son? Over here. We need to get coffee. It's down here. Son? Put that down. Please put that down. It's salt. We have plenty of salt at home. Just put it, would you please put it…? Where are you going? This way! Over here! The coffee!!!"

I was trying to remain a calm, collected, sane parent. The Good Parent. But The Bad Parent was threatening my psyche. I should just pick Son up and buckle him into the seat. He will scream. He will cry. He will kick. He will Go Boneless (Thank you Mo Willems). But I will shop.

When Son began dumping various bags of Lays chips into the aisle, Bad Parent won out. I reached down at this innocent, happy child, flushed with the intent to ruin his morning so I could get out of here before Dusk. But then he turned and looked up at me, smiling.

"Daddy!"

I blinked. I choked up.

I ignored the moment and picked him up anyway.

But just before he began to scream, in that moment of uncertain stillness, I heard it. Over the intercom. Right there in the chips and salsa aisle.

The Waitresses' "Christmas Wrapping."

My God. I haven't heard that song in years.

No. Not years. A year.

Last Christmas.

And it hit me. It's Christmas Season. Time to be nice to everyone. Time to enjoy a better world. Time to give things to people. Time to feel bad for not being poor.

I put down Son, who hadn't yet devolved into hysterics. He laughed, threw some more chips into the aisle, and ran off.

And I followed him, already in an immensely better mood. Who cares if Son's antics will keep me in this store long past the expiration date on the milk? It's Christmas!

Son isn't being an obnoxious two-year old. He's the joy of Christmas incarnate. Everyone else looks at him and smiles, remembering their own childhoods, or thankful that their own children are well past this stage. The people working the store don't mind the mess he's making. It gives them something to do besides roaming aimlessly up and down the aisle, avoiding customers.

And all because they're piping in Christmas music.

Christmas Wrapping ended and just like that, George Michael and That Other Guy were singing "Last Christmas" which, by the way, is a really lame song and has about four words in it aside from the chorus.

But it's Christmas music, so it rocks the world from late November to New Year's Day.

Why does this music, infiltrating my brain non-stop for over a month, make me feel so happy? And why do I stop listening to it in January? Done right (meaning pretty much anything that isn't Clay Aiken), Christmas music can't help but get you feeling, well, jolly. I mean the entire year is sucky and filled with trials and tribulations and people who don't like you and bills and taxes and serial killers and stuff.

But not Christmas.

Christmas is filled with, well, lots of suicide. But aside from that, it's filled with goodness. Wholesome, family goodness. And the Barenaked Ladies singing "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" is the soundtrack to all this phenomenal happiness. If grocery stores, post offices, elevators, and gas stations played things like Alanis Morissette or Flo Rida Featuring T-Pain during December, the world would be a rotten place. Puppies would die.

So I say let Christmas ring! Give me Mariah Carey singing "All I Want For Christmas" in seven octaves. Give me Nat King Cole singing that damn Chestnut song for the googolplex-th time. Give me Dean Martin singing "Let it Snow." Give me John Lennon's "So This Is Christmas." Hell, give me T-Pimp & G-Whore singing "Christmas can @$#& my $+&}@* with a *$%&#@!"

As I said, pretty much anything but Clay Aiken.

I'm sure that, come January, I'll be so over this junk. But now is a time for optimism, peace, and Rocking Around the Christmas Tree.

As Band Aid asks so eloquently, "Do They Know It's Christmas?"

If they're in the grocery store, then yes. They do.

2007-11-19T14:20:00.000-08:00

88 Lines About 43 Presidents

(With apologies to The Nails)

Washington proclaimed "We're Neutral!", Created Money, Bill of Rights
Adams, with his Midnight Judges, Used XYZ to pick some fights
Jefferson sent Lewis & Clark, killed the slave trade, bought some land
Madison's War of 1812 gave America the upper hand

Monroe, who added five new states, had a Doctrine, spread some joy
J.Q. Adams Abominationed, said Amistad slaves were not a toy
Jackson dealt with Peggy Eaton, sent Cherokees on a Trail of Tears
Van Buren didn't go to war, but a Panic fueled the nation's fears

William Harrison got pneumonia, died one month into his term
Tyler annexed Texas, while Succession made his mandates firm
Polk went to war with Mexico, and gave Vancouver to the Brits
Taylor died of Cholera, his C.B. Treaty gave Demos fits

Fillmore made a Compromise and California became a state
Pierce just made a Purchase, but Bleeding Kansas filled his plate
Buchanan let the South drift off, while dealing with the Dred Scott truth
Lincoln gave us Civil War, Gettysburg and John Wilkes Booth

Johnson Reconstructed, was acquitted of Impeachment pains
Grant, while incorruptible, was marred by major scandal stains
Hayes, who lost but won the office, changed the reconstruction tune
Garfield, though he meant well, was assassinated by a loon

Arthur reformed civil service, excluded Chinese from the States
Cleveland titled Indians, made ICC for railroad rates
Harrison didn't do that much, he served his four long years and then
America took a look around and elected Cleveland once again

McKinley had an open door, took a bullet, fought with Spain
Roosevelt had a big stick, but his canal's what brought about his fame
Taft had Buck Diplomacy and reigned over the highest court
Wilson gave us prohibition, for he was not the drinking sort

Uh-uh, not Wilson

Harding lived through Teapot Dome but a fatal stroke caused him to cease
Coolidge vetoed Farm Relief and had us sign the Pact of Peace
Hoover got America depressed over a great big Crash
FDR brought us back to war, his New Deal healed us in a flash

Truman United all the Nations, welcomed Israel, dropped the bomb
Eisenhower saw dominoes, and stopped McCarthy with aplomb
JFK began the Peace Corp, dealt with Cuba, the Berlin Wall
Was a champion of Civil Rights, his death was mourned by one and all
LBJ gave Voter's Rights, but got bogged down on Vietnam's beach
Nixon opened door to China, and quit before he was Impeached
Ford pardoned Nixon, draft evaders, was shot at twice during his term
Carter drew up some accords, but the hostage crisis made him squirm
Reagan gave us Reaganomics, and the Iran-Contra beast
Bush gave us the New World Order, and went to war in the Middle East
Clinton was impeached for sex, but the Senate did not vote him out
Bush Jr.'s legacy's Iraq, of that there can be little doubt

88 Lines about 43 Presidents

2007-11-09T10:35:00.000-08:00

Don't Impeach Bush and Cheney for Their Past, Impeach them for the Future.

Impeachment of a sitting President or Vice President is not something that should be taken lightly.

We all remember the circus of the Clinton Impeachment Hearings, how they dominated the news, nearly put the country on hold for months as a strongly-divided electorate took up sides along party lines.

The fact of the matter is, Clinton lied. However, that was no reason to remove him from office. He lied about a personal matter that had no bearing on our nation. Republicans saw an opportunity to distract a political rival and took it, marring Clinton's remaining years and sullying his name enough so that Gore refused to use him as a campaign asset, which may well have lent itself to the election of George W. Bush. So as far as the Republicans are concerned, Impeachment worked. It was purely partisan, purely dirty politics, and it did the job.

The other thing the Clinton Impeachment did was protect George Bush (or whoever would have won the Republican Nomination) from Impeachment himself. The idea being that if any articles of Impeachment were considered against a Republican President, no matter their merits, the specter of "Partisan Payback for Clinton!" could be raised and no one would take the hearings seriously.

So here we are in 2007 and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has brought a motion to the floor of the House to Impeach Vice President Cheney. Wisco has already discussed the odd circumstance wherein Republicans ended up supporting the bill and Democrats as a whole did not. Of course, in Washington D.C., things are not what they always seem. Republicans kept the matter alive in an attempt to embarrass the Democrats. Many people would scratch their head and wonder at the wisdom of such a strategy, but it seems to have worked. Democrats, faced with actually doing something about this administration, ran like frightened children into the arms of their mommy.

"Mommy! Make the big, bad Articles of Impeachment go away!"

Most people have a strong-enough understanding of the charges against Cheney, against Bush, against this administration. Lying to everyone in order to get us to go to War is a nice big start. But there are others. The fact is, Bush and Cheney have done things far worse than Clinton ever dreamed of. They truly have committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors against America. If ever there were a sitting President and Vice President who deserved, NEEDED, to be removed from office, it is this bunch.

But that's not why we should Impeach them.

We should Impeach them for the sake of our future.

Right now, the chatter among the Democratic elite is that we shouldn't waste our time on Impeachment. In an appearance on the Ed Schultz show, Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Shultz warned that the issue would distract the Democratic Congress from their work:

[Daily Kos]

"…remembering back to the dark days when the Republican Congress pursued impeachment against President Clinton, that is all that the media will focus on, that is all the attention that would be focused on in Congress, and we would not be able to spend the next 13 months focusing on the issues that are important to the American people…"

She also warned that it would hurt Democrats at the polls.

"…we will squander the opportunity to move this country in a new direction when what we should be focusing on are those issues I just listed and many others, and focusing our efforts on expanding the Democratic majority and electing a Democratic President."

Note that nothing in there indicates a reluctance to Impeach due to a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Everyone knows crimes have been committed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats tried, they could very easily make the charges stick. It is, to quote the administration, a Slam Dunk.

But again, that's not why we need to Impeach them.

Quite frankly, if we wait out the last 12 months until the National Nightmare is over without taking action, America will never recover.

There is such a thing as the idea of crime and punishment. If you commit the crime, you will be given the punishment. It is at the bedrock of any legal system.

If Bush and Cheney waltz into the sunset (or onto Bush's nearly 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay, which has no extradition treaty with America) in January 2009, they will have GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT.

Gotten away with the lies, the International gutting of our good name, the taking us to war, the appointing of unqualified hacks who render entire agencies sterile, the outing of a covert CIA agent, the blatant corruption, the spying on Americans, the highway robbery by their oil company friends, the devastation of our economy, the attempt to bring us into another war, and so much more.

That can't happen.

Not for them. Screw them. For the future.

If we let Bush and Cheney walk away unscathed, what does that say to our next President? To our government in twenty years, thirty years be they Democrat, Republican, or Whig? You want President Chelsea Clinton or President Jenna Bush to arbitrarily rule that it's now OK to ship errant skateboarders who leave marks on the lawn of an oil company CEO off to secret gulags in Andorra? I mean they left marks on his lawn! They're obviously TERRORISTS!

Bush and Cheney happily believe that there's nothing the President can do that is illegal. They've operated on that assumption. And to date, Congress and traditional media haven't moved a finger to stop them. Haven't really even said that, hey wait, there are THREE CO-EQUAL branches of government, and if the Executive branch over-reaches, they need to be stopped. We don't live in a monarchy. Not yet.

We're setting a precedent. If we don't try Bush and Cheney for their crimes now, how is any governing body in the future going to be able to do anything about abuses twenty years from now?

To Republicans I ask: Do you want Hillary Clinton with the kind of power we've given George Bush? Even if a Republican wins, they won't always win. Eventually, a Democrat will win. And they'll sit in the White House with as much power as Bush has. More, in fact. Because the groundwork will have already been laid, they just need to build on what Bush and Cheney have done.

Naomi Wolf wrote an incredible article for The Guardian wherein she outlined the 10 steps any dictator has to take to "destroy constitutional freedoms". In it, she points out that Bush and Cheney have effectively carried out the first 9 steps and paved the way for an effortless 10th step, should they ever desire to go there.

Our next President won't have to start from scratch.

That alone should be reason enough to Impeach Bush and Cheney.

It is IMPERATIVE that we don't allow history to give the Bush/Cheney Administration the epitaph of "They Got Away With It."

Justice must be served. To Congress I say, Bush and Cheney must be Impeached. Don't do it for what they've done. Don't do it for political purposes. Don't do it with an eye on 2008. In short, don't do it for yourself.

Do it for the children

2007-10-28T10:19:00.001-07:00

The Movie I Wish I'd Never Seen

Do you have a movie in your past that you wish you'd never seen? I don't mean just some bad movie that was a waste of your time, I mean something that you truly regret watching and forever etching the memories of said film onto your grey matter.

I love movies, so I generally wouldn't think there could be one with that sort of parasitic hold on me. A few years ago, I reviewed movies on the Internet and saw my fair share of crap. Daredevil comes to mind, a film so bad in so many ways that it was physically painful to watch. But still, I'm not overcome with a burning need to vomit when I think about it. In fact, it led to my writing one of my favorite reviews of all time, so all told that horrific waste of celluloid leaves an almost nostalgically positive imprint on my memory.

But there is a film that does, in fact, induce in me a vibrant need to spew chunks whenever I think about it. I try not to think about it much, forgetting it for months at a time, while filling my head with the latest and greatest pop culture icons on the screen. But eventually, without fail, something will remind me of that one, fatal film and I'll be overcome with thoughts and images and nausea, becoming almost sick to my stomach.

I've discussed this in the past with friends. It's a good conversation starter. "Is there any film you honestly wish you'd never seen?" Some answers from others have included Faces of Death, 2,000 Maniacs, and Caligula. Each, in their own way, extremely disturbing. I myself have issues with the opening sequence in Cube, which is otherwise not a very disturbing film. However, the film which haunts me to this day is a little-known independent film called Frankenhooker.

Perhaps you've heard of this film, perhaps not. First, it's not porn or anything, it's rated R. Nor is it straight horror, not by any means. It's a very dark comedy. Basically, a guy's girlfriend is dismembered in a lawnmower accident and he decides to rebuild her body using all the best parts he can find from various hookers. He lures all the hookers into a room and haves them smoke special crack that makes them explode. Then he gathers the body parts, goes home, and rebuilds his girlfriend.

There ya go. A keeper.

I don't know why I agreed to see this film way back when (it was released in 1990). I certainly didn't suggest it, but it must have been someone else's turn to pick a film. So for some reason, they picked this one. And I went. And have regretted it ever since.

Why does this film disturb me so? I'm not sure. But I get two different scenes flashing into my mind when the film springs into my brain. The first is when all the hookers are exploding. The last one knows she's going to explode, and she's pissed, so she straddles the guy on the bed, leering at him, taunting him, dressed in skimpy lingerie. And then she explodes all over him.

For some reason, the harpy-like look on her face just before she explodes has always been, for me, the epitome of evil. That faces haunts my nightmares.

The second flash of imagery that gets me every time is the fully-completed, rebuilt girlfriend. It's ridiculously slapstick, every limb and body part stitched together in the worst homage to Frankenstien. The crowning glory is her head with a huge, zipper-like stitch all the way around it, where he's sown it to the torso with the biggest boobs he could find.

I see that in my mind and want to puke.

I really have no idea why I get such a visceral reaction to the memory of a film I saw 17 years ago. I've seen hundreds of films since then, most much better. There are plenty of those of which I have no recollections at all. I'd be surprised to learn I'd ever seen them. But this one, this one sticks with me. Popping up every few months for no reason other than I haven't been internally horrified enough lately.

Not sure if there's any way to cleanse the images from my mind. I could find a copy of the film and burn it in effigy, hoping to symbolically purge it from memory. I could watch it a thousand times until I either move past it or fall into a catatonic trance. Either one would work.

But that's all fantasy. The truth is, Frankenhooker is with me to stay. For the rest of my days. My own personal motion picture Demon which cannot be exercised, will not be forgotten.

It is the movie I wish I'd never seen.

2007-10-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

The Self-Made Critic reviews Daredevil
(Circe 2003)

Now they're just getting sloppy.

I enjoy a bad movie as much as anyone. I'll happily sit through an abomination such as Dungeons & Dragons or Supernova and revel in the excruciatingly painful level of suck while the poor folk I pay to be my friends squirm in their seats in utter agony.

What makes these private Hells tolerable is the knowledge that everyone knows the movie is bad. Dungeons & Dragons stunk to high heaven and everyone from Alaskan hermits who hadn't stepped foot outside their igloo in decades to the potted fern in the lobby of the local Hilton knew it, and stayed away in droves. D & D made all of $50 and its creators are now serving you decaf lattes in a Starbucks near you. (Or at least, they should be.)

But when an equally bad film approaches the $100 million mark, it's time to head for the hills. The sad, sad, sad success of the truly horrible film, Daredevil puts us one more step on the path to the end of civilization as we know it. Money talks. A bad movie making $100 million means studios will be inclined to make more bad movies. When those bad movies fail to make $100 million, they'll blame the marketing and make more bad movies. This hellish cycle will continue until the end of time, and we may well have Ben Affleck to blame for the downfall of human existence.

Why is Daredevil so very, very bad? Have a seat, this could take a while.

It's a comic book film, so you have to give it some leeway. But one thing every film, everywhere, MUST do is stick to its own rules. In DareDevil, our hero is blind, therefore all of his other senses are extraordinarily heightened. He can hear everything in the world at any moment, he can smell colors, his sense of touch manifests itself in his amazing balance, agility and strength, and of course, his heightened sense of taste allows him to.. I dunno, enjoy a Happy Meal like no one's business.

His weakness? (All superheros have a special weakness, it's part of the deal, along with the tights and the snazzy catch-phrase.) Really loud noises. Since he can hear so very, very well, loud bursts of noise cause him great discomfort. This is repeated time and again during the film. So then, would someone care to explain why, during the requisite montage of "Look How Cool I Am Getting Up in the Morning," he walks by his stereo and turns the volume dial up way past eleven? Is there some rule that loud noise doesn't effect him when it's serious heavy metal?

That's what I'm talking about. Follow your own rules.

Also, I hate any movie that creates drama by not having the hero defend himself against incorrect accusations.

"You killed my father!"

"You're in a bad mood, so I'm going to run away like a coward and look guilty."

And now we have conflict, because the two characters who really like each other are kept apart by this mistaken assumption. When what the guy should have said was:

"You killed my father!"

"No, I didn't. That guy did. Over there. The bad guy."

"Oh. I didn't see him. OK. My bad. Let's go get him."

"Aces!"

If Daredevil were only sloppy in these story-related areas, I could begin to forgive and forget. But Dudes!!! When Colin Farrell reaches down to his left in the wide shot and then you cut to the close-up and he's reaching down to his right, I have to draw a line.

It's called EDITING! And I should NEVER, EVER notice it in a film. I've seen home movies of newborn babies with fewer continuity mistakes than this thing. Stop being sloppy! Take a damn film class next time you're given the keys to a multi-million dollar blockbuster. Have some pride in your work. Please! We beg of you!!!

I'm not even going to bother to go into detail of the story of Daredevil. Blind guy fights freaks. End of story. Ben Affleck is wholly useless as Daredevil. Jeniffer Garner is slightly less useless, though very, very pretty as Elektra. Michael Clarke Duncan is a mistake as whatever the Hell he was and Colin Farrell is surprisingly ugly as Bullseye. As one of the women I paid to be my friend said "They made both Ben Affleck and Colin Farrell ugly. That's hard to do."

In case you haven't guessed by now, don't go see this movie. Don't even rent it. Don't even watch it for free on cable next year. Instead, pick up your shovel and torch and storm the Fox lot asking for a refund, or the director's head on a stick.

Daredevil gets 1/3 of a Babylon. Why not 0? Because I watched the whole thing, and Jennifer Garner IS pretty. You don't have to be blind to figure that one out.

------------------------------------------------------

Daredevil

Rated: PG-13

Directed By: Mark Steven Johnson

Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jon Favreau, Joe Pantoliano and, according to IMDB, Coolio, in scenes which were deleted. You wonder just how bad Coolio's scenes had to be to get deleted from a movie as bad as this. What, did they cut out a dance number or something?

2007-10-28T10:10:00.000-07:00

Get Your Damn Hands Off My Pumpkins!

I have a bunch of friggin' gnomes mucking up my Halloween decorations.

Last weekend, 4-year old Daughter helped me carve some pumpkins. We did a happy face (two eyes, nose, smiling mouth), a scary face (two eyes, nose, frowning mouth with sharp teeth), and a silly face (one eye, no nose, mouth open in a delirious grin you'd likely find on a mental patient who's just been given his daily dose of Mirtazapine).

We carried them down to the end of our driveway and set them up in a loving Halloween nativity scene, threw in an uncarved pumpkin to even the display out, and left it at that.

They are gone. Not taken, mind you. Decimated. The happy and scary faces (which were the largest two pumpkins) are a mass of splattered pumpkin gore, as if Gallagher held a comeback tour in my driveway. The silly face remains intact, though shoved to the side, not worthy of the Gnomes' time or effort. It still smiles blankly, though now that it has stared death in the face and witnessed acts of brutal pumpkin horror, it is forever scarred, its gaze a glassy-eyed stare through which no reality can penetrate.

I'm pissed.

I don't know the names of these pumpkin-killing gnomes. I suppose it could be deer. The local herd likes to nibble from time to time at just about anything that isn't wrapped in chicken wire, but the carnage of the crime scene points towards a tool-using animal. Perhaps the same ones that bolted for safety in the glare of my oncoming headlights the other night, leaving behind a plastic bag filled with pears from my pear tree. I don't think deer use plastic bags. I could be wrong, but that's a guess.

Why have these truant gnomes decided to take out their angst on my pumpkins? I'm not sure. I have noticed that ours were the first, and so far only, Jack-O-Lanterns on display in the neighborhood. It's our first Halloween here, so perhaps there is some curse on the street that afflicts those who dare carve a face in the Holy Gourd on All Hallow's Eve. Everyone else is aware of the curse, nobody bothered to fill in the new family. It's the perfect recipe for a Clive Barker story. Don't put out the Jack-O-Lantern, you'll only attract the Demons from Beyond the Grave.

More likely, a bunch of damn kids are going around smashing pumpkins and their parents have given up trying to stop them.

I could go to the authorities. I suppose random acts of vegetable violence could be cause for a community task force. But the truth is, this is a private matter, and I need to take care of it myself. Plus, they'll probably just say something like, "Oh, you live up there? Well, there's that curse and all. Sorry, you're on your own."

The Gandhi option is to sit down with my pumpkins, wait for the vagrants to come by, and explain to them the errors of their ways. Jack-O-Lanterns are God's creatures, and they live a short but fruitful life. I can try to convince these hoodlums that it is in their soul's best interests to leave these smiling and frowning and drugged-out faces be, and to wander away from temptation.

But that avenue will probably lead to me getting beaten senseless by a bunch of High School Musical wannabes. Screw that.

I'm not going down without a fight.

I don't mean to turn into Old Man Withers, but I have every intention of shoving justice into the faces of these damn, meddlesome kids. I have a plan.

This weekend, we're carving more pumpkins. I'll let Daughter choose the faces, but we'll probably end up with another round of happy, scary, and silly. Though this time, I think the silly face is gonna have three eyes and a mouth open in surprise like on a blow-up doll.

Next, we'll place them in the same area, baiting the trap. I'll probably spray them with hairspray to help preserve them from the weather. You know, take care of my pumpkins. They're my babies. I love them.

Next, I'll install a series of semi-automatic turret guns that'll pop out of the ground and start blasting when anyone triggers the motion sensors. I may have to warn the mailman.

Then I just sit back and wait.

If I kill a deer or two, my bad. If these four-footed herbivores are the true culprits, I will feel a sense of shame wash over me, and I will lower my head in sorrow at their passing.

But if I come down the next morning to the broken bodies of a couple of punks with a mallet, I'm dancing a jig, chopping off their heads, and propping them up on stakes behind my display to ward off further interlopers.

Don't mess with Old Man Withers.

2007-10-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

Mike Gravel is Not Running for President

Outside of Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich, the hottest presidential candidate for either party these days seems to be, on the Web at least, Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel.

Which is weird, because near as I can tell, he's not actually running for president.

As an aside, what does it say about the Internet that the most enthusiasm is found for candidates who poll just slightly above a lamp post?

Anyway.

As an open minded American voter (well, mostly open-minded. A pack of wild, rabid, leprous Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't get me to vote for Fred Thompson: Male Prostitute. No offense to any Jehovah's Witnesses out there.), I decided to learn all I could about this unheralded phenomenon. Who is Mike Gravel? And should I be rooting for him to steal the jeweled crown of the Democratic Nomination out from under the National Media Approved Three-headed Clintobamadwards behemoth?

So I went to his web site to find out where he stands on the issues.

That was my first hint that he wasn't actually running for president.

See, when you go to Mike Gravel's official web site, you get a chance to sign up for Mike Gravel's email newsletter, a chance to donate money to Mike Gravel, a chance to volunteer to help Mike Gravel, and a chance to "learn more" about Mike Gravel.

Learning more about Mike Gravel means you can read his bio- which includes high praise from Ralph Nader, or join Mike Gravel's YouTube Channel. Or interact with Mike Gravel's friends at MySpace. Or meet other Mike Gravel supporters at Meetup.com. Or talk about Mike Gravel at Google Groups. Or check out Mike Gravel on Facebook, virb, or Second Life.

Curious what his position on SCHIP? Look elsewhere. Curious as to his views on all the FISA hullabaloo? Out of luck. Wonder if he would support raising taxes on beef products in order to fund a massive Thunderdome-like facility that would serve as the final destination of all Death Row inmates? No clue.

But wouldn't that be really cool?

The point is, there's not an ounce of information on Mike Grave's website that tells you what he'd like to do as President.

Because he's not running.

But he has an official campaign website, you say. That's proof enough, right?

You know who else has an official campaign website? Stephen Colbert. And Christopher Walken. And McGyver. And, naturally, General Zod. Are they running for President? Like, with aspirations of winning? But they have official campaign websites!!!

Ah, but running a campaign is more than just slapping up a fancy website. You need ads. Mike Gravel has ads. No really, he does. You can see them on YouTube. In fact, two of his ads have caused quite a stir.

In "Rock" Mike Gravel stares silently at the camera for a few moments, then picks up a rock and tosses it into a pond. In "Twigs" he walks through woods, picking up branches. Then he makes a fire. Then the camera stays on the fire for seven minutes.

Are you ready to cast your vote yet?

When asked about his enigmatic spots, Mike Gravel explained that they were a metaphor. The ripples of the water represent the ripples that a small group of dedicated people can have on the larger world. The branches and twigs he collects represents wisdom, accumulated over a lifetime, and with the wisdom, he builds a fire of "light, heat, warmth. It's the sustenance of life."

Now he may have a beautifully poetic point to make, but in an interview with MSNBC, he admitted that his campaign didn't generate the idea for these spots. Two young teachers approached him and asked to shoot the commercials. He didn't even understand what they were doing, or what the point of the spots were when he shot them. For all he knew, these two teachers thought Mike Gravel's candidacy was about helping pedophiles find new targets. I mean maybe throwing a rock into a pond is a secret pedophile symbol for sex with young boys. He had no idea, he just went along with it and let them shoot him. He didn't care.

Because he's not running for President.

In fact, a vast majority of his "campaigning" has been on the Internet. It's hip. It's now. It's getting the attention of the Under-30 crowd. If he were doing this in addition to regular campaigning, it would be a brilliant way to expand his base and reach new voters. But this is it. He can corner the market on the Under-30 bracket, but even he knows that won't win him anything.

Taking the long-range look at the situation, one could say he's building momentum for a later bid. John Edwards ran in 2004 partly to build his name recognition so that now that he's running in 2008, we know who he is. Al Gore ran for President long before Clinton tapped him to be his VP. Politicians do it all the time. Run and lose now with the hopes of running and winning later.

Except Mike Gravel's 77. Maybe he builds an audience this year, then someone else wins, possibly wins re-election, and then 8 years from now, Gravel's ready to jump back in the show, now with extra name recognition. And he's 85. You're gonna vote for an 85-year old man to lead America? Heck, we all thought Cardinal Ratzinger was pretty dang old for a Pope, and he was only 78. And he just has to sit in the Popemobile and wave. President of the United States at 85? I don't think so. 2008 is Mike Gravel's last hurrah. And at this point, he really doesn't have a snowball's chance in Baja California to win.

But that's OK. He's not trying to win anything.

So what's he doing?

I think he's building a movement.

It's similar to the way the Deaniacs have gone on to upend and alter the Democratic party, even though their guy lost (and truth be told, I think he was actually trying to win). Mike Gravel is an old, old man who represented Alaska in the Senate for 12 years. Think about that. A Democrat was elected Senator in Alaska. Not all that long ago. Today, that seems absurd. Alaska is a Republican state, one of the strongest, various scandals not withstanding. Yet he was a 2-term Democratic Senator.

So he's taking one last trip into the spotlight to build up a movement of ideas that he can leave to an heir apparent, or maybe just help energize a generation to his way of thinking.

I have nothing to say pro or con about what he stands for. For me, this isn't the point. The point is, we should recognize what he's doing. It's not running for President. It's trying to shape the electorate. This is the long haul. It took Republicans 20 years to hone their brand down to the success they had in the 90's. It may take even longer for them to recover from the damage of the Bush years.

But every journey starts with a single step.

Or a single stone thrown into the water.

2004-12-09T09:25:00.000-08:00

What's so Funny About Peace, Love, and Anabolic Steroids

Everybody and their mother have been knocking down my door demanding to get my take on all this Steroids hub-bub. It's as if the world can't move on to important matters until I've sounded off and impacted the prevailing wisdom.

I'm that important.

OK. What we all know. Giambi said in private, confidential testimony, that he stabbed his butt a bunch of times and injected Horse Urine into his body, or something like that. I think it was made from Elmo's umbilical cord or something. Oh, and he says it didn't help him.

Bonds said, also in private, confidential testimony, that he rubbed K-Y jelly on his body but thought it was extract of mother's love and apple pie.

We don't know what Randy Velarde said, but we mock him for even being involved.

My first response goes out to whoever leaked this private, confidential testimony. I hope you're found out and sent to prison, where you can only WISH the only thing being jammed into your backside is a needle. These e players were promised anonymity, and that has been ruined. And this isn't a case of me whining about Bonds' and Giambi's privates. I'm thinking of the larger picture.

You think BALCO is the ONLY company providing athletes with naughty substances made out of Satan's Left Boob? Open your eyes. Remember when Caminitti said 50% of baseball was using something? He may not have been that far off. Right now, there are a lot of players thinking "Thank God I don't play in San Francisco or Oakland. The New York (or Milwaukee, or Toronto, or Atlanta) office of Steroids Inc. is still secret."

And let's be honest, the criminals in this case are the SUPPLIERS. The people we want behind bars are the ones MAKING this stuff and peddling it off to Desperate Athletes (Wednesdays at 9 on ABC) around the globe.

So OK, we've toppled the big bad BALCO. And when we move in on CALCO (Chicago Area Lab and Concoctions Organization), you think we'll get a SINGLE witness to testify? Not anymore. Why testify if your "secret" testimony comes out and ruins your LIFE? You think Giambi is ever going to have a pleasant experience playing Baseball ever again in his LIFE? Bonds? (Well, maybe Bonds, but he's really weird)

So that's my first thought. Whoever leaked this has seriously harmed MLB's (and NBA's and NFL's and everyone else's) chances of cleaning up professional sports.

Thanks a lot. Dork.

As for the players. Why bother? How upset was everyone in '98 when Big Mac was caught using a perfectly legal steroid? Fact is, if Bonds used the cream or the clear or the Credence Clearwater Revival, it wasn't against the rules in 2001. Or 2002. He's tested positive since then. Maybe he still uses and we can't detect. Maybe not. Maybe Cody Ransom used them and it made his hands too big to accurately field that damn ground ball in the 9th in game 161. Who knows? Athletes shouldn't use performance enhancers? What's surgery? Tommy John Surgery is a sick, sick thing. Totally unnatural. Anyone notice how lots of folk who have TJS become better pitchers? Anybody crying home to mother about it?

It's one thing to say drugs are bad, M'Kay? But what's a drug? Where does the line get drawn? Some shout out "It's illegal!" Well sure, steroids are illegal... unless you can get a doctor to prescribe them. So let's say a doctor prescribes them to Yorvit and he starts hitting 50 HRs a year. They were prescribed, so they're not illegal. Now what?

"They're against MLB policy." OK. But even as they are now going to bring da hammer to steroids under threat of public admonishment, how far can they go? If they ban specific substances, what about the next brand new thing that's created and isn't on the list? Ban all steroids? OK. But "the squeaky clean" wasn't a steroid, it was a Human Growth Hormone. Ban all foreign substances that can alter the playing field? What about cortisone shots? What about aspirin?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't really have an answer, maybe someone out there does. Am I happy with the knowledge that Bonds probably hit 73 homers with a little help? Not really. Does that mean if a steroid-induced Bonds had been a part of a 2002 team that didn't blow game 6 I'd have been repulsed? Heck no, I want my Championship. I've been waiting my whole life for a SF Giants championship, and if we'd gotten 5 more outs in 2002, I'd have it, and I wouldn't retroactively care if I found out all 25 players were juiced to the gills.

Here's what I think will happen. Steroids abuse will decline. A few more players will look surprisingly Giambi-esque in the next few months. Balls will not be hit as far on such a regular basis. Fastballs will not top 100 MPH so frequently (forgot that the pitchers are using too, didn't you?). Life will go on.

Until the next drug scandal breaks.

From booze to greenies to coke to 'roids. Players will always search for the next thing to give them an advantage. It's the nature of the beast.

2004-12-08T10:45:00.000-08:00

Why? God, Why?

So the Giants offered arbitration to Jason Christiansen and declined arbitration for Hermanson, Nen, Burba, and Ledee.

On the surface, this isn't horrible. Nen can still sign that minor league deal he's so fond of and pitch for us in May. Hermanson is going to get "closer money" from someone, which is more than he's worth. Burba was a throwaway deal and no loss. And since Christiansen has apparently agreed not to actually take us to arbitration, then we either sign him at a deal we like, or he goes away and we get a draft pick.

Speaking of which..

WHY DIDN'T WE OFFER ARBITRATION TO LEDEE???

Not that we want him. We don't. But he's ALREADY SIGNED WITH THE DODGERS!!! Doesn't that mean that if we go through the motions of offering him arbitration, then we retroactively get a Dodger draft pick? I may be off-base here, we may already have gotten that draft pick since LA signed him. If so, please tell me. Otherwise, what the Hell is wrong with us? We're already giving away 2 draft picks for Omar and Armando. Can't we at least get one back? Or are we banking on our first pick in the draft bring in the 18th round?

If there is someone smarter than me out there, help this ignorant fool understand.

Until then, I'm gonna go hang my head in shame.

2004-11-30T10:19:00.000-08:00

Are we actually spending money?

Word on the Street is that we're signing Armando Benitez. You may have heard of him. He got 47 saves last year with a 1.29 ERA. He's pretty good.

No details, but we've supposedly shelled out $21 mil for 3 years. That's a heck of a lot of money, and could well become another albatross. But if it gets us a ring this year, do we care?

Rumblings and grumblings from The Lunatic Fringe aside, I take this as a sign that Magowen and Sabean are going for it in 2005. You just know they're gonna get themselves a big, fat Outfielder, and you know there is NO WAY D.P. Pierzynski is a Giant in 2005. They have to save money somewhere, and he's their best candidate to begin the blood-letting. I also ponder the fate of Feliz, who may be traded (along with his expected $3 mil+ salary) for some bullpen help/payroll savings. Unless they manage to unload Alfonzo, but that may be asking too much.

Speaking of which, the Kendall trade has got me thinking. Oakland picked up one bloated contract to get a bonafide good player and fill a desperate need, while unloading two bloated contracts they didn't need, dealing from strength. Sound good to me. Let's deal bloated contracts from our strength and pick up one bloated contract we do need.

What's our strength? Well, we have a lot of starting pitchers, and we have an extra corner infielder...

How about packaging Rueter and Alfonzo for an overpaid-but-viable outfielder? I'm sure there's one out there. Maybe his name is Ken Griffey Jr.? Think the Reds would like a solid lefty in their rotation? And Alfonzo to nail down 3rd and turn the Brandon Larson experiment into a trading chip? I dunno, maybe I'm off-base, but this begins to make sense to me.

Someone give Sabean a call, we may be on to something.

2004-11-23T13:13:00.000-08:00

Starved for News...

So I'm Leap-frogging around the Giants BlogSphere annoyed that nobody's updated today. Then, of course, I realize that I haven't updated myself and I wonder if anyone is periodically hopping into my neck of the woods only to growl with discontent at the lack of my own updates.

I can dream.

Of course, the main reason nobody is blogging is that there isn't anything to blog about. We signed Omar. Old news. Barry won the MVP. Old and obvious news. What else is there to talk about in the off-season?

We are starving for news. Something. Anything that will get us to March. Oh sure, we were mildly interested in the happenings of the AFL, but aside from a decent (not fantastic, just decent) showing by Aardsma, there wasn't much of interest to chat about.

It must be hard for those who actually PLAY the game. They need their time off, they want to get away. But we fans- we few, we happy few- want the latest every moment of every day. Even during the season, I sometimes feel that it's not enough.

"What? We lost today? Are we playing again tonight? What!!! I have to wait until tomorrow? And it's gonna be a night game tomorrow? That's more than 24 hours without Giants' Baseball!"

And don't even talk to me about the All-Star break.

Why are we so addicted to this game? To the team, the players, the stats, the results? What drives this inner fire?

Me? I like being a part of something greater than me. I married into a family of die-hard Red Sox fans. So I spent this last post-season living vicariously through them. From the lows to the ultimate high. When the Sox won it, my father-in-law and brothers-in-law were a part of a euphoria that can't be described in words. And I want to be a part of that.

but if it's all about winning, why don't I just become a Yankees' fan and be done with it? Don't know.

But it probably has something to do with going to games at Candlestick with my Dad at the age of 11 or 12. Watching Milt May crouch behind the plate. Living through the Randy Kutcher month. Getting Dan Gladden's autograph in Arizona when you could still walk up morning of and get a good ticket in Scottsdale.

We all have those moments. I was there in '82 when Joe Morgan hit the homerun. I really was. Just as I was there in 1997 when Florida whooped our butts and the sell-out crowd left the stadium dejected, but for some reason chanting "Druckenmiller! Druckenmiller!" I got married on October 7th, 200, a date made easier to remember because that was when Estes made his bone-headed baserunning play against the Mets.

The Giants are a part of my life. And I never want to be without them. And now, in the off-season, I am starving for my fix.

How about you?

2004-11-19T10:45:00.000-08:00

Ch-ch-ch-Changes and a Thought

First, the more I look around at other blogs, the more I don't like what mine looks like. It just strikes me as "Blogging for Beginners" which is fine but I've been online for closing in on 8 years and know enough HTML to make the site a bit more to my tastes.

Hope this don't ruffle nobody's feathers. Either of you.

A new (to me) Giants blog On The Waterfront posts that he's worried about our starting rotation. Hmmm. Let's discuss, shall we?

Giant's current probably 2005 Starting Rotation:

Schmidt
Tomko
Williams
Lowry
Rueter
(Foppert waiting patiently for someone- read "Kirk Rueter"- to stumble)

I like this group. Especially once Rueter is a multi-million dollar long man out of the bullpen.

I see no reason to spend our hard-earned free agent money on the one position we seem to have covered. Honestly, we need a bat, we need a bullpen. FOCUS PEOPLE!

The best of all possible worlds would be to trade Rueter, put Foppert in the rotation, and keep Valdez and Cain in AAA waiting patiently for their turn. But then, anyone know a gullible GM who wants to toss money down a drain and take Rueter off our hands? Jim Bowden?

For better or worse, we have our Shortstop (In the air). For better or worse, we've given up our 1st round pick (worse) once again. For better or worse, I'm betting Sabean waits until players are / are not offered arbitration before getting his next piece (better). Unless, of course, it's Hermanson, who will force us to give a pick to ourselves, which I'm OK with.

After that. The onus is on Sabean. Get us the outfielder we want, jettison some players we don't want, shore up the bullpen. Or face the wrath of the Lunatic Fringe once again.

Tall order.

2004-11-17T11:10:00.000-08:00

Could we GET any older?

Numerous reports say the Giants are seriously looking to nab Steve Finley to play CF.

He's 40.

I know I just praised the possible acquisition of a 38 year-old, but now that our SS is 38, I'm starting to think age doesn't equal beauty here.

I'm 33, and the idea that the Giants may come close to a starting 8 who are all older than me baffles me to no end. Alfonzo is younger than me. Durham by about 2 months. Whoever our catcher is will probably be younger than me. That's it. Snow. Vizquel. Bonds. Grissom. Tucker. All older than me. Add Finley. Older. I thought the idea was to get guys in the prime years, between 26-29? We have NONE of those outside of catcher.

Really, I don't get it. We all made those jokes about the Arizona geezers, but we're knock-knock-knocking on their door. Maybe they can lend us their canes and walkers and we, too, can lose 111 games. Wouldn't that be fun!

Here's what I say. If you get Finley for one year, say $4 million. Fine. But that'll never happen. He's gonna get 3 years for $20 million. So here we go paying out gobs of money in 2006 and 2007 to stiffs, just when we get out from under the Alfonzo and Durham contracts.

Sometimes I think Sabean's a genius, sometimes I want to wring his neck.

What do you think? Are we too old? Can a team be too old? Will we ever get younger?

come to think of it, isn't Julio Franco available? Sounds like he'd fit right in over here.

2004-11-16T09:48:00.000-08:00

What Do You Do With A Problem Like Pierzynski

That headline, of course, needs to be sung to the tune of the Maria song from Sound of Music, just so you know.

Marty Cortinas of Across the Seams (a great Giants blog that you probably already know about, got to have an intimate 1 on 250 chat with Sabean and Magowan. (Do they invite random bloggers? Can I sign up for the next one?) They say a lot of things that you're better off reading first-hand.

A couple of items of note. It sure as heck sounds like D.P. Pierzynski is headed for the greener pastures of the untendered. While this may mean the Yorvit era has officially begun, it may also herald the search for another catcher.

Meanwhile, Sabean laments that they needs to find a position for Feliz to get regular playing time.

Dude! Solve two birds with one stone! Can Pedro catch?

Also, it sounds like Sabean accepts blame for, basically, making a bad trade when he tossed Nathan. Nice to hear the man take responsibility for his actions. Not that it makes it an y easier to watch Nathan become an all-star closer while our bullpen costs us a Post-Season spot, but one hopes he learns from his mistakes.

Of course, he did just sign a 37 (almost 38) year-old shortstop...

2004-11-15T08:37:00.000-08:00

Omar of the Hill People

Well we've landed a Shortstop. He's 37. We signed him for 3 years.

Huh.

New Sabean goal: get an entire lineup of 35+ year-olds.

I mean hey, Bonds is a stud at 40, so obviously, the older a player, the better he is, right?

Isolated, this may not be the disaster it at first appears. The terms of Omar's deal.

2005 2.5 mil
2006 4 mil
2007 4 mil
2008 1 mil deferred
2009 .75 mil deferred

So OK, we're paying 2.5 million this year for a defensive whiz who has a knack of getting on base from time to time. (Career OBP of around.340)

That's not bad.

The big question is ging to be: is he just gonna get old? If the answer is no, then this is a fine deal. Sure, we're all suffering from sticker shock, but would you rather be the Cubs, who inked Neifi for an other tour of duty? (Even as a back-up)

At least we know, now, that Sabean was being totally honest when he said he wanted to improve on our defense. This does just that. It also ensures Code-E Ransom will not see the light of Pac Bell any time soon.

So now there's every indication that we're gonna resign Hermanson to be our closer. That can't be THAT expensive, not like a Percival or Benitez would be.

So maybe, just maybe, we have some money to spend for that outfielder we're hoping for. Or maybe we pull a Yankee and spend some money to get some reliable bullpen help outside of Hermanson (Kline?).

Basically, if this is the sum total of our off-season moves, we're sunk. If it's the beginning of the movement, this might be a decent off-season after all.

We can dream, right?

2004-11-11T09:22:00.000-08:00

More Moises

I've gotten some feedback on my less-than-subtle on-my-knees begging for Moises Alou to join Daddy and smack the ball around Pac Bell.

My first reaction is one of surprise. I honestly had no idea anyone ever read this thing. I should start spell-checking it.

But my second was to look at the over-arching comments and see if they're right, I'm right, or we're all right, so let's just get along.

The main knock against Mr. Moises that came out was the idea that he makes a lot of outs. I'm not so sure this is as true, at least on paper, as it may seem. In 2004, he had a .361 OBP, slightly below his career average of .367. However, it's been 4 years and 2 teams since he's matched his career average. Still, his lowest OBP in the last decade was .337., and that was three years ago in his first tour of Cubbie duty. Looking closer at that year, it looks to be an aberration in his career. Here are his OPS totals for the last 11 years:

.823, .989, .801, .796, .866, .981, .1.039, .950, .756, .819, .918

His .756 stands out as his lowest by over 50 points in the last seven years. Also, he's IMPROVED for three straight years.

Meanwhile, even were Alou to match his worst season in the past 11 years and manage a .337 OBP, that's better than the 2004 OBP posted by:

Grissom
Feliz
A.J.
Deivi Cruz
Neifi (duh over 300 at bats for a .276 OBP!)
Yorvit

And if he does what he did last year? A below career-average .361? Add these names to the list:

Alfonzo
Tucker

In fact, of the 2004 Giants to get 100 at bats, only four beat him. Bonds, of course. Snow. Mohr. And Durham (but only barely, at .364)

So while a number of Cubs fans are saying how Alou makes so many outs. All I can say is.. sounds like a perfect fit!

2004-11-10T13:39:00.000-08:00

Oh Please, oh please, oh please...

According to MLB.com, Moises Alou wants to be a Giant.

Make no mistake about this, he WANTS to come here. If he were offered identical contracts from every team, he'd pick SF.

Do we want him?

Well he's old. 38. So he fits right in. An outfield of Bonds, Grissom, and Alou may well be one of the oldest outfields ever.

HOWEVER

Last year he hit .291 and smacked 39 HRs for an OPS of .919. .919!!! If he can even come close to his career average of .880, how much of a lift is that over The Tuckernator?

I know what you're saying. We don't need offence. We need pitching.

Well actually, we need a Bullpen. Our rotation is fine. I'm perfectly happy with Schmidt/Tomko/Williams/Lowry/Rueter(Foppert). That's a good group. But come on, do we want to overpay for Percival? How much would Benitez cost?

But the offence... Add Alou. Here's your line-up.

Durham
Snow
Grissom
Bonds
Alou
Grisson
Cruz
Random Catcher (Yorvit, A.J., whatever)

Suddenly, we can score some serious runs. Suddenly, we have that 2nd real threat we've lacked since El Truck Washer left town.

This is not a pipe dream... HE WANTS TO COME HERE!

Who's with me?

2004-10-11T16:34:00.000-07:00

The End of the Season

I haven't written in quite a while, and I'm sure both of you are furious with me.

No excuse, got caught up in the possible end-0f-the-season miracle. You know, the one we blew away in the span of 8 batters on a fateful Saturday in Los Angeles?

Truth? I was at the game.

I'm still recovering.

My father-in-law (Red Sox fan) was in town so the two of us headed out last minute, got pretty bad seats way up the 1B line, and watched history unfold.

Soon as we sit down, he tells me that, based on a lifetime of seat-jumping at Fenway, we'll be able to move up to better seats by the 4th or 5th. It is a surprising testimony to Dodger fans that we never moved as much as one row closer. There were no seats to be had.

Sweetest moment? Bottom the 8th. 2 on, 2 out. Beltre up. The entire place chanting "MVP! MVP!" Beltre grounds out. I stand up and chant "MVP! MVP!" I still can't believe I did something like that, but enough people appreciated the irony of it, that I wasn't hated.

Luckily for Giants fans everywhere, baseball is an 8-inning game. Can you imagine if we had to try to go out there and get another 3 outs? We wouldn't be where we are now, headed back to Atlanta for game 5, with Lowry going to the mound to continue his rookie miracle season...

Humor me. I live in denial.

91 wins sounds like a lot. And it is. Unless it takes 92 to make the playoffs. Then you go through the 71 losses and pick a handful that we plum blew. Turns out there are lots of culprits, aside from the heartbreaker in BlueLand.

Whenever the Giants blow an April or May game that they should have won, it irks me to know end to hear players, managers, anyone talk about how "It's OK, it's only peril. The game doesn't mean as much..."

Dudes!! It's a loss! One less "Oops, did we lose that game?" in April would have given us 92 wins and then who knows. How about getting swept at home by Pittsburgh? How about 4 straight 1-run losses at home to LA? How about games where we blew 5-run leads against Colorado? Boston? Anyone?

Uhg.

So now I root for Boston. Partly because I have to, by the laws of marriage. But also partly so there will be one less team that has waited as long as we have for a championship. Kids, it's been 50 years. If the Red Sox win, then it's down to us and the Cubs and maybe a couple others I'm not thinking of at the moment. (White Sox?)

Eventually, even the Cubs will win, and then it'll just be the Giants. Suffering for 50+ years. With some of the best players ever to suit up. (Mays. McCovey. Bonds. Marichal.) And no championships. That's my dream.

On the other hand, 2005 might just be our year.

You think?

2004-09-14T08:50:00.000-07:00

String Him Up

Another Off-Monday means the Giants are quiet as they get ready for a must-sweep series against the Brewers.

Doesn't mean baseball was quiet.

Across the pond from Pac Bell, a very ugly incident took place. Anyone here bothering to read this knows what I'm talking about. And my personal take is pretty much what most are saying. Frank Francisco needs to be dealt with harshly. VERY harshly. If he pitches again in 2004, it's a travesty. He probably shouldn't pitch in 2005 either.

Look, you're a professional ballplayer. Sports is an emotional world. People love their teams, some of them get drunk (less than you'd think, but it only takes one...). They're gonna say some horrible things. But I don't care if the fans are saying your three year-old daughter is having sex with their dog, your job is to ignore them. They are drunk. They are louts. You make a lot more money than they ever will.

Francisco couldn't handle it. He threw a chair into the stands.

He should go to jail.

It's that simple. The chair flew into the stands, apparently hit it's intended target on the head, then bounced and hit an unintended female target in the face, breaking her nose.

Francisco should go to jail.

Not just suspended, which ought to be obvious, but jailed. Behind bars. And sued. Trust me, he will be sued. But we need to keep our anger in check. The woman with the broken nose will sue. She should. But she should only sue Francisco. Not the Oakland As. Not the Texas Rangers. Not MLB. Francisco. Not as deep a pocket, but he threw the chair, so he should pay the price.

This is where we hold our breath and look to see if the fine line of decency is crossed and what starts out as an ugly incident turns into a frivolous lawsuit by an ambulance chaser. Francisco threw a chair at her and broke her nose. He should pay her, I don't know, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars. A year's salary. My fear is her lawyer will want her to become a millionaire over this, and that crosses the line.

We'll see.

2004-09-08T09:33:00.000-07:00

Argh! (and other 4-letter words)

Jason Schmidt can just give back the Cy Young award he won about a month ago. Is there ANYONE who thinks he's fully healthy after his groin pull? He's been shelled 3 straight times!

The only reason the Giants are even alive for a playoff spot is that they have beaten up on weaker competition from time to time, though not, of course, on the Rockies.

2004 is over. It just is. It's over for the Giants, it's probably over for the Cubs. The wild card looks to be Houston or Florida, two teams who were left for dead a few weeks ago, but pretty much expected to be in it this year. They are living proof that it's not how you get out of the gate, but how you stay aloft for the long haul. Getting hot at the right time will do wonders.

Meanwhile, what to do with the Giants? I'm going to pretend I'm Brian Sabean and that I can cut whomever I want for 2005. Should be fun.

Outfield:

Bonds, Mohr, Tucker, + 2. One of those two should be a young, bold, PROSPECT. Liek Linden, or speedster Ellison. Grissom? Go. Go far away. Leave us be. Ledee? Are you kidding me?

Infiled:

Snow, Durham, Alfonzo, Cruz. TRADE PEDRO FELIZ NOW! While people see the power and ignore everything else. Yes, he somehow backed into a 9th inning walk last night and was not the reason we lost. But in my world, to be on my team, you have to have an OBP of AT LEAST .300! You've got your starting 4. You need backups. DON'T PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR THEM! Dallimore, Ransom, and others will do just fine in these rolls, and cost a lot less than a "proven veteran."

Catcher:

Trade A.J. Pick up a servicable back-up Catcher. Yorvit can start. A.J. may be worth something from someone who wants the eternal promise of a .300 hitter. Admit that trading Nathan away was a HUGE mistake.

Notice I'm not being overly down on the offence. Nor all that realistic. Why? Because the offence isn't the problem.

Rotation:

Schmidt- but let him heal.
Lowry- but let him be the #3 guy.
Tomko- but let him be the #4 guy.
Bring up Cain or another young gun and let him be the #5.
Gee... that leaves the #2 slot. And... Rueter? Nope. This is where Sabean needs to work the market. Get us the #2 guy we need. Pick him up, he's out there, available. Go get him. Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

Bullpen:

Brower
Hermanson
..
..
I have no idea.

OK. I guess pitching is what's going to decide Sabean's off-season. It's no secret we need quality pitching. It's no secret it's out there. So keep an eye on what Sabean does to our pitching. Don't fret too much when we fail to sign Garciaparra or Delgado or J.D. Drew. But scour the newslines looking for the pitching.

This offence can win it all in 2005. This pitching staff can't.

2004-09-05T22:20:00.000-07:00

It's only the D-Backs

On one hand, I want to be excited about a 3-game sweep. ANY 3-game sweep. I want to explain away Lowry's bad outing to strep throat and a 100 degree fever and revel in Tomko's resurgence. On the other hand... IT'S ONY THE DIAMONDBACKS. This is the WORST team in the majors.

Still, we beat Randy Johnson, no easy task. Sure he's 12-13 now, but his ERA is better than any Giant's starter.( Including Schmidt, who's over 3 now) and he's FREAKIN' RANDY JOHNSON! We scored 4 off Randy. Not bad, kids. Not bad at all.

And now we go to Colorado. Will we continue this mini-uprising? Only 3 1/2 behind LA, can we make it up? Will Chicago choke on a series of double-headers? How do they reschedule an enitre series? How do these double-headers work? Do they play one team in the morning, then the Marlins fly in from Pittsburgh and play an evening game, then go back to Pitt. for game 2?

So many questions. That's the point of the 2004 Giants. All questions, no answers. The season is over when they lose to Colorado, then back alive after sweeping from the worst team in the majors? I don't think so.

This is a flawed team trying to make it on flash and sizzle.

Still, there's only 3 actual teams in the NL this year, ayet 4 need to go to the playoffs.

Why not us?

2004-09-03T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Day The Season Died

Let me take you back.

Tuesday, August 17th. That was the day the Giants' season ended. We won. But in all reality, we lost, big time.

Jason Schmidt leads Montreal 4-2 after 8 innings. He comes out to pitch the 9th, throws three warm-up tosses, and leaves. Hermanson blows the save, but scavanges the win.

We haven't been the same team since.

You think Jason's fully healthy? He's been shelled twice in a row since coming back from his minor groin pull. I'm no doctor, but I'm a guy and I don't think there's anything remotely close to a MINOR groin pull.

That's like saying we currently have a MINOR budget deficit. Without The Schimdterator, we're a decent offense behind a AAA rotation. Oh sure, we're only 1 1/2 behind the Cubs for the Wild Card, but if I'm Chicago, I'm more worried about Florida and Houston than SF and SD. Time to pack it in? Of course not. Miracles happen. We've won 10 in a row this season, we can do it again. One never knows. But in al reality, we need to look ahead to 2005 and MAKE A REAL PUSH FOR A TITLE.

The offence, much maligned, is actually in decent shape. Install Mohr full time, let Grissom go. That's an upgrade. Would we like a bopper? Sure thing. But more than that.. we need a HUGE starting pitcher. Steal Pedro from Boston. Or something. There are some Starters on the market this winter. We NEED to get one. And I don't mean make a last second curtesy bid to Greg Maddox only to be spurned, I mean make the first move, signalling to other free agents that 2005 is the Giants' year.

We wiping Nen's $9 mil off the books this year. Don't have to pay F-Rod's $3.5 mi. Niefi won't be eating up $2 mil. The money is there. USE IT!

Or forever rest in peace.

2004-09-02T08:53:00.000-07:00

Group Therapy II

"So....."

"Go ahead Kirk, let it out."

"So I lost again."

"Go on."

"Gave up 2 Earned runs in 5 innings. Then another Earned run in 1/3 of an inning."

"Ah."

"WHY DO THEY KEEP BRINGING ME OUT FOR THE 6TH???"

"Now, now Kirk. Let's be honest. You gave up 2 runs in the 5th. Nothing stellar about that."

"Don't change the subject on me! I can't pitch the 6th! I can't! God help me, I can't!"

"Kirk, I'm feeling hostility. Not everybody can pitch the 6th inning, you know. It's OK."

"Doc, let's face it. I'm a freak of nature. Coming into the season with one of the best records for a left-hander currently pitching. I've never been a good pitcher but I've always won! Now I'm not winning! What's wrong with me?"

"Well, you said it yourself. You're not a good pitcher. Let's work with that."

"Screw it. I don't care anymore. I'm making a ton of money. I'm just going to go out there and let the losses pile up. What are they gonna do? Put me in the bullpen?"

"Interesting idea..."

2004-09-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

The Marquis Grissom de Sade

In France in the 1700's, there was a man you may have heard of known as the Marquis de Sade. He was a deranged, sexual deviant who once famously declared "Either kill me or take me as I am, because I'll be damned if I ever change..." He was arrested numerous times in his life for various horrid acts of sacrilige and perversity (and some outstanding debt) and was thought of in his day as a truly dangerous and disturbed man.

Nowadays, people look back at Mr. Sade and, well, I don't exactly what most people think, butthey certianly don't have the honest view of who he was. Some find him an amusing and interesting figure from history, some see him as the father of the Goth movement (no idea why, but I swear I knew a guy who said that- something about Sadism... I'm sure The Cure were involved)

Point is, looking back on his behavior, he doesn't come out quite so bad. Oh sure, he masterbated with crusfixes, but did he ever bear a woman's breast during half-time? I think not.

The Giants have their own Marquis de Sade who will also look better in retrospec than he ought. Mr. Grissom just hit his 18th Home Run in a 9-5 drubbing of the Woeful Rockies. When the season is over, is it too much to assume he'll end with around a .270 average, 20+ HR, and 80+ RBI (he has 71 right now)? Does a 20-80 guy sound pretty useful to you? Yeah, me too.

Thing is, he's been nothing but a disaster for us. After a darned good April, he's been a drain on the offense. The guy has 30 walks (an improvement for him) to pick up an OBP of .317. .317. That hurts. Oh sure, It's not Neifi-level, or Feliz-level, but it hurts. And what hurts more?

How about 20 GIDP so far this year.

20!!!

And you're probably thinking "Only 20? Really? I was sure he'd be in triple digits by now."

And that's the key. Grissom has become Mr. Rally Killer. Even more than A.J. PeirceBrosnanKinseyWhatever. At least in terms of "Yes! Giants have 2 on and 1 out! Who's up? Grissom? Oh well, we'll score next inning." (A.J. has actually hit into 22 Double plays, but for some reason, you just feel that Grissom has done worse.)

How many times has Grissom made the last out, often a double play, with Bonds on deck? How many innings have been derailed by the one-time speedster thwacking a groundball to short? It's like there's a groove from the Batter's Box to the SS and he manages to slide the ball right in there every time.

Or, of course, he just strikes out. Can't forget that.

Yet at the end of the season, you watch. 20+ HR. 80+ RBI. What a great guy. Let's resign him to a Marvin Bernard-style contract.

Repeat after me.:

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

If there's anyone out there who knows voodoo, or magic, or majik, or Tarot, or heck, anyone with a powerfully prophetic Lite-Brite, chant for a new CF in 2005.

"Either kill me or take me as I am, because I'll be damned if I ever change..."

Works just as well for our Marquis, doesn't it?

Oh, and in other Giants news, Brett Tomko, pitching well for the 2nd straight time, injured himself AFTER a strikeout.

Of course he did. Can't have a half-way decent starting pitcher not named Schmidt, now can we?

Uhg

2004-08-31T09:04:00.000-07:00

Noah's Arc

First, I just need to say.. Thank God we finally have a closer who will come in and shut the door on the opposition.

Grrrrrrrrrr

OK, Let's investigate one Noah Lowry, supposed Savior of the Franchise.

Here are two pitchers, which would you rather have in your rotation?

ERA K/9 BB/9 OPS Against
Pitcher A 2.84 8.53 2.27 .693
Pitcher B 5.74 7.43 4.05 .807

Well they both have decent K/9 rates, one pitcher does seem to be quite a bit better than the other. Of course, no surprise, both of these pitchers are Noah Lowry. Pitcher A is at Pac Bell, and Pitcher B is anywhere else in the Major League Baseball universe.

So is Noah really the Savior of the Franchise? Or is he one of those pitchers who somehow MATCHES UP WELL WITH PAC BELL?

I'd say his next start will be a good indicator, but it's against Arizona. At Pac Bell. So I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict Lowry to throw another shut-out.

They have platoons in the field all the time, how about platoons in the rotation? Now that we know Tomko hates pitching at Pac Bell, lets shift Lowry and Tomko back and forth in the rotation. If the 5th spot falls at home, Lowry pitches and Tomko is long man from the bull-pen for a few days before and after. If the 5th spot falls somewhere else, Tomko pitches, Lowry goes deep.

Just a suggestion.

2004-08-30T11:12:00.000-07:00

It's Raining Snow

Right now, after going 0-2 so far as the Giants fall behind 3-1 to the Braves, J.T. Snow is hitting .323. And it's not an empty .323, as an OBP of .424 and an SLG of .514 (!) will attest. That Snow has an OPS of .938 is one of those "check to make sure it's not raining locusts" end-of-the-world signs.

So this begs the question, should he be our 1B in 2005?

Which is actually a more interesting question than "WILL he be our 1B in 2005" because I'm betting he will. There's a $2 mil option which will be difficult to pass up for a 1B with a .938 OPS and Gold Glove. Problem is, we won't be getting .938 in 2005. We'll be getting @ .750. And While $2 mil for a .750 OPS at short or second might be worthwhile, not so at 1B. We can get REAL 1B who will hit .900 or more on a consistant basis and strike fear into the heart of pitchers everywhere. They'll cost more, but tell me throwing a healthy Mr. Delgado, or Mr. Sexton into the 5-hole behind The Barry doesn't improve things.

I mean come on people. Which is more believable? That at 32, J.T. figured it out and has raised his game to the level of the elite for all time? Or that posting a BA, OBP, and SLG all higher than career bests turns 2004 (in less than full-time -- he doesn't qualify for the batting title yet) makes him this year's Brady Anderson?

If only he was Brady Anderson of '96. 50 HRs would look mighty good right now.

The true horror is the idea that Sabean gets all excited, falls over himself, and signs Snow to another 4-year deal at $17 mil per or something.

That's a chilling Snow thought.

2004-08-27T23:40:00.000-07:00

Group Therapy

"Hi. My name is Kirk Rueter and I have a problem."

"Hi Kirk."

"I am a 5-inning pitcher. I want to fight it, I want to be a real starting pitcher, but I'm not."

"Tell us more."

"I have an ERA of 4.62 in inning 1-5. Nothing great, but it gets me a paycheck. Problem is, I have an ERA of 8.14 in innings 6 and beyond."

"Ouch."

"Yeah, tell me about it. Just today, I was going smooth, had a shut-out through 5. Then I came out in the 6th. Didn't retire a batter, gave up 4 runs."

"Man, I feel for ya."

"Maybe if my manager understood my limitations, I'd be able to get out after 5 and get a win. But unfortunately, my manager keeps bringing me out in the 6th and beyond. I don't know what to do."

"Have you tried faking injury after 5 innings?"

"No. Hadn't thought of that.. Interesting idea."

"That's what we're here for. Until then, let's practice our mantra. I WILL NOT PITCH THE 6TH INNIG OR BEYOND. BECAUSE IF I DO, MY TEAM WILL LOSE THE GAME."

"I WILL NOT PITCH THE 6TH INNIG OR BEYOND. BECAUSE IF I DO, MY TEAM WILL LOSE THE GAME"

"Very good Kirk. Can't wait to use you against St. Louis in the playoffs."

2004-08-27T08:44:00.000-07:00

The Magical Mr. Tomko

After spending months not updating, I decided to use this blog for something I'll update a lot more frequently on: The San Francisco Giants.

For those not in the know (both of my imaginary readers) The Giants currently stand 71-58, 4 games behind the Dodgers in the NL West, 1 game behind the Cubbies for the NL Wild Card, and 1 game above the Padres in all things.

Last night, in Florida, Brett Tomko pitched his first major league shutout, dominating the Marlins 5-0. Seeing that happen (on the Internet, at least) reminded me that Tomko first came to my attention as part of a hot, young, Seattle rotation that was going to rule the world. Gil Meche. Freddie Garcia. Ryan Anderson. Brett Tomko. These were the young studs of the system. And Tomko was often mentioned by scouts as one of the best.

So what happened? How'd he go from up-and-coming Superstar to journeyman who has somehow managed to obtain a winning record for this season? I dunno. I know that when we signed Tomko, I thought to myself "Cool. He's gonna break out and have the season folks have been predicting." And he did. And started, like, 1-4 or 1-5. That's the season everyone has been predicting. Last night he reminded everyone why he was once thought of as a future star. But the rest of this season, he has reminded everyone of why he's a journeyman.

Eh. He's just keeping a rotation spot warm for Cain.

In Other News:

My film, the one I wrote and got produced, is available. You can rent it at Blockbuster. You can rent it at Hollywood Video. You can rent it from Netflix, or find it on Amazon. I get a piece of the backend, so go see it. Both of you. It's called The Eliminator. Starring Michael Rooker and Bas Rooten. Go have a few beers, pop it in and enjoy yourself. It's no work of art, but it's no Pluto Nash either.

No news on any of my other scripts. I'll keep you posted.

2004-04-27T16:37:00.000-07:00

Incoherent April Ramblings

So I said I'd have a bunch of "unofficial" rules on how to write a B-Movie.

Then I didn't post for close to a month?

Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

Truth told, I don't feel like talking much these days to my audience of one. Especially when that one is actually just myself.

I'm working on a new story, one written for myself, and not for any producer, B=movie or A-movie or DD-movie or whatever.

But I gots to share this one lovely tidbit.

One of my projects in the pre-production phase is being so dramatically re-written (and not by me) that it's possible that they'll end up changing the title. changing the names of the characters, and giving us back control of the original script. In it's place, I could get a story credit and some money for a film which I will have absolutely nothing to do with.

Gotta love this industry.

2004-03-30T10:25:00.000-08:00

Da B-Movie Rules

Yes, I made the deadline, came up with a climactic ending that did what I wanted, finished the script. My producer called me after reading most of the script (why don't they ever wait to finish the whole thing before passing judgment?) to tell me that he loved it. LOVED IT. Granted, it's not a Herculean task tog et this particular producer to love something, but he HAS not loved things of mine in the past, so anything positive is welcome.

That out of the way it is time to switch gears.

I've promised my wife that I'm going to begin work on the one script of mine that she has ever really liked, a family-fantasy project currently titled Untitled Family Fantasy Book Project. Catchy, no? This should be an eye-opening experience for me, because I am most definitely NOT writing a B-Movie with this one. And I've been writing a lot of B-movies lately. A lot. That's the market I've been able to tap into. Got my first film produced (check out The Eliminator (not my title) on IMDB- order it from your local video store today!) and The Installation is another B-movie, as are other films I have in the pipes. B-Movies are bringing me money (very small amounts, but money, none the less). B-Movies are what I know.

And it's not so easy as you might think.

There are rules.

Fact: most B-movies make their money in International markets. They just do. Ever wonder why these things even exist? It's not like you walk into your local Lowes and see the latest C. Thomas Howell/Sean Young thriller (currently in post-production). But overseas? I was driving through the streets of Jakarta, Indonesia when I noticed a billboard for a brand new Sylvester Stallone film I'd never heard of. D-Tox. Did you see it? It was in all the theaters in Jakarta. But in the States? You're lucky if you can rent it at Blockbuster.

Why? Dunno. Don't care.

So without further ado, here are the official "Rules" of the B-Movie.

1) No Blood. You can kill and maim and plunder all you like, but nobody should ever bleed profusely. Sometimes this is specified as "Moving Blood" i.e. Slasher slices Victim's neck and blood splatters over the walls. Nu-uh. Try slasher slices victim's neck and then lets him drop down off-camera, dead. No blood. Why? Many of the International markets have their priorities straight, and realize that's exposing people to buckets of blood may be a dangerous thing to do. So they don't let you do it. Meanwhile, in America, we have no problem watching people disembowel each other in a frivolous romp. And then we wonder why there's so much more violence here than in other countries.

2) No swearing. Two reasons. First, the obvious. Some countries won't pay money for films that have foul language in them, because they can't sell them to family markets. But also, American cursing doesn't always translate very well overseas. Think about it. Austin Powers 2 had to doctor their title when they opened in the U.K. because "shagging" has a slightly different meaning over there than it does here.

3) Action, action, action. Have you gone more than 10 pages without someone getting beaten up? You're slacking. Lots and lots of countries are inhabited by people who, believe it or not, don't speak English. So they just don't really get witty banter. But they sure as heck get a guy being tossed through a window. That's International.

Those are the three biggest rules, but there are many other, "unofficial" rules. I'll bring those to your attention in my next post.

Word.

2004-03-26T12:16:00.000-08:00

Die Hard with a B-Movie

I am desperately trying to finish this Spawn of Satan Re-write on The Installation by Saturday. I've got 97 pages right now, and I'm more or less in the climax, but it's isn't all that exciting, and I'm worried that I've blew my momentum with a rousing false climax at around 92 or 93.

What I need to do is just finish the damn thing, then go back and fix it. The re-write of this re-write will be massive. And it will be done in one day. And cows will fly out of my butt. Have I mentioned that I dislike this project?

Usually, I have a really whiz-bang ending in my head before I even start, and it's just a matter of getting there. But this time, I dunno. I broke my own rules and wrote before thinking and now I've got this monstrosity on my hands.

Also, writing 7 or 8 pages a day, I lose track of the forest for the trees. Right now I've got 2 good guys left and 2 bad guys. Naturally, I need to have the good guys defeat the bad guys and toss us all a happy ending. But how? I've set up long ago that the real physical battle was going to be between the hero and the "Karl" character (to use Die Hard analogy). But the battle against "Karl" (he's the blonde baddie who Bruce Willis eventually dispatches by tying a chain around his neck and swinging him off the stairwell) was both A) to "ultimate" a struggle and B) to final for my own good. See, in Die Hard, Karl comes back one last time after we thought he was dead at the very end when everyone's hugging and cheering. He's the "surprise scare" and it works because even though we thought he was dead much earlier, he was really just hanging around, free to come back like a bad Supervillain. Problem with my Karl is, I blew him up. Pretty severely. Not sure how he's supposed to come back after that.

Then, of course, comes the question of how to kill my "Hans" (Alan Rickman). I don't have a nice zillion-story tower to drop him out of. Another fight? Boring. Boring, boring, boring. He's the big baddie, he needs a special demise.

And I'm all special-ed out.

And it's due tomorrow.

And I'm wasting time writing this rather than the script.

2004-03-24T11:12:00.001-08:00

In The Beginning...

Why does anyone start a blog? A place to vent to the unknown populace of the Internet? A chance to share their views with like-minded people across the globe? Ego?

Well, I'm all for a good ego-boost every now and then. But basically, as a writer, I have found that putting my thoughts down on paper helps me organize them. And then hopefully masses of people will read them and decide that I'm a brilliant savant who deserves truck-loads of money.

Or something like that.

The project du jour is a B-level action script called The Installation. A deal is pretty much in place to make it for @$250,000 if I ever finish the script. So I'm writing, trying to connect the dots and make everyone happy. One problem.

I hate this script.

I should never have pitched it. It's a disaster waiting to happen. What am I gonna make on it? $5,000? For all the Hell it's putting me through, the rewrites, the rules I have to follow, the roles I have to write to fit the stars who come attached to the money, it's almost not worth it.

But I have a deadline, and so I toil...