Before I get to my random musings on sports, please check out The Stace's blog post today. Despite leaning toward the right and pretending not to give a rat's tush about the environment, I absolutely agree with Stacey and all the other treehuggers out there.
Some sports thoughts:
If you have not yet seen it, check out the video of the hockey fight (the first 53 seconds) from Canada's junior league that took place the other day. Patrick Roy, one of the greatest goaltenders ever to play the game and coach of his son's team, orders his boy (also a goaltender) to beat the hell out of the opposing goalie, who was not at all interested in fighting. I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I first saw it, (keep an eye out for another player taking out the ref around the 28 second mark) but in all seriousness, what the hell was Roy the Elder thinking? Predictably, he's now in a lot of hot water. Then again, when it comes to fighting, Roy Sr. knows a thing or two.
Early thoughts on the Red Sox: their pitching better improve. It's only 2 games, so it's silly to even think about being worried at this point, but Dice-K and Lester continue to battle control problems, leading to very high pitch counts, which in turn leads to short outings and overtaxing the bullpen. Bottom line - their are legitimate health concerns for much of the starting rotation and if the Sox are to have any chance of repeating, their hurlers need to stay healthy.
I was in New Jersey for business the other day and wouldn't you know it, I drove right by Giants Stadium. Of course, a giant Super Bowl champions banner is hanging on the side of the building. I made myself stare at it for as long as I could. Therapeutic really, in that it reminded me that although the Pats were the best team in the league last year, the Giants were by far the better team on the field in Arizona. They earned that banner, fair and square. As far as the offseason roster moves (or lack thereof), I continue to trust Belichick and Pioli. They've certainly earned it. Wouldn't surprise me at all if something big is coming down the Pike.
Celtics - Not an NBA fan, but what's not to like? They could very well win it all this year. Amazing turnaround and great to see Boston reinvigorated as a hoops town.
Bruins - Way back in the day, there was no bigger Bruins fan than me. Today, I haven't watched a full game in probably 3 years. This is what happens when ownership decides that profits at all costs are more important that fielding a competitive team.
Keep an eye on my alma mater, the mighty UMass Minutemen, who have advanced to the NIT semi-finals. Two more wins and we can call ourselves the 66th best team in the country. Presumably, there are no hookers involved this time around.
164 days until kickoff.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Hillary or Obama?
Religion and politics - two topics that one would be wise to steer clear from at work, in a bar and probably, in blogs. Naturally, I'm digging right in. Today, politics:
I am technically "unenrolled," but do tend to vote republican. OK, I most always vote republican. OK, every single time, I vote republican. Not that it matters in the Bay State, which has gone democratic in every election since Fred Flintstone was elected Grand Poobah. That said, I am fascinated at the battle taking place on the democratic side. No matter who secures the nomination, either an African-American or female will be up for President, and not only is that pretty neat, it's about time. Female Jewish Muslim Transgendered Dwarf African-Americans? Your day is coming...
With regards to the two Democratic candidates, here is one fairly uninformed man's opinion:
Hillary - Not a fan. Clearly, her objective is to convince the public that she is our savior. First it was the "It's 3 a.m., your children are asleep..." ad. But what really got my attention was the on-screen text from an earlier TV ad that ran during the N.H. primary:
"A nation at war, troubles at home. America at a crossroads, demands a leader with a steady hand who will weather the storms, solve our problems, rebuild our middle class..and renew our greatness."
Wow, really? Hillary can solve our problems, rebuild our middle class and renew our greatness? All by herself?
Hillary touts decades of political experience, despite the fact that she has held public office only a few years longer than her opponent. Perhaps this is the experience she is referring to: less than a week into her tenure as First Lady, she dove head first into her attempt to reform the nation's healthcare system. Although I commend her effort, she was not successful and I am hard pressed to remember another cause that Hillary publicly championed while hubby was President.
Thankfully, I didn't have to remember, as the records of Hillary's time as First Lady have just been released. Those records show that Hillary privately lobbied for NAFTA, which business experts at the time feared would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. It passed and President Clinton declared it a great victory. Today, Presidential wanna-be Hillary Clinton wants NAFTA to be re-negotiated, as it has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. Of course she does.
Obama - Seems to be the anti-Hillary. Doesn't make grandiose promises or tout experience that isn't there. Talks to people, not at them. Last week, describing Obama's terrific speech on race relations, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart said, "And so, on March 19 at 11 a.m., a prominent American politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults."
When it comes to politics, I am as skeptical as they come. Whether they are candidates or elected officials, I believe that most politicians pander to the masses, telling them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Most of the time, it's one promise after another, just about all of which go unfulfilled. But to me, Obama just comes across differently....more honest, more direct, more real.
Clearly, I am making sweeping generalizations. Both have no doubt done good, and both have no doubt made silly promises that cannot possibly be met. But here is where I differentiate the two - It's very debatable just how much Washington can be changed, but for the first time in my adult life, in Obama I see a politician who I think actually has a chance to doing something about it.
That said, Democrats like to raise taxes and Republicans like to lower them, so I'll probably vote for McCain.
I am technically "unenrolled," but do tend to vote republican. OK, I most always vote republican. OK, every single time, I vote republican. Not that it matters in the Bay State, which has gone democratic in every election since Fred Flintstone was elected Grand Poobah. That said, I am fascinated at the battle taking place on the democratic side. No matter who secures the nomination, either an African-American or female will be up for President, and not only is that pretty neat, it's about time. Female Jewish Muslim Transgendered Dwarf African-Americans? Your day is coming...
With regards to the two Democratic candidates, here is one fairly uninformed man's opinion:
Hillary - Not a fan. Clearly, her objective is to convince the public that she is our savior. First it was the "It's 3 a.m., your children are asleep..." ad. But what really got my attention was the on-screen text from an earlier TV ad that ran during the N.H. primary:
Wow, really? Hillary can solve our problems, rebuild our middle class and renew our greatness? All by herself?
Hillary touts decades of political experience, despite the fact that she has held public office only a few years longer than her opponent. Perhaps this is the experience she is referring to: less than a week into her tenure as First Lady, she dove head first into her attempt to reform the nation's healthcare system. Although I commend her effort, she was not successful and I am hard pressed to remember another cause that Hillary publicly championed while hubby was President.
Thankfully, I didn't have to remember, as the records of Hillary's time as First Lady have just been released. Those records show that Hillary privately lobbied for NAFTA, which business experts at the time feared would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. It passed and President Clinton declared it a great victory. Today, Presidential wanna-be Hillary Clinton wants NAFTA to be re-negotiated, as it has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. Of course she does.
Obama - Seems to be the anti-Hillary. Doesn't make grandiose promises or tout experience that isn't there. Talks to people, not at them. Last week, describing Obama's terrific speech on race relations, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart said, "And so, on March 19 at 11 a.m., a prominent American politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults."
When it comes to politics, I am as skeptical as they come. Whether they are candidates or elected officials, I believe that most politicians pander to the masses, telling them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Most of the time, it's one promise after another, just about all of which go unfulfilled. But to me, Obama just comes across differently....more honest, more direct, more real.
Clearly, I am making sweeping generalizations. Both have no doubt done good, and both have no doubt made silly promises that cannot possibly be met. But here is where I differentiate the two - It's very debatable just how much Washington can be changed, but for the first time in my adult life, in Obama I see a politician who I think actually has a chance to doing something about it.
That said, Democrats like to raise taxes and Republicans like to lower them, so I'll probably vote for McCain.
Friday, March 21, 2008
"We'll leave the light on for you..."
Remember that tag line? Spoken by your friend and mine, Tom Bodett, referring to Motel 6, the Four Seasons of budgetary accommodations. The irony in that catchphrase is that rooms at Motel 6 look much better without lights. I've had the privilege of staying in a few Motel 6s in my life (I miss you Santa Fe....) and in all fairness, it did a nice job at filling a niche - a mostly clean and absolutely outdated room that offered affordable solace to budget-minded travelers. Certainly, one wouldn't opt to stay in a Motel 6 for the ambiance, but that was the point. Not only did Motel 6 provide perfectly fine hospitality at discount rates, but it also knew its place in the grand scheme of things. It was OK to poke fun of Motel 6, mostly because...it's Motel 6!
So, you can imagine my surprise when I read this article in the USA Today. Actually, screw the article; all you need to know is this:
Notice the TV in the upper right on the first picture? 32-inch flat screens, in every room. Yup, Motel 6 has gone chic, and we as a society are poorer for it. Well, actually, we're not - the average price for a room will stay at around $45. Hell, if all of the Motel 6's are going to look like this, then they should absolutely leave the light on.
So, you can imagine my surprise when I read this article in the USA Today. Actually, screw the article; all you need to know is this:
Notice the TV in the upper right on the first picture? 32-inch flat screens, in every room. Yup, Motel 6 has gone chic, and we as a society are poorer for it. Well, actually, we're not - the average price for a room will stay at around $45. Hell, if all of the Motel 6's are going to look like this, then they should absolutely leave the light on.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
I LOVE this place!
Today is my birthday - 34 , old enough to start thinking about prostate exams - which means another year that I get to watch the idiots in the state legislature make complete asses of themselves. I refer, of course, to the decision not to support casinos in the state.
It goes without saying that I am in favor, as I enjoy the occasional foray into Connecticut. However, my irritation does not stem from a missed opportunity to turn a 90 minute drive into 45. It has to do with common sense - which apparently you cannot have if you wish to succeed in politics.
True story - casinos would bring thousands of construction jobs and tens of thousands of permanent jobs. The upfront licensing fees paid to the state would approach one billion dollars and the state's annual cut would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Annually. As in, every year.
True story - The economy isn't doing so well. Property taxes are going through the roof, towns don't have enough money to fund basic programs. The state keeps raising taxes and tolls just to meet basic needs...never mind thinking proactively.
True story - A few years ago, the Boston Globe sent a reporter down to Foxwoods on consecutive weekends to take note of the license plates in the parking lots. More than half came from Massachusetts. Which means that every day, thousands, or tens of thousands of gamblers from Massachusetts are spending their money in Connecticut...and now Rhode Island. This isn't a matter of giving people another way to spend/lose money. They are already doing it and they will continue to do it. Just not here.
Ah, but the geniuses in the legislature, led by the esteemed Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, do not want to "import a casino culture of crime and problem gambling." Never mind that neither Ledyard nor Uncasville have deteriorated into crime-laden neighborhoods. In fact, with the money that Foxwoods and Mohegan contribute to the economy, new schools were built, new businesses opened to cater to the influx of visitors and property taxes have decreased. Funny how that works - don't let the facts stand in the way of your argument.
Of course, Speaker DiMasi wouldn't just turn away all of this state revenue without having a Plan B. Would he? Um..yes, apparently so. Uncle Sal hasn't come up with other means to generate this money - he just knows that casinos aren't the way to do it. Awesome.
Apparently, the legislature doesn't have a problem with all gambling. The Mass state lottery, long the most profitable lottery in the country, keeps rolling along. I guess it's OK to spend $100 on scratch tickets, keno and Megabucks, so long as you don't spend it on a slot machine. And to that end...good news! The state has drastically increased the number of places that can offer keno.
Good times.
It goes without saying that I am in favor, as I enjoy the occasional foray into Connecticut. However, my irritation does not stem from a missed opportunity to turn a 90 minute drive into 45. It has to do with common sense - which apparently you cannot have if you wish to succeed in politics.
True story - casinos would bring thousands of construction jobs and tens of thousands of permanent jobs. The upfront licensing fees paid to the state would approach one billion dollars and the state's annual cut would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Annually. As in, every year.
True story - The economy isn't doing so well. Property taxes are going through the roof, towns don't have enough money to fund basic programs. The state keeps raising taxes and tolls just to meet basic needs...never mind thinking proactively.
True story - A few years ago, the Boston Globe sent a reporter down to Foxwoods on consecutive weekends to take note of the license plates in the parking lots. More than half came from Massachusetts. Which means that every day, thousands, or tens of thousands of gamblers from Massachusetts are spending their money in Connecticut...and now Rhode Island. This isn't a matter of giving people another way to spend/lose money. They are already doing it and they will continue to do it. Just not here.
Ah, but the geniuses in the legislature, led by the esteemed Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, do not want to "import a casino culture of crime and problem gambling." Never mind that neither Ledyard nor Uncasville have deteriorated into crime-laden neighborhoods. In fact, with the money that Foxwoods and Mohegan contribute to the economy, new schools were built, new businesses opened to cater to the influx of visitors and property taxes have decreased. Funny how that works - don't let the facts stand in the way of your argument.
Of course, Speaker DiMasi wouldn't just turn away all of this state revenue without having a Plan B. Would he? Um..yes, apparently so. Uncle Sal hasn't come up with other means to generate this money - he just knows that casinos aren't the way to do it. Awesome.
Apparently, the legislature doesn't have a problem with all gambling. The Mass state lottery, long the most profitable lottery in the country, keeps rolling along. I guess it's OK to spend $100 on scratch tickets, keno and Megabucks, so long as you don't spend it on a slot machine. And to that end...good news! The state has drastically increased the number of places that can offer keno.
Good times.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
And so it begins...
My aspirations for this blog are reasonable - to become so wildly popular that I can quit my day job and make a six figure living from online ads (all praise Ad Sense!). Baring that, if I can get 12 people to read this on a regular basis, not only will I have succeeded in stoking my ego, I will have succeeded in wasting 12 people's valuable time.
I envision this as somewhat of a blog potpourri - a little bit of this and a little bit of that, as opposed to an overarching theme. That said, I look forward to sharing my witty, sometimes derogatory, and generally clueless thoughts on subjects that I find interesting - politics, the news media (hey, I do work in public relations), poker, my beloved Patriots, other sports, television, food, drink, my wife, friends....and just about anything else.
Which leads me to my first question - did some overstressed tech geek come up with the word 'blog' because calling it a web site was just too much effort?
I envision this as somewhat of a blog potpourri - a little bit of this and a little bit of that, as opposed to an overarching theme. That said, I look forward to sharing my witty, sometimes derogatory, and generally clueless thoughts on subjects that I find interesting - politics, the news media (hey, I do work in public relations), poker, my beloved Patriots, other sports, television, food, drink, my wife, friends....and just about anything else.
Which leads me to my first question - did some overstressed tech geek come up with the word 'blog' because calling it a web site was just too much effort?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
