cabbageboy

This one is easy, it's Mr. Blonde. At least we see Blonde acting normally during some part of the movie, when Joe is interviewing him for the heist and he fucks around with Eddie and all that. I always looked at him as a guy who was a criminal (but essentially ok guy) who got warped in prison. Dennis Hopper as Frank in Blue Velvet though? That was one crazy fucker right there. Sure he took Jeffrey out for the joyride but there was always a deranged vibe that he was psychologically torturing him at the same time (and eventually beats the shit out of him). He also berates his own men and terrifies them as much as those he abuses. The only character who has any calming effect is Ben (Dean Stockwell) and that is only for a few mins. It's unfortunate that Blue Velvet isn't as well known as Reservoir Dogs. You'll never forget it, believe me.

If you look back in this thread I made a few predictions for tonight's game: 1. There was no way Schilling would have 2 crap starts in a row. Check. 2. There was no way Lieber would shut down the Sox a 2nd time. Check. 3. It was only proper to have a game 7. Check. It was obvious that Schilling would pull something out of his ass tonight. It makes for too great of a story not to happen. To go 7 innings of inspired pitching on a bum ankle, facing elimination, is one of the great performances in postseason history. Yankee fans need to quit whining about not being able to hit. There was a reason they couldn't hit, and it was Schilling. That said, I can't see the Sox winning tomorrow. Eventually you just run out of luck. My god what a series though.

This might be one of those leap of faith deals, but I think Schilling will be the man tonight. I'm not basing this one anything other than 1) I can't see Schilling having 2 awful starts in a row and 2) I can't see Jon Lieber having 2 awesome starts in a row. It's only proper for this to go 7.

For whatever reason I can't see Jon Lieber being a madman again tomorrow. I know the guy has been lights out vs. the Sox and he was great in game 2...but still, it's friggin Jon Lieber. The guy was with the Cubs not that long ago...and he wasn't good there. Besides, the Sox have to win one more game to give us the illusion that they can win this series. And then they'll job in game 7 on a 9th inning rally.

There's no way in hell Bush is going to win comfortably. I too noted that new Gallup poll and it's of course complete bullshit. I mean, last week they had Kerry up 49-48 (which sounded feasible) and now all of a sudden Bush is UP by 8% 52-44?? Let's face it, they are doing the goofy oversampling of Republicans yet again. Gallup is ruining their credibility with this election. I can't see how anyone will take them seriously after this. It's basically going to come down to 8 states at this point: Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and of course Florida. Nevada is a tossup, but since Bush won it in 2000 I think he'll likely win that state by 2-3%. Since Nader isn't on the ballot in NM (at least I don't think he is), I can't see him drawing 3.6% again so Kerry should likely win that state by a bit more than Gore did. Also, from what I've seen in both Rasmussen and Zogby Kerry is up slightly in WI and IA (just 1-2 in WI and 4 in IA). PA is a state that I don't actually think is all that much of a tossup, Kerry will likely win it by a good 5-6%. NH is just 4 electoral votes and is a tie in most polls, but unless Nader matches his performance from 2000 I don't see this one going to Bush again. That leaves OH and FL to determine the election. I have absolutely no idea about either of these states. FL's polls seem to be either 4% for Bush, 4% for Kerry, or tied at 47. I just hope that there isn't controversy down there this time. OH's polls are much the same, just all over the place. Some have Bush up 8% (which is fantasy), some have him up 2, some have Kerry up as much as 4. I have no idea who will win this state. So there you have it, basically it comes down to FL and OH.

Never fear though, it was against the truly hapless UK. I'm telling you, Kentucky right now...1-10 this year. Any arguments? They have Auburn next week, and that'll be a squash. There's no way Miami should be ahead of Auburn at this point. They probably will be due to rep alone. Just wondering, but where will Louisville go in the polls? It would be SO unfair if they dropped after that effort against Miami. Do you realize that it's likely U of L will play Utah in the Liberty Bowl to determine the "King of those fucked by the BCS?"

Here's my point from earlier: If Parker and Stone were trying to skewer both liberals and conservatives, it really didn't succeed. Frankly, most conservatives probably wouldn't get that they were even poking fun at gung ho foreign policy and would probably just enjoy the film. Liberals will pick up on this subtext, but then will also realize the film is much harder on leftists in Hollywood. Mind you, I really enjoyed the film a lot (the puppet work and filming was amazing, I had no trouble taking them as real characters). But consider the difference in this compared to the South Park movie. In that the Canadians attack the Baldwin estate, and it's hilarious. It just makes you think "WTF??" It was arbitrary and silly, and I think the Baldwins themselves could have a laugh at it. Here it's much more mean spirited (albeit hilarious). Baldwin and Co. are basically being ridiculed for their political views, and while I don't listen to them and could care less what they think, at least they HAVE opinions. Still, how can you not laugh at Matt Damon knowing nothing aside from his own name? They mentioned Affleck in the songs in this movie, but I was hoping for a puppet of him too.

This was probably the funniest thing I've seen in years. The soundtrack alone is worth the price of admission. The puppet sex, Kim Jong Il, making fun of Affleck and Damon...it's all hysterical. I wasn't sure exactly what political statement this movie was trying to make. In some ways I'm not sure I liked it. For a movie that was trying to trash both sides, it seemed to me like it trashed the liberal left a LOT more. Aside from Kim Jong, all of the heels were liberal (and misguided) Hollywood stars. The protagonists are the gung ho Team America of course, and we're left thinking basically that "Yeah, we fuck up sometimes but we're still way cool." That is the curious thing about the film: While sending up gung ho Bush policy (destroying most of Paris, blowing up the Sphinx and pyramids, etc.) it ends up giving the vibe that it's still cool. You can't help but cheer on Team America since they're the protagonists. But in the end, I really liked it and it was certainly the funniest thing I've seen this year.

Oh yeah. We made all sorts of stupid errors late in the game. Had a surefire INT on Berlin that would have sealed it...dropped it. From there I basically said "Well that just cost us this game." And yes, our time management late was horrible, as we seemingly dicked around and didn't use timeouts when Miami had 1st and goal inside the 5. The goofy thing about it is that let's say we stop them all 4 times and use the timeouts...from there we'd get the ball and kneel down. Berlin is a QB that seems better when he doesn't have to think about it. 1st half he had to drop back from under center and all that and he sucked. 2nd half they were behind so he just got in the shotgun, did the hurry up, and did much better.

You have no idea how shitty I feel right now. After going to a party with some rabid U of L fans and seeing us get up 24-7 at the half...then watching as we piss it all away in the 2nd half. Still, that was one of the best college games I have ever seen, just the totally wrong result. Sadly, I knew the Miami comeback was coming. God, these guys are lucky as shit. U of L's guy had a surefire INT that would have sealed the game and just dropped it. Anyway, we get them here next year and I can assure you the result in that game will be different.

Teen Spirit doesn't really have an extended solo in it per se, but just a little section of the song where the guitar does some licks while the drums and bass still essentially go forth. To me, a really BAD solo is one that just stops a song dead in its tracks. I was surprised that some of the stuff Tony Iommi did on the first Sabbath album wasn't listed. Thing is, there's so much mindless soloing on that album that it's hard to narrow it to one song. I love old school Sabbath but there are parts of that 1st album that drive me crazy. And since no one has the balls to do it, I will stand up for the Scorpions. No One Like You is a cool song.

No talk on here about the Louisville/Miami game? Actually I can kinda see that, since no one in their right mind is giving my boys a chance there. I'm not saying U of L will win that game, but it'll be tougher than expected. I do believe next year is the rematch here in Louisville...now there's the upset pick, albeit about a year early.

I'm glad someone else hinted at what I said earlier: the WWF in 1999 wasn't so hot, especially late in the year. The WWF PPVs post WM 15 were fairly mediocre, with only SS being fairly decent. The wrestling itself was quite blech that year as well...I mean my god ECW likely had the strongest in ring product that year. Also, when I suggest Russo enlivened WCW that was only for a couple of months. He came back in April 2000 along with Bischoff and livened it again for a month or two, but it was a short term deal.

It's funny, every time you think the Sox will somehow do this here come A-Rod, Sheffield, and Matsui to add more runs. Two on, 1 out.

Actually yes, for a while (and I mean just a month or two in late 1999) it looked as if WCW could MAYBE turn it around under Russo. The WWF product during the first HHH title push was pretty sad really, what with pushing guys who really didn't have it anymore (like Bulldog, who is my favorite wrestler ever but was on his last legs) and having shows that were a serious step down from what they'd been doing 6 months earlier. WCW actually was a fresh and enjoyable show for the first month or two of the Russo "Powers That Be" era. It was certainly leagues better than the dreck they'd produced during the Summer of 1999, which was some of the worst garbage ever to be seen. Eventually WCW reverted back to yet another NWO incarnation and seemingly everyone on the roster got hurt at the wrong time: World champ Bret Hart had the career ending injury vs. Goldberg, US champ Jeff Jarrett forfeited his title due to a concussion, etc. From there Russo did seemingly everything wrong, wanting to put the title on Tank Abbott in a battle royale the most shocking suggestion. Sensing that Russo was totally insane (and really who could blame them?), he was relieved of command and Kevin Sullivan was named booker. At that point the Radicals all jumped ship and the company was toast, staggering to its end over the next year. But yeah, for maybe 2 months (Oct.-Nov. 1999) it looked as though WCW might have a shot at getting their act together. It just all fell apart VERY fast.

I too have wondered about that Zogby NM poll, since no one else seems to have Kerry up 10% there. That said, it's not just a one time flukish poll, it's the result he keeps coming up with. Makes me wonder. Incidentally, who on earth has Bush up 10 in NV? At most he might be up 3 in most polls, so Kerry being up 1 there in a poll isn't stunning. It's not especially crucial that Kerry win both of these, but he outta hang on to NM at least. Incidentally what is this big headway Bush has made in NM? He's polling at roughly 47-48% there, about what he got last time. There might be a poll where Bush is up in NM 48-46 or so but that'll likely mean Kerry will win the state 50-48. There were 3 states where I wondered about Zogby: NM, OR, and AR. I think Kerry will win NM ultimately but not by anything like 10% (maybe 2-3%). He'll win Oregon as well but not double digits, maybe by 5%. And I seriously doubt Arkansas is any sort of tie, Bush will win that one by about 5%. What I wonder is this: What samples do pollsters use for a single state? If they use the 39% Dem, 35% Rep, 26% Ind sample for all states then it'll likely give curious results in some states. American Research Group at least does a breakdown on their sample in a single state, though I'm not sure if it's the same as the turnout in 2000. Basically the best a pollster can do is apply 39-35-26 when doing a national poll, but check out the in state turnout when doing a poll for a single state.

I think the Packers can pull it out of their ass against Detroit this week. Yeah the Lions are better but at the end of the day they're still the Lions.

Patterson played a yes man on TV, but I don't think he's ever been a yes man per se in real life. This situation reminds me of some experiences my dad told me about in the car business. My dad was a fairly well regarded salesman, and usually had some favor with the boss. At a few dealerships however the boss's daughter would marry some dumbass who was then given all sorts of power beyond his ability, and of course would fuck business up. My dad would inevitably get sick of not being listened to and move on to another dealership. It's no wonder my dad has said "I've known the HHH type for years."

I think I have ranted at great length on here about Gallup's ludicrous polling procedures. The info above is even more telling in its subtle brilliance. I mean, seeing Bush ahead 3% in NM wouldn't make people bat an eye, but when you look at the bizarre sample they used (nearly correct amount of Dems, but they used way more Reps than normal and not as many Inds). I should also add that Nader polled at 3% in NM despite not being on the ballot this time. It'll be difficult for him to actually GET 3% in that case. At any rate, I don't think the race truly starts hitting the home stretch until after the final debate. The undecideds should start making up their minds by that point.

I'm not denigrating OU by saying they are a top 5 team by default as much as I'm denigrating college football in general. I haven't seen 5 really great teams this year, as in teams that should be top 5. USC has looked shaky quite a few times, though they haven't lost. OU has been solid, they'll probably play for the nat. title this year (Big 12 isn't that overwhelming this year). Auburn looks good right now but in the harrowing SEC they'll likely lose to SOMEONE. If ever there was a year for a non BCS team to crash the party, this is it. Mediocre year for major confs. + quality "smaller" teams (Utah, Louisville) = bowl shakeup. That said, if both teams get screwed out of the BCS that'll make for one hell of a Liberty Bowl.

I don't think there's shame in losing a WS if you really give it your best shot, or perhaps get screwed. I mean the Cardinals in 85 got screwed out of the series on a bad call. As far as the Braves go, 1991 wasn't really a choke. 1992 vs. Toronto...choke. 93 vs. Phillies...major choke. 96 vs. the Yankees..biggest choke, they were up 2-0 and looked like they might SWEEP that series. 97..choke vs. Marlins. 98...choke vs. SD. 99...not really a choke against the Yankees, Yanks just better. In 2000 I think the Cardinals just waxed them, not exactly a choke but just a horrid series. Anglesault, let's gauge your shame over the Yankees. I figure you'd consider last year vs. the Marlins to be a shameful showing, as would I. But what about 2001? They went 7, down to the final pitch.

When has an SNL connection really ever helped a movie a huge amount? I mean since stuff like Blues Bros. or Coneheads. If anything when I hear "This movie has SNL ties" I tend to think it's just a bad comedy based on a skit.

You know, seeing Regal job tonight in his homeland made me think of the bullshit match that started the trend of "hometown face jobbing to annoying heel." Remember Michaels vs. Bulldog at the One Night Only PPV? Hell, Davey Boy dedicated that match to his dying sister...and Shawn refused to job. Anytime I hear this crap like "Shawn isn't like that anymore" I think of stuff like this and ponder "Does it matter?" The highlight again tonight was the Snitsky promo of the week. I was damn near on the floor.

I think Buffalo will win the battle of the hapless next week. They've at least been quite competitive in their losses. The biggest losers of the week by far are the Seahawks. They basically fucked themselves but good yesterday with that 4th quarter collapse. Such a bizarre game, one minute I was laughing my ass off at Mark Bulger throwing interceptions, then the next I was stunned at the epic comeback win. Seahawks also have some of the worst receivers for an alleged quality team that I've ever seen. Koren Robinson? Jackson? These are NOT legit receivers, hell they aren't even as good as the loathed pre T.O. Eagles receivers. Compare them to the Colts's virtuoso receiving of Marvin Harrison, Brandon Stokley, and Reggie Wayne.

The bizarre aspect of this series is that I really am starting to think the Sox and their fans care more about beating the Yankees than winning the World Series. Since I'm seemingly one of the few here that DOES believe in the curse, let's recall the specifics of it: The Red Sox cannot ever win a World Series again. Nothing there about them never beating the Yankees, though people accept that as part of the curse. Thus, I think the Red Sox will in fact win this series, only to then lose an epic 7 game World Series to the Cardinals. After all, would it be a Sox WS without it being a riveting 7 game classic with them inevitably coming up short?