The Man in Blak

I concur with this.

Hope you got your Red Sox hat traded in. Happy Birthday.

When you say Viewtiful Joe, you really mean Maximo, right?

Rating scores are absolutely useless. They don't hold up over time, especially when they evaluate technology-bound factors like graphics. They further the implication that certain categories and their respective scores are more important than others (a reviewer's tilt is worth the same as the gameplay? And what's a game's value anyway?). The problem with video games is that the medium's criteria for evaluation is still weak. Unlike arts (visual) and music (audio), video games incorporate many elements into the presentation. The scope is even larger than film, as video games add on the additional element of interaction, but reviewers continually focus on splitting everything into neat little categories. Do you go watch a movie for the sole reason of hearing Hans Zimmer in the background? Not likely. Frankly, reviewers should take a hint from Ebert & Roeper and simply observe/critique the product as a whole, and then make a simple recommendation (thumbs up, thumbs down) on it. The old Daily Radar site, may it rest in peace, did that remarkably well with rankings of DUD, Miss, Hit, and Direct Hit!.

Eh, it seemed inspiring a few minutes ago.

Probably the most intelligent words that have ever left his mouth.

Don't tell me that John Kruk got to vote.

This. THIS is the reason it's a women's rights issue. Women do not choose to be raped. Loss, Czech had that small pre-requisite in the later part of his post: As far as conception and whether a baby is alive, the whole issue is muddied with religious connotations that really should push the topic out of the scope for pro-choice debate. There's no denying that the fetus is physically alive in the womb, but the argument for infant rights comes down to ideas of sentience and there's no real scientific evidence to quantify the claims of either side (nor will there be). For example, Mike refuted the analogy of a tree in an earlier post, but there are some religions that view a tree as having a soul and, thus, being a living being with its own rights. Should a baby and a tree have the same rights? It's a concept that scientific method can't prove because it's entirely philosophical so, by arguing over whether a baby is 'alive' in the unstated context of sentience, you're basically just pissing into the wind. You made a much more compelling argument for pro-choice later in the post: With this, you touch on the underlying impetus for the entire debate - should the United States government concern itself with repercussions of recreational sex (like the risk of pregnancy)? I would personally argue "yes", given the dangers of STDs. I personally feel you leave the option of abortion open to the public, but make the process extensive and long and use Czech's prerequisites as a criteria for prioritization. Think of it as though special cases (such as rape) get hotshotted to the front of the line with high priority. If you make the paperwork long and trying, you potentially get two positive effects: 1. Women who irresponsibly fuck everything that walks will be less inclined to do so. 2. Women will be more encouraged to report rape cases (with the idea of rape cases getting a bypass through the system for abortion).

My thoughts exactly. If the military feels that it's dishonorable conduct, then they'll discipline the soldier accordingly. Frankly, I would imagine that this happens in war, on both sides of the battlefield, far more times than any major media outlet ever reports.

You don't want wideouts to be buried? Here's how you do it: Take out the points per rushing attempt (which is ludicrous, btw) Adjust the yardage numbers for rushing and receiving to 20 yards/point and 15 yards/point, respectively Do one point per reception If you do that, an average day for a wideout (3 catches, 45 yards) sits at six points while a great day (let's say 9 catches, 120 yards, 1 TD) sits at 23 points, which isn't too bad, honestly. Counter-balance the running backs accordingly and you've got a winner.

Last year's VGAs were the worst thing I had ever seen on my television up to that point, hands down. I'll pass this time around.

It's just sad to watch Drew Bledsoe now.

1. Carlos Beltran - Yankees 2. Adrian Beltre - Dodgers 3. Brad Radke - Orioles 4. Edgar Renteria - Cardinals 5. Pedro Martinez - Yankees 6. Carlos Delgado - Blue Jays 7. Magglio Ordonez - Mets 8. Jason Varitek - Red Sox 9. Carl Pavano - Red Sox 10. Richie Sexson - Mariners 11. J.D. Drew - White Sox 12. Nomar Garciaparra - Angels 13. Troy Glaus - Marlins 14. Armando Benitez - Cubs 15. Odalis Perez - White Sox 16. Troy Percival - Braves 17. Matt Clement - Cardinals 18. Orlando Cabrera - Red Sox 19. Jeff Kent - Cubs 20. Moises Alou - Pirates And for bonus points, here are five players frequently mentioned in trade talks. Are they traded, and if so, where? 1. Sammy Sosa - No. 2. Randy Johnson - Angels 3. Kevin Brown - Braves 4. Charles Johnson - No. 5. Jose Guillen - Marlins Finally, does Roger Clemens retire? Nope, resigns with Astros.

I think it's funny.

Yeah, Schoenfield is such a genius that he gave the Yankees a 13-man pitching staff and a three man bench. They lose May's contract, so the money works out about even. Sure, it works out financially, but I think you'd rather have a guy who could eat up innings for your young and injury-prone pitching staff than a guy who'll swing a banjo at a .250 clip as a fourth outfielder (Long's career OPS = .730), right?

Not a quote, but potential fodder for paranoia: Remarks by the President on Iraq - Cincinnati, Ohio This quote comes from a speech the President made on October 7th, 2002. Now, the part in bold (which I'm outlining as a part of the "implication" in question) does not explictly declare that Iraq was behind 9/11, though it does say that Iraq celebrated the 9/11. Let's get that out of the way right now. However, there are deliberate implications that say that Iraq could be directly involved within another 9/11-esque attack. This implication could have been misconstrued as the primary leverage for the U.S. to enter Iraq, which people could have further misinterpreted as an invasion to "avenge 9/11." It seems unrealistic, but that's the reason that I've heard frequently cited from those who supported the war, so I'm inclined to believe that people were somehow stupid enough to make the leap. The link is tenuous at best (and, as stated, there is no explicit statement), but when you're dealing with paranoia, it doesn't take much. And, in case you're curious, I did vote for Bush - I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.

I'm not disputing the dates (or the fact that one started after the war), I just wanted to put up two articles that said that Bush said two different things.

Houston Chronicle (AP) - June 17th, 2004 The dates are quite a distance apart, sure, but the message could be misconstrued as a mixed one.

BBC - September 18, 2003

Johnson beat Clemens in strikeouts, innings pitched, K/9, WHIP, opposing batting average, and had four complete games (including a perfect game against an eventual playoff team) to boot. Idiots. I'm still not sure how Pavano and Zambrano got so much more consideration than Sheets either.

I'm a little befuddled as to why the Royals actually went out of their way to get Terrence Long. Not only is he a fourth outfielder, at best, he also makes a mind-numbing $3 million next year. Tankersley could be good in the future, but Long is a financial sinkhole.

Brees is having a career year this year, which is exactly why they should let him go and watch him tank on another team's roster. As for Wannstedt, it's good to see him go, even though WAY too much of the blame for Miami's mediocrity gets directed at him. You do realize that this team has had Jay Fiedler at QB for five years now? On top of that, this is the first time in years that a Dolphins QB has had a decent target not named Chris Chambers. Sure, Wannstedt's an idiot who works better as an assistant, but it's not like he was pissing away a Super Bowl dynasty or anything.

If Indianapolis draws San Diego in the playoffs and the body snatcher hasn't released Drew Brees yet, they're in for a world of hurt.