Sports thoughts

As if I don't post enough about sports on here, I thought I'd try to organize some random sports thoughts that I've been thinking since Sundayish. And, when I say organize, I mean that they'll be slightly more organized than most random posts, but not much. And I'll stay away from anything I've posted on today (most likely).

The Bears continue to roll through the weak portions of the NFC. However, can you really take that much credit from them for rolling their opponents in the North in the first three weeks? Green Bay has won something like 4 games, the Vikings aren't terrible (although they were last night), and, well, the Lions suck. Big time. But the Vikings were the only team that gave the Bears a close game, and that was on the road, so you'd have to like the Bears winning that one at home. But I don't think you can consider the North weak. So I think the Bears deserve more credit for winning the North.

Also, I really hate Thomas Jones, but he's starting to run over teams. Which, I don't know if it's necessarily that he's improving, but the line definitely is.

Now, to this past game. It was literally painful to watch. And what about everyone thinking that Urlacher is the most overrated player in the game? Do you think anyone actually watches the Bears play? Or do you think they just don't see him on many highlights, so they think he sucks? I would have thought since he won DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR last year that that would put to rest all of those stupid overrated bullshit rumblings, but I guess people are dumber than that.

Now to the Bulls. Season opens against the Heat tonight in a rematch of what was the most difficult series for the Heat on their way to winning the championship last year. How can you not love this Bulls team? I really hated Skiles for a while, mainly because I hated how he used his players. And, I can't say that I still will like the rotations he uses, but I can appreciate how he gets his players ready. And the discipline.

But what's great about this team is that they got a lot better than they were last year. There are still questions about their size in the backcourt, and can Ben Gordon start quickly this year unlike the past two years? I saw one preview of the Bulls that said they got older and slower. This is semi-true, since Ben Wallace and Adrian Griffin (I hate him) are now with the team, as is P.J. Brown, but what did we lose? Tyson Chandler? Uh, he wasn't really fast anyways. So, upgrades all around. Plus we add do-it-all Tyrus Thomas (have you seen this?:

) who, while young, is still freakishly athletic, and Thabo Sefolosha, a tall athlete for the backcourt. Basically the only problem the Bulls have is that they have too many good players to be on the floor at one time. I like their chances a lot better than some people. Plus, they'll make the playoffs, so it doesn't really matter what their record is during the season; they're deep enough to be a tough team in the playoffs.

Finally, it is with deep regret that I bring up the topic of the World Series. Once again the gods of baseball have decided that the World Series is meaningless and has cancelled it. So, my apologies to both the Cardinals and the Tigers, but maybe next season we'll actually see a World Series play out and finally have a World Champ.

Class act

So, I was reading Mark Tupper's blog about the Big Ten Basketball Media Day in Chicago, Tupper was mainly talking about how Bruce Weber was fielding questions. As is the rule in college basketball, he was unable to specifically comment on Eric Gordon, but he commented on losing a recruit or whatever. Tupper didn't go into detail as to how Weber fielded the questions, but he gave the gist of what Weber said. Essentially, Weber would have appreciated a call as to why conversations were going on behind his back with a player who had already committed (I realize a verbal is not binding, but if it means nothing, then what's the point?).

So Weber took the high road, obviously, as he's one of the classiest coaches in the Big 10 if not the nation. And I say that as only a partly biased fan. Interestingly, the Big 10 Commissioner said the same thing about the topic, that he would expect a coach would at least offer an explanation as to why he would pursue a player who had already verbally committed to a conference rival. See, they're trying to keep things classy in the Big 10.

Enter Kelvin Sampson. He refused to touch the Gordon topic. Ok, that's kind of fair, since you can't explicitly talk about a recruit until he signs a Letter of Intent. But, the commissioner commented on it, the coach who's player de-committed commented on it. Even Tom Izzo, who I would consider a prick, said he would call in-state rival coach Tommy Amaker if he was pursuing a player who had verballed to Michigan. Also, wouldn't you think Sampson would have made mention of being excited to get a verbal from Gordon or something? But, nope, nothing. That doesn't make him look guilty at all.

Also, I would like to mention that Tupper says he overheard Sampson say he likes to 'do things the right way' when talking about how he runs his program. Got that right.

I'm not saying Sampson did anything illegal to get Gordon. It doesn't matter if he did or not, since, you know, he's still dragging down the Big 10 reputation just by his presence. But, given his history, you wonder if maybe Sampson doesn't want to say anything that would get magnified by the NCAA, you know, since he's under probation as it is.

So he's a liar, and he starts off in a new conference on the right foot by swooping in, recruiting a committed player, and not even explaining his actions. Not that I would be happier about it, but he could have at least let Weber know that since Gordon was in-state that he would contact him as a new hire.

Now, I hate a lot of schools in the Big 10. Michigan, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, The Stupid Fucking Ohio State University (I think Thad Matta should be reviewed by the NCAA for his recruiting practices). But this just gives me even more reason to revel in the failure that is Hoosier sports. So, that's what I'll be doing when January rolls around. Or, before that, like when basketball starts. Or, now.

Great news!

Hey everybody! Great news! Today Aramis Ramirez opted out of his contract! This is great news for Cubs fans everywhere!

Why would we want one of the top all-around third-basemen in the game? I mean, we did so well for so many years having somewhere around 100 different players try the position in 30 years, and none started the season for more than 1 year until we acquired Aramis. So, obviously, he's of no value to us.

Also, why would we want someone who can actually hit well? I mean, especially if we intend to make a run towards the playoffs next year (which is what people are thinking for some reason), why would we want a player who arguably was the hottest player in the second half of the season? I would rather have Neifi Perez back to hit .240, OBP .260 and not hit at all in the second half, and also field rather poorly.

We have so many reliable backup options behind Ramirez, that it's fine if we let him go. Like, Freddy Bynum. Damn, he's so good. He hit .260 this year! In professional baseball! I say we give him millions of dollars so he can decrease that number with more ab's. Also, we have Scott Moore, who hasn't played about AA baseball. He may very well be a feasible replacement, but because Ol' DoubleSwitch didn't play him, he didn't get nearly enough ab's last season to be expected to be effective.

Or we could TRADE for A-Rod. Give up something to get him. And then pay him the same amount of money that we could have given to Aramis. That's reasonable. I mean, we didn't get anything in return should we lose Aramis, but we can give up something to get a player who's older and had a similar year.

Seriously, Aramis isn't going to command a freaking $25 million contract for 10 years, so I see absolutely no reason why the Cubs don't give him exactly what he wants. He's shown he means business. He's said he'd like to stay in Chicago, so maybe there's a chance that the Cubs could offer him slightly less to stay, but it's not like the Cubs don't have the money.

And who would we replace him with if we let him get away? Bill Mueller? Cory Koskie? A bunch of players who are light hitters, are injury prone, hit for worse average and field just as well?

There is absolutely no reason that Aramis should not be re-signed. We've gotten absolutely nothing for him at a time when his stock probably has never been higher, and we most definitely have the money to get it done. We can sign him to an increased deal, and we should still be able to bring in two more top-tier players.

If Ramirez leaves, then Hendry should be fired, and if he's not, everyone should voice their dissatisfaction. He has torn this team apart in the past 2 seasons, and he's done so without saving any money. Screw bringing Dombrowski in as President/CEO, let's bring him in as the new GM

Like I need an excuse to look like an idiot

So this past weekend was to be the famed horror weekend in Chicago. Well, it was a pretty awesome weekend, but it didn't involve too much horror as planned.

So I got to the city at like 7:30 or something, not too bad. Went to get beer, then we commenced figuring out what to do. I showered and put on my costume, at which point I was laughed at. It was great. I looked ridiculously similar to Charlie from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" in the episode "Charlie Goes America All Over Everyone's Ass." I was on beer 4 by the time I got in the shower. So we find somewhere to go out, and it was pretty fun. Except, there was a costume competition and it was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Actually I'm ashamed that I was even there to witness it. I think I was hit on also.



While I was in the bathroom at the bar, there was a dude who was dressed as Tony Montana. Well, the attendant was asking what I was, so I told him. On my way out, he asked me to guess what Tony Montana was. Rather than actually care what he was, I just said Diddy. I'm not sure why I did this, I think I did it as a joke, but maybe also to be a jerk. I was drunk though, so I was justified in doing so. They laughed, then I said what he really was and then hurriedly left the bathroom.

There's one mystery of that night, and that is why Bootz and I had to physically hold back Soupapants from fighting with someone? We're not really sure what happened, we just remember physically holding her back. So anyways, we get to El Burrito, of course, and wait in line. Soupapants heads to the bathroom, and then some dude comes in and I think he opened the door? And then he came up to Bootz and I and was complaining that someone was in the bathroom. At which point Bootz was like, well, that's our friend and you should not be opening the door if someone is obviously in there. I should probably mention that this dude was like 40. I think. It's kind of hazy.

Anyways, we get back home and I was disappointed with my chicken tacos because the chicken was overcooked. I only managed to eat one of my 3 tacos before feeling full and needing to pass out. And, rather than change or even lay down, I just kind of passed out sitting upright. In my costume. I woke up later, still sitting up, and it was dark, so I changed and laid down to sleep for real.

Woke up at 10 the next day, and I forget what we did in the morning. Watched something on tv or something. Then we got ready for our big day of horror, starting with Saw 3. We went downtown and saw the movie at 1:30, which was awesome by the way. I have no idea what time we got back, but I was considering starting to drink at that point. Well, I did not, and we watched Village of the Damned I think until we left for dinner at like 5:45 or something.

We all got ready to go out and everything, and we left just a little before 9 to go to Barleycorn. Well approximately 1000 people also had the same idea, as it was packed, and the line was not moving. We waited in line for nearly 30 minutes before people finally yelled that the place was full and they weren't letting more in until more left. And since the 3 hour drink special just started, we weren't expecting anyone to leave. So we went to Sluggers to get drunk and not stand outside.

Sluggers was terrible. The age range was anywhere from maybe 22-mid 50's. The old people were creeping me out. At one point, these two ladies came in and sat in the chairs at the bar. Well, one lady was so drunk (these ladies were in their 40's probably) that she fell over in her chair, and didn't realize that she still wasn't on 4 legs as she tried to continue her conversation. Shortly after that, she walked outside by herself and her friend seemed ok with it. I don't think we saw her after that.

Eventually we left, and we headed to Lincoln Park to go to Bacchus. We contemplated 3 hours of drinking for $30, or just drinking as many $3 beers as we could. We opted for the $3 beers. There wasn't too much of note here, except we saw this bouncer violently throw out like 6 dudes. Also, the bar is two levels (at least, I think I saw a third) and the second level is where the dancing is. It's also where this bouncer was. So he was dragging guys down the stairs to throw them out. It was an awesome sight to behold.

So the bar closed and we went home, this time deciding to skip El Burrito, which is the first time I've done that in Chicago in months. I was in the mood for pizza, but we didn't get any.

So we got home, and Bootz heated up some leftover pizza. Then she went to her balcony because she was hot. But she was passing out. So I went to take a picture of her with my phone. It was pitch black of course, but she was still angry with the picture. So, uh, somehow, I ended up lying on my stomach on the floor, and she was sitting on my back. And I was laughing so hard that I could not breathe. She wanted to delete the picture from my phone but couldn't figure out how to work it. So I even tried to help her and she still sat on my back. I think I caught my breath like 2 minutes later. Then Soupapants passed out cold.

Bootz was eating the pizza she warmed up, and as she was doing so, she was crumping. And it was awesome to see. The saddest thing about it was that I'm the only one who was there to witness it. So then I started to pass out on the phone, and I went and had a piece of pizza that was now cold and gross, and decided I was done with that. So then I passed out, last out of everyone.

Then yesterday I woke up at 9:30, a solid hour before everyone else, and watched some Meerkat Manor. So that's pretty much the weekend. The only horror we saw was Saw 3, which was awesome, Village of the Damned, and parts of The Exorcist. And the last two were on TV, so they weren't even scary. But still, awesome weekend. At some point on Saturdya night I got hit on as well, which means I got hit on twice as much dressed up as Charlie than when I dress normally.

This weekend is probably going to be just as awesome, with Borat coming out, and Saturday night is going to be awesome.

Things I Hate

It's time for another update in the 'Things I Hate' series. This one having a purpose, the other(s) being mostly ramblings and incoherent stuff. So, I guess this is pretty much like those.

The topic today: Those stupid "funny" t-shirts.

Now, there are t-shirts that are legitimately funny or whatever. I have a couple, I guess. When I was in college I had more, and now I don't really wear them that often, as I can't think of too many situations in which it's appropriate that my shirt makes a statement. Also, it was much cooler a couple of years ago. When I was setting the trend. Yes, I set trends, then I tire of them when they catch on. Deal with it.

You know the shirts I'm talking about. They say things like "Do you have your tickets to the gun show?" And then have arrows pointing at the arms. Or they says something like "Drop it like it's hot" with a picture of a potato. It's one thing if the shirt is actually funny, although it's not much better. It's another thing if it's an outdated phrase that lost popularity 3 years ago. Something like "I'm Rick James Bitch." Funny at the time, yes, but after that first week when Chapelle first showed that episode, it was way too much.

I hate those shirts. You might as well have Dane Cook on your shirt. If you're funny, then it's like you're always on. That's annoying.

Also, you know most of the dude's who wear those shirts. It's those meathead frat guys who love to quote Dane Cook and have spikey hair and the shirts are too small and they wear visors. In otherwords, giant toolbags. They're also guys who wear striped shirts out to bars.

Everytime I see someone wearing a funny shirt I just wish I could go up and write something on it. Something really biting, so they'll be so pained from what I wrote that they'll have to leave the public setting and go home to shame themselves. Something like "Not". Damn that's harsh.

I was hoping to include pictures, but I'm too lazy to find pictures that will actually work, so you'll just have to use your imagination. And don't worry, there's probably a good chance you'll see some toolbag wearing one of those shirts around and then you'll definitely know what I'm talking about.

So please don't contribute to this. I will immediately hate you, and I may try to ruin your life. If you're a chick it's ok, unless you're trying to be ironic or something; but dudes, give it a rest.

Really? Cream?

Tonight is the night of the Illini Orange & Blue scrimmage, where we see the team play for the first real time. There are a lot of questions, like, will Richard Semrau red-shirt, how good is Brian Carlwell, will Rich McBride have to take a breathalizer to get in the door? (Ok, that was low, I apologize Rich.)

Some interesting news is that Derrick Rose, who had previously written Illinois off of his list of possible schools he'll attend, is attending tonight's scrimmage. This is great news if for no other reason than he won't be anywhere else. Do I think we'll land Rose? Doubtful, I thought we had a much better chance this time last year.

But as I was reading on Mark Tupper's blog, I saw some loser idiot jackass Hoosier fans trolling and talking about how Illini fans are stupid to think Rose will come to Illinois because the Hoosiers are better.

Obviously, they do things differently in Indiana. They had a great coach in Bob Knight, who is the last coach to win anything significant with them, and now they have Kelvin Sampson, who recruits illegally, can't graduate players, and lies. Oh, he's a shitty coach too, I left that out.

So I thought I'd post a response to these whiny little bitches who are trying to talk shit about the Illini here, instead of on Tupper's blog, because I can get everything out I want.

1.) What has Kelvin Sampson proven at Indiana? NOTHING. To expect something from him in his first year WITH SHITTY PLAYERS is ridiculous. Hell, they have a couple decent players, and they still won't perform like they did last season (I'm guessing). What did he prove at Oklahoma? That he recruited illegally, and that his team was on the obvious decline.

2.) So what if Eric Gordon went to Indiana? I mean, I hate him for it, but why does that mean that Rose will follow Gordon there without question? I guess in fucking retarded Indiana people's minds the logic works out, so I probably shouldn't question that.

3.) WHY ARE YOU TROLLING ON AN ILLINI BLOG?? Get a fucking life. I barely have time to read Tupper, and I don't even care about what the bitches on fucking hoosier blogs are talking about, besides being fucking retards and having ridiculously lofty expectations of the upcoming season that will get trounced on once people realize Sampson can't coach.

4.) In case I haven't made this clear, anyone who is a fan of IU is fucking retarded. So their opinions are pointless.

5.) People are replying that Indiana has as many Final Four appearances in the past 5 years as the Illini. Here's a hint: when comparing a current coach's team to a past coach's team, you're really not going to win any sort of argument. When comparing number of final four appearances, you probably shouldn't say 'in the last 5 years' because that's how long ago it was when you had a final four. AND YOU HAVE A FUCKING DIFFERENT COACH NOW! THERE IS NO COMPARISON. That's like me saying I like apples but BMW's drive better. That's right, it sounds fucking retarded, as do Hoosier fans.

6.) Gordon picked to go to IU because he dreamed of playing for them his entire life. Of course, he also probably dreamed of playing for them when they actually won shit, but that was so long ago, probably he even forgets what that was like. But why isn't Rose allowed the same thing? Maybe Rose didn't want to be in Gordon's spotlight (yep, he'll get one, and it will magnify the Hoosiers magnificent sucking/choking ability) and now that Gordon has ruined his life to go to Indiana, maybe Rose wants to play where he's dreamed of playing. Of course, he probably doesn't dream of college ball at all, but still, you get what I'm saying. Unless you're from Indiana, in which point you're having someone from out-of-state explain it to you in one syllable words.

7.) Your colors are crimson and cream??? CREAM??? Really? Crimson is cool and all, but really? Cream?? I thought it was just white, but that makes it so much cooler. And by cooler, I mean your school blows.

8.) STOP TALKING ABOUT FUCKING TRADITION!!! What IU has is a great coach who couldn't control his temper. That's your fucking tradition. Talk to me about fucking tradition and national championships when someone other than the ONLY COACH AT YOUR SCHOOL WHO EVER MATTERED wins something. And, I'd like to offer some advice: Don't get your hopes up; SAMPSON WON'T WIN SHIT.

This pretty much says it all

Paul Sullivan was struggling to come up with ideas for his next Cubs article last night, so he decided to have a little chat with Dave Dombrowski, GM for the Detroit Tigers. The AL champion Detroit Tigers (eat it Sox fans).

Anyways, the gist of the short article on chicagosports.com is that Dombrowski believes the Cubs can be capable of pulling off a quick turnaround, as the Tigers did this past season.

Now, Paul Sullivan is insane. This piece of garbage is terrible. Of course, I was kind of looking for something to mock (I thought it would be something out of Jim Hendry's mouth of course) while looking at the site, but, I found this jewel instead.

First, Dombrowski said that a lot of things have to break right for you. Of course, being the Cubs, that is virtually impossible. Nothing breaks right for us, unless it's our hope or a bone in one of our best players.

Then Sullivan goes on to say that the Tigers had to overpay for free agents to get them there. This is where he stops making sense. Remembering correctly, the Cubs were interested in the services of both Magglio Ordonez and Ivan Rodriguez. So, in comparison, the Tigers paid more than the Cubs, but the Cubs weren't willing to take the risks.

So, instead, the Tigers made a brilliant contractual decision. The money was guaranteed, but there were stipulations in the contract that would void it in a shorter amount of time. For instance, and this is from memory, so it may not be entirely accurate, but Magglio Ordonez got something like a 4 year contract. However, he was coming of major knee surgery and no one was sure how he'd recover. So the Tigers put in a stipulation that if he spent something like a month on the D.L. due to his knee, they could opt out of the contract after 2 years. Similarly, the same type of deal was made in regards to Ivan Rodriguez's back.

So, if instead of just paying outright, the Cubs had actually made a decision that would work out well, we might be in a better situation. Like the World Series. Or, if we'd signed Jacque Jones to a 3 year deal (really? Why 3 years? That is ridiculous) with the stipulation that if you hit under .200 for April then you are kicked off the team, you're not paid a dime, and you have your face eaten off by wild pigs. Seems fair to both sides to me.

Another thing Dombrowski said, which may or may not have been a jab, but Sullivan printed it anyways, was that the Cubs were almost in the World Series a couple of years ago, so you'd think they would have had more of a foundation than the Tigers had when Dombrowski took over.

Why, yes, you would think that. But then you would also be thinking logically, which is of no use to us in this organization. In three short seasons, the Cubs managed to go from almost winning the NL to the bottom of the NL and that is without having a firesale! The Marlins had a firesale and they're still better than us!

So maybe Sullivan is writing about being able to have a quick turnaround from being a good team to being terrible? Because they Cubs have proven they're great at that.

Note: Until I see this team play under Piniella, I'm going to be extremely skeptical of everything unless some good moves are made this offseason. Also of note, goatriders.org has a great article on the investment groups possibly positioning themselves to buy the Tribune.

I guess I should wait to submit my resume for GM positions

Now, I'll admit it occasionally, there's not a whole lot I know about being a GM for a major sports franchise. I know you work with contract negotiations, you send scouts to scout players, you don't travel with the team (you may not even go to some of the home games), and you can fire coaches. Oh, and you are basically the team President's bitch.

And, apparently, I am way too dumb to be a GM. I mean, to me, it only seems logical that one would want to re-sign or extend the contracts of your best/core players, or at least get something in return for them should negotiations break down. It also seems like if you say you want to make certain players part of your core, you probably shouldn't dawdle (nice word) when it comes to extending those contracts, since, you know, you might seem contradictory.

And I guess I'm wrong. First, let's consider Jim Hendry. For some reason, Aramis Ramirez STILL HAS NOT BEEN RE-SIGNED. Maybe you've missed this in the past, but he is an integral part of our team. He says he wants to remain a Cub, Hendry says he wants to keep Aramis, but we only have 2 weeks until after the World Series That May Be Cancelled By Major League Baseball ends or he can opt out of his contract. And the longer we wait is probably driving up his price. If he opts out, we get nothing for it. Except his contract off the books.

Now, let's consider the Yankees. They re-signed Gary Sheffield, whom they don't want, so they could trade him. Now, this seems like a smart move. There are at least 6 teams who want Sheffield, who is way overpriced, considering he barely played at all this past year. So the Yankees may have to take on some extra payroll, which doesn't bother them at all, and they get players (possibly useful ones) back. Seems like a smart move. Hopefully we can't do the same with Aramis, because to be able to extend his contract or get something for him seems too reasonable.

Switching gears, let's consider John Paxson. He's said many times that Kirk Hinrich is going to be a part of the core of this Bulls team. Now, John Paxson is a genius. He totally raped the Knicks in the Eddy Curry trade. He has brought in an awesome team, and, while I hated Skiles when Curry was a Bull, Scott Skiles seems to have the exact same mindset for winning games that Pax has. The two work together so well, it's amazing. But why is there a delay in re-signing Hinrich? We all know he wants to stay, and we all know we need him, so let's just pay him what he wants. Besides, if he becomes a restricted free agent, his price is just going to get driven up anyways.

Seriously, we're running out of time to re-sign Hinrich. I hate to second-guess Pax, but I feel like this is entirely necessary. Also necessary is mention of Tyrus Thomas. Finally, we get a young guy who is actually athletic, and not in the Tyson Chandler no-offense and poor mobility kind of way. But I digress.

So, as you can see, obviously, I shouldn't be a GM. Yet at least. Because apparently rational thought when it comes time for contract extensions is useless. But, maybe if I could do it drunk.

How to be Speaker of the House

Dennis Hastert is a brilliant, classy, honest man. I can vouch for him since I'm from Illinois, so for some reason or another, fellow people from Illinois have voted him into the House. From there, he won the jousting session that allowed him to become Black Knight. I mean Speaker of the House. I'm guessing that's how it happened at least. They don't really teach anything about governmental proceeding in Illinois.*

So, because Hastert is such a great man, I would like to offer up suggestions in which you could follow in his footsteps to become the Next Great Speaker of the House.

1. Put on some weight. We've seen it before with Newt Gingrich, then there were probably some other dudes, and now we're seeing it with Hastert. Representatives don't trust anyone who isn't over 250 pounds. If I see someone working out on a regular basis, they should either be in the Senate or the President, not in the House. Seriously, the House is for tubby bitches.

2. Lie your big and/or tall pants off. When the Foley scandal first came to light, Hastert said he would fire anyone who did anything to cover up the incident. No one has been fired, at least that I know of.

3. This one is important. Lie under oath. Hastert says he just learned of Foley's Follies last month. One person testified to have talked to Hastert in the spring about it. Hastert says he didn't recall the conversation.

Didn't recall it! Brilliant. 'You'll have to excuse me sir, I don't recall having any DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A CONGRESSMAN ABUSING PAGES.' It's not something that would particularly stick out in my mind.

Also similar to this are accusing people of being wrong. Hastert accused House Majority Leader John Boehner (a Republican!) of being wrong about having a similar discussion in the spring with Hastert. Apparently Hastert does remember that, and it didn't happen.

HOW CAN HE LIE LIKE THIS?? Seriously, he's urging the ethics panel to work quickly on the Foley matter. Might as well do something he took at least 5 YEARS to do. But be quick about it. He's the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

Why aren't people pissed out of their minds about this?? The Speaker of the House, President if Bush and Cheney meet their maker, won't even fess up to anything regarding this. People are acting like it's such a surprise that Foley did this, yet supposedly it's been going on for 5 years at least. And it's not like they went to the Democrats. People first suspected it in 2000 or 2001, and they contacted the Speaker's office.

Now all of a sudden it's the Democrats fault because they knew about it (even though it's not their problem technically, although from a moral standpoint, it's everyone's) and may have waited until now to let this out so they could win the election. So what if they did??? The Republicans weren't going to bring it to light anyways.

So, if you want to be Speaker of the House, follow these steps. Seriously, do it. Apparently it's impossible to be fired, even though everything you say and do is contradictory to what EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS. So good luck.

*they do, I choose not to remember

I am an idiot

Maybe you haven't seen this yet. But it is unbelievable, and I feel like I am an idiot.

I'm 23 years old. I got my bachelor's degree from a fairly good private school, although it doesn't have the reputation anywhere near of any of the ivy league schools or even some of the more popular private schools. But still, I'm happy with it. But then I see something like that story and I feel like I've already wasted my life.

I can't imagine being responsible for single-handedly cracking copy-protection technology on DVD's. I consider myself somewhat technologically saavy, but I know absolutely nothing about hacking. It would be cool to learn, but then you get into the whole 'government is after me' thing, and I don't want to deal with all that. But then I look at this kid, literally, he's a kid, and I wonder if maybe I made a wrong career choice.

So not only does this kid, somehow legally, provide the software for burning DVD's (which he did at 15!), he now figures out how to get music from iTunes onto non-Apple products, and non-iTunes stuff into iPods.

And he's probably going to make millions off it! And he's got the foresight to constantly talk with lawyers about what he can legally do! At 22!

If I can remember way back to when I was 22, I was just graduating and looking for a job anywhere I could get hired for a good salary. Then I bought a car. Which I'm still making payments on. Then I started drinking a lot. Changed jobs, moved. I didn't even buy an iPod until I was 22!

This kid is a supergenius. I feel like my IQ is less than 1/3 of whatever his is, and that's probably overestimating it. Why isn't this kid working for some government? (Note: If anyone has seen the shitty movie The Core, he should not be used the way that stupid character DJ Qualls played. Damn the movie sucked.) He could be cracking codes and hacking into other governments' data and stuff. Also note, he should be doing it for the U.S., not Norway, where he's from.

I'm just amazed. And I've wasted my life.

More great coaching decisions

The Cubs made another great coaching decision yesterday as they welcomed Alan Trammell onto the team as the Cubs bench coach. I'm not particularly sure what the bench coach does, aside from maybe sitting down for the entire game. I guess it's an ok move though.

Trammell coached the Tigers to a 119-loss season. But, that was as manager, not bench coach. So it's improbable that he can do that kind of damage to the Cubs with Piniella making the final decisions. However, approximately two of the current Tigers were on the team when he was coach, so there's a chance he's helpful with development. Also, he did win 4 Gold Gloves and a World Series MVP, so at least he knows how to play the game. He may be able to translate that knowledge into helping some guys improve their infield fielding skills. That's useful at least. And, really, how much does a bench coach do? Really. I have no idea.

Next up, Larry Rothschild, brought back as pitching coach. This isn't surprising, since Rothschild was Piniella's pitching coach in Tampa, and absolutely no one on that team pitched well. And the Cubs pitched so much better than that last year. They were only 3rd worst in the N.L. in team E.R.A. Two teams were actually worse than the Cubs. Of course, it was only the Brewers and Nationals, two teams who still had better records than the Cubs. Also, I didn't look at walks, but I'm sure that the Cubs led the majors in walks given up. So I'm glad that we're bringing back someone who is ok with giving up walks, since it helped us get to 3rd worst ERA and worst record in the N.L.

Now, Chris Chambliss is considered a top candidate for the Cubs hitting coach. The Cubs finished 5th in the N.L. in hitting this year. So we fired the hitting coach. Now, last year Chambliss was hitting coach for the Reds and he was fired. Also, I didn't look to make sure, but I'm pretty sure just from glancing that the Reds finished in the bottom 3 in the N.L. in hitting. I know they were bottom third.

So, this is exciting. Let's see how much worse we can hit as a team, while still pitching just as poorly, and see how many games we can win.

I realize that some coaches are better suited for certain situations, and probably basing a coach's ability looking at just the past year is kind of unfair, especially if you've got Adam Dunn on your team who only hits .240 (while still having an OBP near .380 (guessing)).

Basically I am going to be as skeptical of this team as I've ever been until some actual player moves are made.

Parity

This must be the ideal situation for the NFL commisioner right now. I'm not going to lie, I didn't watch a lot of football yesterday, mainly because the Bears weren't playing and I could care less about watching a game between the Packers and the Dolphins. I did watch the second half (or most of) of the Chiefs-Chargers game, and that was awesome. Also, I was glad that CBS didn't cut to the Steelers-Falcons game, because why would I want to see another game that was a really close finish? Thank you for deciding for me CBS, I didn't want to see it. I was, however, glad that Boomer pointed out that if I'd purchased the Sunday NFL package I could have gotten the game. Ass. Anyways, I digress.

So yesterday there were some absolutely mind-blowing games. Or, at least, mind-blowing scores. I can't believe how games that seem like obvious blowouts turn out to be, at least what I would consider, huge upsets.

Case #1: Arizona and Oakland. I don't care where this game is played, I would take the Cardinals 10 out of 10 times. Oakland has only come close against a pretty poor Cleveland team, and last week the Cardinals almost beat the Bears. So, yes, there's an emotional let-down from that game, but still, it's the Raiders. And yet, there it is, final score, 22-9, Raiders win. And, from what I hear, the Raiders could have scored more. For my money I still think Marques Tuisasopo is the best QB on the team. If they were running the option. Still, wow, the Raiders actually won a game.

Case #2: Texans over Jags. This is another score I had to look twice at. The Jags beat the Steelers, played the Colts tight, blew the Jets out of the water, beat the Cowboys, got beat by the Redskins. The Texans beat Miami. I think. I don't really have anything to say except how baffled I am at the score of this game. Is Houston finally turning a corner?

Case #3: Bucs over Eagles. This is the Eagles team that blew out the Cowboys a couple weeks ago. Maybe the Cowboys are just way overrated this year. But the Bucs? They're not the class of the NFC, and even last week people were saying that the Eagles might be. Nope. Still looks like the Bears.

Case #4: I'll just lump some close scores and results that surprised me here, as I don't want to go into it any more: Chiefs over Chargers, Falcons 41-Steelers 38 (and Charlie Batch playing not horribly again?), Bengals 17-Panthers 14, Vikings 31-Seahawks 13.

It seems like lately any team can get hugely outperformed at one aspect of the game and get completely blindsided by a team, just like the Bears almost did to the Cardinals, or the Redskins did to the Titans (among others), or like the Colts almost did to the Titans. It's just good to know that the Bears are still on top, and because the Colts wouldn't be able to stop Maurice Clarett from rushing for 100 yards, they will be until they lose.

I want a pet

Basically I've been against getting myself a pet for a long time. However, my last year in school, a roommate (against my wishes) got a puppy. And I fell in love with it. So I decided I wanted a dog. However, I can't really justify cleaning up an animal's shit, especially on carpet. But, Peoria is boring, so I've been thinking about a list of animals that I would get as a pet. And this list is in no particular order.

1. A Midget. I mean a little person. Think about it, you could train it to retrieve things, and you don't even have to clean up its poop. Ideally at least. A kid would be a reasonable substitute, but then they get bigger and you have to clean up their poop for a while. Also, I'm not really serious about a little person. Or am I?

2. A puppy. Obviously, I still think it would be great to get a puppy. But not one of those little girly dogs that is more like a cross between a rat and a dog. But I can't get a dog too big,because most places probably have rules about dog size. I think a dog would be great because it would attract people to me. It would be a great companion, I could use my knowledge and wisdom thanks to many episodes of the Dog Whisperer. Also, maybe I could train it to get me a beer out of the refrigerator.

3. A monkey. Who wouldn't want a monkey? They're smarter than probably a lot of people, mainly because they don't say really stupid things. So, I'm pretty sure I'd rather have a monkey than a roommate. Also, they're really mischievous. I mean, come on, they throw their own poop everywhere! Now, I wouldn't want to clean poop off the floor, especially off of carpet, but if I'm cleaning it off of a wall, I would probably just be laughing and muttering 'You got me again monkey.' Monkeys have tails, so it could feasibly bring me like 3 beers at once. And it could drink a beer by itself without me having to pour the beer into a bowl. I've never seen a drunk monkey, but I'm pretty sure it's awesome. And I could train the monkey to attack. Seriously, I can't think of one bad thing about having a monkey. Oh, I guess maybe the chance of getting the flesh-eating virus would be a bad thing. But still, it's a monkey!

4. Meerkats. If you have not seen Meerkat Manor then you have not lived. Meerkats are the most awesome animals on earth. They rub their butt on stuff to mark their territory and to show their dominance, they eat grubs and scorpions, they stand on their hind legs like a bunch of little Rory Calhouns, and they playfight. So what if they shit all over, dig up my carpet, and tear everything apart? Oh, and they bite a lot too. The point is, these are awesome animals. And they would be awesome to have as pets. I think the fact that it's unrealistic is even better too. They only get to be like 12 inches tall! I would get like 5 or so, because they're pack animals. And then hopefully I could get a bunch of meerkat pups out of the deal, and then they would all be subservient to me. I guess one downside would be having to mark everything I own so they know that I'm the pack leader, but still, it would be awesome.

5. A stingray. Just so I can have it stab my enemies, and as a reminder from StingWar 2006-2007.

Seriously, what's the hold up?

I know I've said this before, but seriously, why would the Cubs not do everything in their power to get Aramis Ramirez back? Jim Hendry is an idiot.

So, aside from Ramirez's numbers, which I've pointed out many times (.291, 38, 119), I can't think of any reason that makes it ok to let Ramirez go.

People think Ramirez may clash with new manager Lou Piniella. Piniella is kind of a grumpy old man who demands hustle out of his players, yes. But, he's also a big veteran guy, and what is Ramirez? A veteran. He's also a guy who is going to hit a lot, especially when he's not the only focus of a weak line-up.

Also, Ramirez has injured himself while running out grounders. The only problem I have is that even on close plays, Ramirez occasionally will trot to first, thinking he'll be out, only to have the ball drop and he should be on second. I see no problem with hustling to get beaten by a step, or getting beaten by 3 steps. He runs to avoid double plays, and he's hurt himself in the past running out grounders. Also, his hamstring is very sensitive, so if he keeps himself healthy by costing the team about one out per game, I'm ok with it.

Also, he still hit .291! Talk all you want about hustle, but he was third on the team in hitting! (Murton was first, yet we want him out of the lineup next year?) What does running out a couple more grounders get you? Maybe 2 more wins?

So what would we do to replace Ramirez? I'll point out that if we weren't going to bring him back, we should have traded him at the deadline. We can't replace him with Scott Moore, he's still 'about a year away' according to chicagosports.com. Of course, that's retarded. And Moore didn't even get a chance to play much this year. What did he do? He hit .263 in 38 AB's. 38 AB's, yet that was supposed to be some sort of audition if Ramirez leaves?? Ok, I digress.

So we have no option on the team right now. Do we trade for A-Rod? This is feasible, since we may be able to work a deal to send Ramirez to the Yankees after signing him. Wouldn't you rather have A-Rod playing beside Ramirez? I know I would. I know A-Rod is probably better, but if you base it just on this season alone, as most Yankees fans are doing, Ramirez had an almost identical year to A-Rod.

The Cubs are talking about A-Rod, Miguel Tejada, Alfonso Soriano, Carl Crawford. If you get rid of Ramirez to get A-Rod, what are you going to have left to trade for someone else (this of course, operating under the assumption that Ramirez for A-Rod won't be straight-up)? Sure you can sign Soriano, but the other two guys you would need to trade for.

AND WHAT ABOUT JUAN PIERRE?? Now, in this case, I don't care if he was second on the team in batting. He got on base just about as much as Jacque Jones. And he took about as many walks as Jacque Jones. If you ask me, one Jacque Jones in your lineup is more than enough. So it's great that Hendry traded away 3 pitchers for Pierre, who we could then hold on to at the trading deadline.

If this team doesn't come within 5 outs of the World Series this year, you have to fire Jim Hendry. If he somehow manages to swing some amazing deals this offseason, I may reconsider, but seriously, what was he thinking last year? If Ramirez leaves and we're forced to have a new third baseman (which will probably start the carousel over again, and Ramirez will be compared to Ron Santo), someone like, say, David Bell, who sucks, then I don't even think we should wait until the offseason to fire Hendry.

Ugh

Yet again, it's a horrible time to be a Cubs fan. Absolutely terrible. The Cubs are doing a pretty decent job in making me forget about it by being rumored to be interested in just about every top player in the game of baseball, free agent or otherwise, but still, this is just gross.

It, yet again, it's a shitty postseason for Cubs fans. While some of us can relate to Tigers fans, who had it so shittily for years after their last World Series win (relatively speaking of course, it's been like 20 years. Honestly, suffer through 60 and we'll talk real pain), some of us, i.e. me, can't look past some shocking similarites between last year's cancelled World Series and expect this one to be cancelled as well.

Depending on where you live as a Cubs fan, you may differ in who you think is the biggest enemy of the Cubs. Is it the Sox or is it the Cards? I used to be a Cubs fan, which respect for the Sox, until I dated a White Sox fan. Actually, following that relationship, I could now see how it was impossible to like one and not hate the other. And, of course, the White Sox didn't play baseball in Chicago for years, as people forgot they had a team. At least on the North Side they did.

But I've also grown up in central Illinois. I've been around die-hard Cardinal fans much more than I've been around low-class baseball fans (oh snap!). Then, after college, I've lived in Decatur (almost equidistant between Chicago and St. Louis) and Peoria. Fans in these regions, for some reason or another, are almost split between the Cubs and Cards, and it's rare to see too many Sox fans.

Me? My hatred for both is pretty even, but I think the Sox are definitely leading as of late, what with all the postseason failings of the Cards.

However, I'm noticing some similarities between the Sox that played in the World Series whose records were washed away in a flood or something, and this year's Cardinals team.

1. They backed their way into the playoffs. Uh, the Astros made up something like 8 games in 9 days this year. The White Sox almost completed one of the biggest collapses in history, needing to take the series from the Indians at the end of the season last year to make the playoffs.

2. Light hitting outfielder hits game winning HR. Come on, So Taguchi? Really? Can't get him out? If he is allowed to do any sort of damage to your team, you should probably not be in the World Series. But that 3-run shot he hit the other night is kind of similar to the walk-off job Podsednik hit last year.

3. Mediocre pitching shuts down decent hitting. Uh, excuse me, Jeff Weaver? You sucked all season. Don't pretend you suddenly get how to pitch. And Jeff Suppan? I'm bewildered as to how he had a decent year as an average starter. There's no one pitcher I can compare from the Sox, so I'll just say the rotation in general.

So, I have a bad feeling that baseball may be outlawed for the next couple of weeks in America. I mean, hopefully it won't, so the Tigers can destroy the Cards in 4 games. And I'm pretty sure they will, since both their offense and pitching is better.

Reason to PANIC

Did anyone hear about this? A stingray jumped onto a boat and stabbed a guy in the heart. AGAIN. (Again stabbed a guy in the heart, not jumped onto a boat and stabbed a guy in the heart)

After Steve Irwin, I posted a blog on my myspace about how we should all kill the stingrays and not let them bully us into submission and a life of slavery. Well, maybe it wasn't that in depth, but i think it was something about taking revenge. Apparently, people in Australia were taking revenge, as stingray deaths were up or something.

Well apparently this was all they needed. It seems like stingrays are waging a full-scale war on humans now. Have you seen that episode of the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror when the dolphins overtake the humans? Well, it appears to be playing out, except instead of dolphins, its their hate-filled cousin*.

My guess is the stingrays were all upset that they had been relegated to living in the water. And then with Steve Irwin taunting them always, one stingray had had enough. We'll call this stingray Chosen One. And, as you obviously know, stories had been told of the Chosen One, but up to now it was just a legend. At first, the other stingrays were upset, that this rebel stingray had started the revolution, but the Chosen One had a birthmark in the shape of Steve Irwin, so they knew that he must be the Chosen One.

Soon stingrays will be flying onto all kinds of boats, stabbing all kinds of people in the chest. My guess is women and children first, since they're usually smaller, therefore you don't have to fly as high to stab them in the chest.

So, obviously, I'm going to have to carry a sword with me at all times. I'm not going to be caught off-guard by some smart-ass stingray. We will swordfight to the death if necessary. Or, perhaps I'll carry a marlin around, so the stingray knows I still think I'm better than it is (the obvious reasoning behind this is because I refuse to fight the stingray with anything but other marine animals, I'm better).

Call me crazy. But I for one won't go down easy. Also, does anyone notice any resemblence between stingrays and those aliens in Independence Day (in the face at least. Yes, stingrays have a face, jerk)? Coincidence? No chance.

Let's be prepared when these stingray aliens attack us, and we'll banish them back to the water where they belong. Also, if I made a list of people, do you think I could train a stingray to stab them? Because that would be awesome. (After we banish them back to the sea of course and I remember the battle by capturing one and keeping it as my pet.)

*Pretty sure stingrays and dolphins aren't related, since, you know, stingrays are inverterbrates (fact), but I refuse to let that get in the way of my argument

Kelvin Sampson is a jackass

And also a terrible coach. You guessed it, I'm still not over Eric Gordon being honest and keeping his word, all while backing out of his verbal commitment to Illinois. But, I found this little jewel from Kelvin Sampson thanks to Mark Tupper, where I get almost all of my Illini news: "...[Sampson] did tell me yesterday that he is not interested in players who have committed elsewhere. 'That's not what we're about' he said." That was from some Louisville paper.

Nothing like completely denying an obvious fact here. But honestly, why would he have interest in a player who has committed elsewhere? Perhaps he is retarded and was unaware of every single sports source reporting that Eric Gordon had committed to Illinois. Maybe his retardism made him think that he was talking to a different Eric Gordon. Maybe he thought Eric Gordon, Sr. had committed to Illinois.

So let's look at Sampson the coach. (Note: all of this information is coming from wikipedia, and yes I know it could be fake, but I don't care, it's too much work to find validated records) Now I'm looking solely at Oklahoma University stuff here, as I don't care what he did before. And neither should you, unless you hate him more than I do. Apparently Coach Sampson was pretty decent at OU. At one point he coached the team to 8 consecutive 20-win seasons. That's pretty good. I'm not even being sarastic. Not that the Big 12 is a conference of basketball powerhouses; but still, 20 wins is 20 wins.

So, Coach of the Year in his first season there, NCAA tournament 10 of 11 postseasons, with the 11th being an NIT. Sweet 16 in 1999, Final Four 2002, Elite Eight 2003. What year is this? Oh, that's right, it's 2006. So, he's not been able to capitalize in recruiting players, or can't develop any players he's recruiting. What else has he done at Oklahoma?

Why look at this! More than 550 illegal calls made by Sampson and his staff to 17 different recruits. He's barred from off-campus recruiting for a year for that? What a bunch of losers. He doesn't have interest in players who have committed elsewhere. What else do they want from him?

Also, he has a low rate of graduation, probably from all of the pros he's developed, right? What? Eduardo Najera is the only Sooner in the NBA? (Correct me if I'm wrong on that, if you want to) Sampson argues that doesn't take into consideration players who transfer or don't graduate in 6 years. So, he's not graduating players, he's not sending them to the NBA, and they may be transferring. Solid program with classy players.

Oh yeah, the recruiting violations occurred when he was president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches and presided over the Ethics Summit. Probably should have mentioned that before the recruiting violations.

Now, let's compare Sampson, to, say, a good coach, like, oh, I don't know, Bruce Weber. Weber has never coached a team to a record less than .500 or less. Also, he was presented the task of turning around a terrible team, in SIU. He took them from 5th in the MVC to 1st, twice, going to the NCAA tournament both seasons. The players he brought in there are still performing well, as they've been in the tournament every year since he left.

Then, as we all know, Weber came to Illinois, took an underachieving team that had an underachieving coach and turned them into a force. Not to mention 2 Big Ten Championships. Oh, and that National Championship game, I don't remember Sampson having any of those.

I'm so glad Illinois chose not to hire shitty Kelvin Sampson as their coach when both Bill Self was hired and when Weber was hired. We would probably be pulling recruits, illegally of course, and probably underachieving. But hey, if you want to play for a guy who hasn't developed a guard at the NBA level (Hollis Price was the best shot they had, and we all know where he is now. Nowhere.) and are ok with not winning enough, then, by all means, go for it. But be ready for Illinois to come in and beat the living shit out of you.

Matt Leinart is overrated

Yes, I hate Matt Leinart. Probably the worst thing about watching the Bears game on Monday night was the verbal love affair everyone was having with Matt Leinart. But he had a good game you say. Why is he overrated?

1. Anquan Boldin. This guy is unreal. He catches everything thrown in his general direction, and then he punishes cornerbacks for trying to tackle him. I would say Nate Vasher didn't have his best coverage night, and my guess is the coaching gameplan pretty much sucked in general for the Bears secondary, but Boldin is probably one of the top 5 receivers in the league, and you hardly ever hear about him.

2. In addition to Boldin, Leinart has a couple of other solid players helping him. One, Larry Fitzgerald, was hurt last week, which was probably even more impressive in regards to Boldin being able to get open. The second one is Edgerrin James, who really isn't all that great right now. But, he's also a solid receiver out of the backfield, one dimension the Cardinals seem to forget about (or at least seemed to on Monday night). The offensive line can't open any holes for him (except on Monday night when he had like 4 runs in a row totally something like 22 yards early in the game), but they seemed to stop the Bears rush pretty well.

3. Rarely did Leinart complete a pass over 8 yards. There were a couple in there, but most of the time he would hit a receiver on a crossing pattern underneath the Bears secondary, and the receiver would then run for 5 more yards. And when he did go longer than that, it was to Boldin. Even the first touchdown was simply a quick pass to the receiver that scored only because Lance Briggs missed the tackle. And the last drive down the field, all he did was hit guys underneath, and rather than pressure Leinart, the Bears just stayed back letting him take whatever he wanted. It was a stupid gameplan for the final drive for the Bears defense.

That's not to say Leinart can't throw the long pass. But why is everyone so in love with him now? Aside from his poise, he looked just as good in the game against K.C. It's not that I don't think he's a good QB or is possibly going to be great, but I don't know if we can really call him the class of the draft, when he's by far got the best receivers. Look at what Vince Young has to work with. Drew Bennett, while good, is probably not as good as either Larry Fitzgerald or Anquan Boldin.

So let's everybody just chill out a little bit on the Leinart love train.

So it begins

Yesterday the Cubs officially introduced Lou Piniella as manager of the Cubs. One of the better things about his contract, which is fairly ridiculous that it lasts longer than Hendry will (likely/hopefully) be in Chicago, was that part of Lou's requirements for coming on board were the promises of Hendry to go get some players. So let's look into some of the rumored players coming to Chicago.

The way I see, it, the Cubs have 2 outfield spots to fill, center and right. However, in the case of right field, you can get something in return. First up for center, the rumor is Alfonso Soriano. This would be great, because you get a surprisingly solid defender (although he'd have a learning curve in center), a leadoff hitter, and a 40/40 guy. So, slight drop off from 58 steals or whatever Pierre had? Yes, but also better OBP, more walks, more runs. So while he may not hit as well as Pierre for average, the OBP will still be there because he takes walks.

Next up, is of course the A-Rod rumor. Here is where it gets a little interesting. The Yankees earlier had been rumored to want Jacque Jones, so I say we include him if at all possible. Maybe we have to give up a Matt Murton, hopefully we could get rid of Izturis, and then maybe 2 pitching prospects, or Prior and a prospect. Or, hell, Wood and a prospect. Whatever, if we can bring him in without dealing anyone in our rotation next year (so far made of Zambrano and Hill) then we're solid. Also we don't want to give up Aramis. Along similar lines, I would say a similar trade would be required if we were to go after Miguel Tejada. Maybe switch out Jacque Jones for another pitching prospect. Similar also for Manny Ramirez.

Barry Zito is one of the top pitchers available in free agency. Probably the top, but I'm not sure who's available. One rumor says the Cubs will get a big name outfielder and two pitchers from free agency for the rotation. Dare I say one of those will be Jamie Moyer? But I digress. Zito will be pretty expensive, but if we can stack our rotation with lefties, I don't see what the problem is.

Finally, perhaps the most intriguing rumor I've heard is that Piniella would be interested in bringing in his two favorites from his Tampa days, Carl Crawford and Scott Kazmir. Now, if we could somehow work a trade to bring these two in it would be amazing. And, some of the guys we'd have to give up would bother me. But, come on, it would probably be worth it for 2, 3, or more years. So, some names I think may be included in deals with the Devil Rays: Scott Moore (if we bring back Aramis, as we no doubt should), maybe a Freddie Bynum (I'm sure we'd end up with somebody we didn't want back anyways, so why not try and get rid of him), maybe a Jacque Jones, possibly Felix Pie, and then a couple pitching prospects. Yes, we may have to give up the crown jewel of our system. But if you've got an outfield of Soriano, Crawford and Murton, you've easily replaced Jones and Pierre. Let's look at Crawford's numbers: .305, .348 OBP, 58 steals, 18 HR's. That alone is better than Pierre. But he can't play center because he doesn't like it. No problem, Jones is out.

In a world where I'm just out of my mind and have absolutely no concept of trade value, it would be amazing if we could pull a 3-team trade, and get Kazmir, Crawford, and A-Rod/Tejada in one fell swoop. And, Hendry has pulled trades out of his ass before (refer to Nomar and Murton for absolutely no one).

So it's exciting to see all of these rumors, and hopefully Hendry can make it happen. Regardless, even our options via free agency are good. So let's get this stupid World Series over so the Cubs can start making moves. Obviously I'm way too optimistic and I'm only setting myself up for disappointment.

A sad day for Chicago sports

Ok, first let me say that I did not watch the entire Bears game from start to finish. I mean, how could I? I couldn't even keep my food down watching Rex Grossman inexplicably throw directly into triple coverage. Is he color blind? We haven't played any teams wearing red yet, maybe he can't differentiate red and white?

The Arizona Cardinals made a laughing stock of the Chicago Bears last night, as did Matt Leinart specifically. And both the offensive and defensive lines for the Cardinals. For the Bears to get as little pressure as they did all night was amazing. And for the Cardinals to get as much pressure as they did was sickening. Now, I'm not saying Bertrand Berry isn't a good player, because I've only seen one game, but he made John Tait his bitch for vitually the entire first half last night. And yet, we chose to not keep a tight end in there to chip him, or we'd have Thomas Jones go out in the flat instead of blocking.

I think the playcalling was pretty poor myself. The first play was awesome, and Grossman just missed it. The announcers made it sound like that play killed his kitten and he was unable to go on the rest of the night. The problem was that on second down we rushed for 1 shitty yard, and then called another shitty play on third. The first 3 and out of the season on the first series of the game. Disgusting.

Now I'm not sure why Grossman started throwing terribly, aside from the pressure he was feeling. And I can't really blame the fumbles on him when he was blindsided. But he just didn't perform well. Yet we kept passing. And we kept running for 0 yards with Thomas Jones. I specifically remember one 3rd down play where Rex dumped off to Jones in the flat, needing 5 yards for 1st down. Well, instead of taking advantage of the distance between himself and the closest defender, Jones tried to start putting a move on, and in doing so, came up a yard short. Which brings me to my next point.

Fucking play Cedric Benson. He breaks tackles better, I think he's more explosive. I'm not saying he should start or get the bulk of the carries, but not playing him until the second half is flat out retarded.

Anyways, the Bears won, and now they have 2 weeks to think about what they've done.

As for the Cubs, yesterday was a miserable day. Now, Lou Piniella could turn out to be a fairly good coach for the team. He at least seems to be able to win fairly well with proven talent. But so could Dusty. However, with the rules he will instill, the mistakes should be eliminated. Personally I'd like to see Jacque Jones fined for everytime he runs us out of an inning. But I'd also like to not see Jacque Jones. Also, the payroll has been increased, and apparently the Cubs are going to spend the money to get a top-tier free agent. Which would be their first one in, oh, ever. They don't sign top free agents. They trade for them or don't have them.

But, why would you give Piniella a 3 year deal? Hendry is not going to be around that long, or at least he shouldn't be. Hell, the team could be sold in that time. I would say if anything, give him 2 years guaranteed, then maybe team options for years 3 and 4. He's 63 (I think). I'd hate to see him die on the bench. Or, worse, when he's arguing with the umpires and throwing bases.

Currently I'm intrigued with the situation. I don't think Piniella was the best choice. But, I thought Dusty Baker was the best choice, so obviously I know nothing about who should coach. Except that it should be me. But if the Cubs go out, get a decent pitcher and bring in a top-notch hitter (and there are A-Rod rumors at SS), then I would think it would be impossible for this team to not win. Especially when all of the stupid mental mistakes (errors, baserunning errors) are made.

But seriously Jim Hendry. 3 years? I was done with Dusty after 2.5 years and the Cubs were in the NLCS under him.

So, while things may still be ok in Chicago sports, it really wasn't a day to be proud of.

Piniella musings

Well, the Cubs are about to do it again. They're about to take a manager based solely on reputation and history, and 'experience', rather than take someone who is probably going to be good for the team. They're set to announce Piniella sometime early this week as their manager, and then my heart will break for Joe Girardi. Kind of.

So some thoughts on bringing in Piniella. Well, obviously since I haven't watched him manage a lot, I can't really decide. I mean, aside from what I've already read about him, I know he was fairly decent in Seattle until he clashed with management. Then he went to Tampa Bay only to fail. But, good luck finding a manager who won't fail there.

Things I know about Piniella. He won a World Series, but that was in the early 90's. The game isn't quite the same as it was. Yet, from all accounts, he seems to be managing the exact same way. He hates rookies. He loves veterans. He loves Larry Rothschild. He's fiery. He sells his players out sometimes. He's not a very good in-game manager. He may or may not be retarded.

Most of those things seem to be bad for the Cubs. When Piniella went to Tampa Bay, they were excited to have him there and he was excited to be there. And the team even managed to pull a partial turn-around after he arrived, going from sucking all season, to only sucking for extended periods. Also, he is heavy on veterans. Which could be good, because it may mean that Hendry will go after Barry Zito. And maybe trade away Jacque Jones for somebody good.

Regardless, I guess it's a good idea to bring in a disciplinarian. I mean, sure he still manages a style of baseball that's kind of outdated, and he loves veterans (basically no matter how good young guys perform I guess), but he should at least be able to get some changes in place. Like good fielding. And hopefully he won't select a shitty coaching staff. Also, maybe we could bring in a player like Julio Lugo to play short, since Lugo, for some reason or another loved Lou Piniella.

It's just too bad that the Cubs, once again, fall into the Jim Hendry trap of hiring someone basically because he's experienced and a fairly safe bet. Will the Cubs be the worst team in the NL next year? Not likely. Will they win the NL next year? I'm skeptical. But, if they don't make the playoffs, there's no reason Hendry should have a job. And the prospect of that is exciting. So, it's kind of like we win either way. Except maybe not on the field. Which sucks.

I support Piniella for now I guess, but it's going to be hard to give him a lot of time to see this team turn it around. I'll try to not call for his job too early. And if I were Joe Girardi, who basically wanted the Cubs job last year, and I'm sure he was salivating for it this year, I would never talk to the Cubs again, at least until Hendry is gone. So, like next year.

My Grudge 2 experience (with spoilers likely)

So, if you read the last post, you'll notice I said something about how The Grudge 2 sucked. So I'm going to regale you with why it sucked in my opinion.

First, why would you take your little kids to see this movie? The first one was scary. Like, I was scared, so I can't imagine being under 10 and seeing this movie. So if you take your kids to this movie, you're a terrible parent. And there were probably 4 or 5 terrible parents at this movie. So many dumb little kids. Also, and this is probably more unbelievable, there was a kid who was like 2 there! How is this a good idea? "Can't find a babysitter, might as well scare the living shit out of our 2 year-old." And this kid seemed to take it pretty well actually.

So the movie starts. I see Amber Tamblyn's name in the credits. Fuck. She sucks, this movie is then by default going to suck. And if it doesn't suck, it's going to seriously have to work to get to that level since she's in it.

So, here's what the movie does. It explains why shit is going on. Kind of. It does a pretty terrible job of it. Also, it falls victim to so many mistakes of sequels to scary movies. There is way too much plot involving trying to find out why this shit is happening instead of just showing scary shit. It wasn't really scary at all. It was more rage-inducing.

Also, the movie doesn't really explain some of the other things about the first movie. Like, for instance, how SMG lives through the final scene of Grudge 1.

This is a poorly pieced rant on the suckings of The Grudge 2, mainly because I was so angry about it sucking so badly. There just wasn't enough scary stuff (or hardly any), and then when there was something that was supposed to be scary, it wasn't scary. It included a bunch of shit that wasn't explained. Also, at one part, we're learning about Kyoko or whatever her name is, and we meet her mother. And, for some reason, we learn that we've spent about 45 minutes of the movie investigating something that has nothing to do with the curse anyways. Terrific.

I suppose it's possible that Grudge 3 could tie everything together and make me hate Grudge 2 less, but I doubt it. Another terrible thing is that the reviews of it are all bad, but because horror reviews are usually bad, nobody thinks anything of it. So this is my review. IT SUCKED. If you liked Grudge 1, you'll hate Grudge 2. If you liked The Ring 2, you might like Grudge 2. And if you liked The Ring 2, I don't want to know you.

Weekend in Chicago

This was definitely an interesting weekend in Chicago. It basically went not according to plan at all, and it was the first weekend in Chicago that I didn't start drinking before 3 p.m. in a long time.

So, first, work was great on Friday. I stayed nearly two hours past when I should have left because I kept getting ridiculous jobs to do. So I left my place at 5:40, luckily traffic was fine that late, and I got to the city around 8:30. And immediately showered and started drinking. Friday night we went to Improv Olympics, but the show didn't start until 12. So we drank until we left, then went there and drank more. The show was pretty good. At one point, the topic came up of baseball, and there was an obscure baseball player named. And one of the dudes was pretending to be this baseball player. Well anyone who knows Wally Joyner knows he swings left-handed, but they were swinging right-handed on stage. I pointed this out to Poops, who told me to tell them. I was like, uh, they're on stage. Well, logic be damned, we both shouted out that he was left-handed. The guys on stage took it well, and made a comment about why some girl would know anything about such an obscure baseball player. I guess it was a funnier story if you were there. After the show we went to dance, but really all I remember was getting to the bar, standing around, getting another beer at last call, then going to get some sweet sweet El Burrito. I think I played some drunk guitar when we got back, and then we passed out (Shannon first obviously).

Not sure when we woke up Saturday, but we had a busy day planned. Lunch, thrift store shopping for Halloween costume, Grudge 1 with Brooke (while Bootz and Poops went downtown shopping), meet up for Grudge 2 downtown, then Meg comes into town, then drunken shenanigans. Well, Brooke's phone quit working correctly. So that threw an immediate chink in the plans. So, instead I went downtown shopping with the girls. Which I was less than excited about. Except for ridiculing decisions, that sounded like fun. So after hours of standing and shopping and waiting around, including checking out 3 separate times at H & M, we went to Su Casa for drinks before the movie. Meg decided she didn't want to come to Chicago since we'd be at the movie, so there's chink in plans number 2. Well, the movie SUCKED. I mean, maybe if you haven't seen the first one it was ok. But more on this later.

So we get back, get ready, drink before going out. Well, most of us wanted to dance (I don't know when I started needing to dance all the time) but we didn't want to go where we always go to dance. And, I'm kind of shocked at Wrigleyville's shortage of good dancing places. Anyways, after putting it off for nearly an hour, we finally go out. After going to the first bar for a while, we decide it's time to dance and we go to Sluggers. Which was pretty full. So we're enjoying ourselves, and Poops backs into this dude while leaning back or something. Thus begins one of the greatest moments I've ever witnessed in my life: The Dance Off.

Now, I was pretty drunk, so I can't remember too much about it. But this dude has obviously spent a lot of time practicing, because he was pretty good. And, when I say pretty good, I mean for a white dude who requests a dance off with anyone. But it was ridiculously funny. And, unfortunately, Poops lost.

So we all get ready to leave and go get more Mexican food, and we walk out of the bar. And, as we all get out and start walking, this girl walks past us and says to me I have beautiful eyes or something. Mainly I was in shock as to how she could see my eyes in the dark from behind. I think I said thanks (although that's been disputed). So then we get more Mexican food, and I'm unable to finish my tacos. Poops and Boots make fun of me, so I get up to leave and tell them to clean up my stuff. And they did it!! We got back and I pulled a Shannon and passed out on the couch early.

Sunday I woke up at 10, a solid 90 minutes before anyone else. We got lunch, then I went shopping again with the girls. This time was funnier because Shannon was also with us and was making much more ridiculous suggestions than I was. Then she hit a girl on the head with a boot. Then I was heavily treaded on.

So that was the weekend. And apparently it looks like I'll be spending the next 3 weekends in the city as well. Maybe I should start looking for an apartment.

It's official

Eric Gordon is now the biggest bitch in college basketball. And he's not even in college yet!

Yes, it's official, Gordon has spurned the Illini for the Hoosiers. So, let me be the first to congratulate this piece of shit on a terrible decision. Should I not be tearing into a high schooler for renegging on a commitment he made nearly a year ago? Probably not. Do I care? You bet your ass I don't.

So, let me just say this: I look forward to coming up with great ways that I can heckle you. Hell, I may even try to attend whatever it is they do in the Assembly Hall at IU (you can't call that shit basketball, unless you're talking about the women) just to try out some of my new heckles over and over and over again. I intend to be as original as I've ever been.

I will hate you with all of my heart. You are as bad as Bill Self. In fact, I find it hard to find any distinction between the two of you. I will take great joy when you fail, and your team fails, time and time and time again. Remember Bracey Wright? Things must be going great for him now. And don't be mistaken. You will fail. Time and time again.

Just remember all that Bruce Weber offered you. I hope he is more tactful than I am in his insults of your decision. I mean, throw your future away. You've worked hard to get where you are, you might as well piss it all away for a prick like Kelvin Sampson.

So on draft night 2 years from now, or 3, or, lets be honest, you're gonna need all 4 years under Sampson to try to get onto anyone's draft board, when you don't get that call, just make sure you thank your coach for misleading you into thinking that going to IU was something that was good for you. And God I hope someone calls you to tell you they're going to take you, and then, eh, they change their mind. Dick.

Thoughts

So the Cubs continue to do it. Kudos to goatriders.org for doing research and finding out what fans think about prospective coaches' abilities, because if all we were left to trust were the points of view from outsiders, or worse, the media, we would think most of the prospective coaches were awesome based on their history. Of course, as we learned with Ol' DoubleSwitch, this is not always an accurate representation of a manager's abilities.

So now the frontrunner for the Cubs seems to be Bruce Bochy. Why? I'm not really sure. Based on everything that I've seen on goatriders.org, all of the managers the Cubs are interested in are almost exactly the same. They are average at best in their ability to manage in-game, they love veterans, even unproven ones (Freddie Bynum anyone?) and their players seem to love them.

So here's what I'm thinking. Dusty proved it wasn't hard to get your players to like you. Just let them do whatever they want. It works with little kids too. It's called spoiling them. Actually, those kids grow up to be assholes. And players go on to be underachieving lazy bastards. Or just content. Whatever, it was a pretty weak metaphor to begin with.

Anyways, I don't see why the Cubs are looking all at one kind of manager. Also, I don't see why they can't just let Girardi manage. If there's one thing I think Girardi has over all of these managers is that he's young enough that I think he would be willing to adapt his style. You get guys like Piniella or (perhaps) Bochy and they think that if the team can't win with their style of managing, then the players are wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I want a disciplinarian. I'm not sure if Bochy is that guy, but he's taken more than one Padres team that I wouldn't fear into the playoffs. And, sure, they play in the same division as the Rockies, so it's tough to finish last, but still.

I really don't know what the Cubs should do. Although I would be extremely interested in seeing Davey Johnson manage the Cubs. How awesome would that be? From reading the evaluations of these coaches, I'm growing to love the Earl Weaver style of baseball even more, because it's different and we've already had guys try to win by doing the little things shittily.

Ok, on another note, the Illini Midnight Madness is tonight. But is there something missing? You're damn right there is. Eric Gordon. Why the fuck isn't he going to be on campus tonight? Why the hell did he cancel his visit last week? Here's my problem. I respect the Gordon family, and I was extremely impressed with their answers as to why he chose the Illini. However, they're now listening to IU for some ungodly reason. Here's my question to that:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU??? I don't care if you pull your verbal commitment off the table, which I'm sure happened a couple months ago. But you can't expect to have conversations with the IU staff and not expect people to question. And, maybe it's just that you really wanted to go to IU but hated its direction, so you chose the Illini. And if you're a die-hard IU fan, then you would want to go there with a new coach and new direction maybe. But why would you choose the Illini so soon? Also, you say that unless you've said something different, the commitment is still there. So why aren't you coming to Midnight Madness? Because you saw it last year? That better be the only fucking reason.

Seriously, I can't see one logical reason to choose IU over Illinois unless you've got some sort of tie to the team (and I don't mean your younger brother wanting to go there). Kelvin Sampson hasn't won anything, especially recently. He's got recruting violations against him. He's produced absolutely 0 NBA guards. He runs a slow offense.

Now let's consider Bruce Weber. Motion offense, encourages guards to be creative. Has produced 2 first-round guards in the past 2 years, with 4 out of 5 players being drafted from the Nation runner-up team in 2005. He didn't recruit those players? True. Did you see them before he arrived on campus? They blew. Relatively speaking of course. Anyways, Weber also has 0 recruiting violations, he's built a winner with SIU, and now he's trying to build back up a program that its former coach has helped to lure prospects away from (in some manner at least).

I realize I'm probably just repeating everyone else's arguments over and over. But whatever. If you're into having your development into a top NBA prospect hurt, and like playing for a loser who has no respect, go to IU Mr. Gordon. I'll just bring up 3 names of players coached by Bruce Weber who are playing in the NBA. Troy Hudson, Deron Williams, Luther Head. That's all I've got. For now.

Ideal jobs

So I'm in the job market right now. As in I'm looking to get a job in Chicago, and I don't really care what it is as long as it pays well and I don't work shitty hours. But here are a couple ideas (not necessarily my own) for what an awesome job would be. And if anyone sees this and wants to hire me, then let me know.

1. Do you remember the XFL? How ridiculous of an investment was that? I can't even imagine how much money that lost. So here's my first job. You give me a potential investment, I tell you whether or not you're retarded. We both win here. If you're not retarded, then you can invest in some lucrative deal or business venture. If you are retarded, then I just take the money you would have invested and spend it on myself. Also, if I declare you not retarded and you lose your money, I still keep whatever you paid me for my services.

2. Professional Jerk. I hate people. And, honestly, it's way easier to be disagreeable with someone than it is to be agreeable. And the best part is, your argument doesn't even have to make sense? "Why? Spite, that's why!" See? That doesn't make sense, but if you use it in an argument, it's probably gonna be a winner, because how do you respond to that? "I'll spite you!" See? I'm so good at it. But seriously here, on more than one occasion I have been known to describe myself as an asshole, or a jerk. In fact, I was once quoted as saying "I'm an asshole. It's what I do." Now, if I could just collect a stipend for my work in the field of Jerkistry, my life would be great.

3. Critic. My opinions need to be heard. Your opinion sucks. You will listen to me and I will tell you what you like. And that is very little. See? How would this not be a perfect job for me? I'll criticize anything. Movies, TV, your opinions, food (I'm really a picky eater, so that would be so easy to hate everything). I'll even review weird things like haircuts, fashion (I have no idea what's fashionable, so somehow I think makes me suited perfectly for being a fashion critic), building designs, tractors, people. You name it, I'll review/criticize it. Preferably in print. That is read by many many people. Hell, pay me to blog about it.

4. Political spinster. I think this would be so much fun because I really want to lie my face off and take absolutely no responsibility for it. "I said what yesterday? I did not. You can't prove it. Oh, you've got a recording of my voice saying it? That could be anyone. Oh, there's film to prove it? Well you took it out of context." And I could pass the blame on to someone else. "Well, it's the medias fault for not having all the facts." "The Democrats made him gay." "The North Koreans had weapons of mass destruction, so we had to use the bomb." See? Who needs facts or reasonable arguments? I sure don't. Also, as a sidenote, I would revel in watching people justify my arguments, and then also watching the few sane people who realize I'm lying get ridiculed because they're not real news. I'm talking about Daily Show.

5. I volunteer for any position in the Cubs front office. I feel confident that I could be president, because I understand baseball. I know what I want, and I assume I could find people who were able to teach what I want, and I'm not retarded. Well, I may be. But I still feel like I would be great it. I could be GM for the same reasons. I also feel like I could be coach mainly because of my understanding of the game. And then when I get fired from whatever job I get offered, I will apologize to the fans, saying that I did my best and I was way over my head.

6. Drunk dude. Are you ever at a party that's really boring and you wished that there was some drunk dude making an ass of himself? I could be that dude. Or, maybe you really like drinking all day watching sports, but you don't want to do it yourself. Well call me up. If that doesn't get me a job, I would also take a job getting paid lots of money to just be drunk. I'm apparently really good at it. Well, at least I think I'm really good at it.

So, that's my list. I expect a massive amount of e-mails/calls requesting my employment.

A Decatur tale

So I recently remembered this story and I thought it was kind of funny, and more just bizarre, so I decided I would share it. This happened to me last year while I was living in Decatur, IL, and the night sticks out pretty vividly in my mind.

So I worked in Decatur and I got off work at 3:30 p.m., as did most of the other people who were paid salary and making less than $60,000 annually. In fact, some people making over that still got off at 3:30. But I digress. So one of the guys who sat in the same cubicle as me was asking the two guys I worked with if they wanted to go out for a drink after work. They both declined, and then he got to me.

Obviously I've never been one to turn down a drink, so I agreed to go. So we got to the bar that was like .25 miles from where I worked. Ordered the first drink, drank it, talked. Ordered the second drink, drank it, talked more. I think I was planning on stopping when another one of the guy's friends showed up, so I had a third drink. Also I turned down a shot of tequila.

So I just get started onto my third drink when the guy's wife calls. Now he was maybe in his early 40's. Well, I think they were just having a normal conversation, and all of a sudden either he or his wife hugely overreact to something said. I can't remember who, as this was well over a year ago. Anyways, what followed was maybe the most awkward 20 minutes of my life (up to that point). Nope, I take that back. It was probably top 3 though.

We had been sitting at the bar. Well, he just starts yelling into the phone. While still sitting at the bar. I can't really remember specifically what he was saying, but I can remember that the argument was about one of the dumber things I've ever heard. I think it was because the wife hadn't gotten a babysitter (they were going out for dinner that night) and because he was drinking after work instead of going home(?). So, thankfully, after about 5 minutes of this, he gets up and goes outside. I see him pacing back and forth on the phone. His friend was still there, so we talked a little, but it was just a very very awkward time.

So he comes back in after he gets done yelling. He asks what I'm doing later that night as his night has apparently opened up. I tell him I'm free, so he asks if I want to go out later. I'm like, what the hell.

So I drive home, shower, and then I head back out. We go to this place called the Lone Oak which is kind of like a place for bikers (easy-going ones) and I guess they have great wings like one night a week. So I get there, I have no idea where he is, then I find him. He's at a table with 3 old dudes. So I sit down, there's some weird conversation, I make sure to get a beer.

We eat, he pays (also, he paid the drink tab which was like $57), and then he goes to talk to some lady friend. He's talking to her, I'm left talking to these old dudes who I have nothing in common with, and I have no idea what they're talking about. Probably fiber diets and the olden days.

So then he comes back over to me, tells me he's going to this other bar. It's another biker bar, but it's pretty rough. But as long as I'm with him I'll be ok. But he's only going for one drink and leaving as soon as he finishes. I was like, well, uh, I think I'll just end this blast of a not-awkward-at-all night and head home when I finish my beer.

So he leaves, I'm left to converse for about 5 more minutes, mostly about the state of New Orleans (this was just after Katrina and I'll spare everyone what the redneckish people were saying, as their opinions have no value). Thankfully, I finished my beer, and then went home.

Just to finish the story, I think he ended hanging out with his lady friend well into the night, who was not his wife, and he said something about ending up in a hot tub somewhere until 3 in the morning. I chose to tune the rest out for the sake of not puking my intestines out. Such a weird night.

If only my job was like this

Can you imagine what it must be like to be a Republican in Congress these days? Particularly if you're in a leader position? What if you're the President? I can't believe how easy that job would be.

Ok, first, they never admit they're wrong. Absolutely never. Someone is accountable, but it's not us. Probably the Democrats. Look at the O'Reilly Report. They showed Mark Foley speaking, and three separate times showed him as a Democrat. Three separate times! I can't even follow the logic behind that. Do they think that people might get confused as to what party he belongs to? He's obviously a Republican. Maybe they should have listed him as an independent or something, as least that's easier to believe than Democrat.

Second, with this whole Mark Foley thing, look at the excuses they're giving. Dennis Hastert apologizes, but he blames the system, so it's not really his fault. Mark Foley is gay, he's unmarried, but he's gay because he was molested by a priest when he was younger.

Also, when did they actually find out about it? I've seen 2005, 2002, 2001, 2000. I'm going to bet it was probably in the 2000-2002 range, and not the 2005. How do they even justify that???

And what do they attribute this to? Well, back in 1983 some Democrat did something with a page or something and they didn't find out until the 90's, so it's the Democrats fault.

This is really unbelievable. I would love for my job to be to just confused people with facts until they have absolutely no idea what to think. Stupid people that is. I would assume that most people are able to think for themselves without Fox News telling them what to think. They're being extremely creative about how they're blaming Democrats for THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE.

Next, today it comes out that the Iraq war is blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths. Rather than comment on the number, Republicans just accuse the Democrats of sitting on that number until election time. That may be the case, but how do you justify that many deaths? But...but....but...the Democrats.

And they do it so well. People don't really seem to care about the Mark Foley scandal. Who cares if an elected Congressman wants to fondle young boys??

Seriously. Am I missing something here? Also, MadTV had a sketch back in its first year about a Congressman who looked at art and saw naked boys. I thought it was hilarious, but now I'm almost creeped out by the amazing foresight.

I wish that my job involved confusing people so much until they didn't know what they thought. I wish I was that good at it. Just let me mix facts, embellish a little bit, deny some stuff I've recently said because I 'can't remember it.' It all seems like it would be so easy and really fun. Like, let's see what we can get people to believe and get behind today. That seems like a good job for me.

I think it's pretty obvious

Jim Hendry must have some sort of brain problems, because he's an idiot. First, this Cubs managerial search. It's obvious that whatever coach you choose is going to have a downfall. He could even be mildly successful, and people may not be happy. Of course, this is a Cubs team that should not be as bad as it is. And I blame that on Jim Hendry. But I digress.

So why is the managerial search taking this long? There are 3 other teams looking for managers and the Cubs really only have 2 candidates, at least that I would call legitimate. You've got Lou Piniella, you've got Joe Girardi. One is NL Manager of the Year, the other is a guy who has won just about everywhere he's been, but, to be honest, isn't really good with young talent.

However, an interesting article on chicagosports.com said that the Cubs may be interesting in bringing ARod into town, should he become available, which I think it's pretty obvious he will be.

First, having Piniella would probably help bring in ARod, since he played for Piniella in Seattle. Also, that team did really well, but they also had Ken Griffey Jr. and that was back in the 90's. There's no guarantee it makes it easier, it would probably just be easier to get him to waive his no-trade, which, in the past he's said he would waive it to go to Chicago (either team) anyways.

Now Joe Girardi may be a great developmental coach. However, conflicting reports out of Florida have caused me to rescind my call for Girardi to be manager hands down. One person said that they thought talent won out, causing the Marlins to perform so well. Now, sure they had a lot of top-level prospects, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. The Cubs have had plenty top-level prospects (ahem-Corey Patterson-ahem) and have gotten basically nothing out of them. So there has to be some effective teaching along the way. If we got ARod, I get the feeling that Girardi would be great because he still seems to favor veterans over young guys.

The sooner we bring in a coach, the sooner we can start negotiating with players like Aramis to extend his contract. Rumor has it they're close on negotiations for an extension, it's possible they're just waiting to see who the new manager will be. But you can bet Aramis will get a ton of offers if he opts out.

So why would we consider ARod a viable candidate to bring in if we let Aramis go? ARod is going to make $16 million a year for 4 years (roughly), and we'd have to trade for him. Who would we trade? Ideally, it would be Jacque Jones, Freddie Bynum and maybe a good prospect or 2. Now if we could get rid of those two shitholes and not lose anybody relevant to the system (Rich Hill, Felix Pie) then I'd be fine with it. However, the odds of that are terrible.

Of course, you could keep Aramis and get ARod to play short. That would be a potent left side of the infield. Also, if Aramis starts slow and ARod starts hot, they cancel out when ARod fades down the stretch and Aramis heats up, and their numbers are still similar.

But, don't forget, Jim Hendry is an idiot, and the Cubs may be sold, which would change the payroll greatly. So there's a chance that we couldn't afford that much payroll, although thankfully we're losing that $13 million that Kerry Wood got.

So maybe in Jim Hendry's mind it makes more sense to just bring in ARod, instead of keeping Aramis. That way we pay more, and we get to give up prospects for it, and also we can keep shitty Cesar Izturis at SS. Also, if we bring in ARod, that we force me to stop hating him, and right now that's something I don't know if I can do. That is, until the trade became official, then all hatred would cease. Much like the Nomar situation.

I hate how now, instead of hoping the Cubs will do something awesome, or perhaps make a smart move, I expect the dumbest possible moves and am surprised by anything more.