The Chief's Forum

Douchebags

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:46:00 +0000

&#%*$^@! Favre

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:25:00 +0000

I would really love to know where our old serial commenter, "Nick" is on this whole situation. "Nick," who extolled the virtue and awesome-ness of the "great" Brett Favre... where are you, "Nick?"

Brett Favre is in the middle of the worst season of his career and quite probably the worst year of his personal life. Problems he, himself, created. When Roethlisberger (who I still love as a QB and loathe as a person - he has a long way to go on the latter in my eyes) was being slammed and trashed for behavior on his part, "Nick" was putting Brett Favre on a pedestal and telling me how stupid I was for poking fun at Brett Favre, telling me all about his accomplishments and generally being all about Favre. Well, "Nick," where are you? You're pretty selective about the time and type of venom you spew.

Brett Favre will likely be in the Hall of Fame. He's had tremendous years on the field and off of it too. He has been a great football story on many an occasion in many a year.

This isn't one of them.

So I ask you, "Nick," why not show your yourself again? Are you jealous that Favre sent those messages and pictures of his junk to Jenn Sterger and not yourself? You must be devastated that he's pick her over you, huh?

It just goes to show you that you should be careful when you throw stones at people for their transgressions - your own guy could be next.

Sexy Cereal

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:36:00 +0000

First off, I'd like to state up front that I think it's great that Chad ~~Johnson~~ ~~Ocho Psycho~~ Ochocinco is doing charitable work for organizations like Feed The Children. There is nothing more noble than giving to others - especially others in need and that is something that transcends sports and sports rivalries. That being said, there's some funny crap going down with ~~Ocho Psycho~~ Ochocinco's new cereal, shamelessly called "OchocincO's."

It seems that the box has a very small but vital misprint on it as the number for Feed The Children is 1-866-HELP-FTC, the number printed on the box is actually 1-800-HELP-FTC. Both are toll-free number exchanges but the funny part about those two little numbers being different is that the 800-number (the one on the box) is actually a phone sex line!

Obviously this is a mistake that neither ~~Ocho Psycho~~ Ochocinco or the Bengals are responsible for but the company that makes the cereal, whether they are at fault or not is really the interesting part of this story. The makers of the cereal are PLB Sports and they are based in Pittsburgh, PA! While we all know that no business in their right mind would intentionally print something like this and even though ~~Ocho Psycho~~ Ochocinco joked tongue-in-cheek when he said: "It's made in Pittsburgh. It makes you think" - you know the whiny, crybaby, can't-get-over-Kimo-von-Oelhoffen Bungholes fans are going to try to make an issue out of this and they'll do it regardless of whether they really believe it. No, rather it's their way of further creating a rivalry between the Steelers and the Bungholes. Someone really needs to tell them that rivalries are made on the field and not in the soundbytes. I don't know if Bungholes fans know this or not: but in Pittsburgh, the Bungholes are not viewed as our main rival.

While nothing more might be made of this, it will be funny to see how some in Cincinnati will try to portray this. I, for one, would welcome the blame - if you're going to blame Steelers fans for this one - you have to admit that were it actually a joke (and the charity notwithstanding), this would be one for the ages!

Time Passages...

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:22:00 +0000

This is Anna Mucha. Anna Mucha affected me profoundly when I was 20 years old and she was all of 13. No, I didn't put the picture above on here to show how much of a pervert I am or how much I now desire her; on the contrary, I am somehow stirred by the fact that Anna Mucha posed for Playboy - much as if it had been my own sister or daughter.

Anna is 30 years old now - I know this for the same reason I found the above picture of her - by doing a Google search. I recall the time I saw Anna for the very first time and she made me think - deep and hard. Anna made me worried and Anna made me nearly weep and she did all of this without saying anything save for a few frightened screams.

Because of Anna, I was able to put a person's face into the black and white history of the past - it was the face of absolute innocence shown during a time when innocence was being lost by the millions. Now, I don't begrudge her posing for Playboy - everyone grows up and makes their own decisions. Some will say good for her, others will say shame on her while others still will not care either way. For me, it's just that it's difficult to see the woman above for what she is now: a grown woman showing off her sexuality and that's simply because Anna represented every human emotion I could think of EXCEPT sexuality. Maybe it's because of this that I have a difficult time with the above photo. So who is Anna Mucha, you're asking?

Odds are, you know her too...

Back in 1993...

A phenomenal film came out...

It was Schindler's List and Anna was...

Danka Dresner - the little girl with the round glasses.

Burn, Baby, Burn!

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:09:00 +0000

I find the name of Pastor Terry Jones' church, Dove World Outreach, to be a bit of a misnomer - perhaps a little ironic but I'd have to know more about him and his church to make the latter claim more definitively. Their website lists "Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran" and they are the group in the news right now: Out of Gainesville, Florida, Pastor Jones and his group are hosting a "Burn the Koran" day on the 9th anniversary of the September 11th Attacks. They are also the source of a lot of controversy right now.

In these "Ten Reasons," Pastor Jones and his church assert that the Koran: "includes Arabian idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals" that are "demonic" and "satanic" and has an "attitude towards women in Islam as inferior possessions of men has led to countless cases of mistreatment and abuse for which Moslem [sp] men receive little or no punishment." I cannot argue that the Koran (Quran, Q'ran - however it's spelled - the church spells it K-O-R-A-N) is less kind to women, shows no modern-day notion of respect and even advocates violence from what I've read (which isn't much) - but I should also point out that the Bible cites similar examples of violence: Psalms 137 towards children: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Still, I am not versed enough in either book to take on a contextual biblical argument. But my main point is this: While what I've said is true, I'm hearing some troubling talk in this country. What I can say, however, is that in my humble opinion, the main difference between the Bible and the K-Q-Qu' - ahhh, whatever - is that the violence in the bible is more of a parable and is generally accepted more as a religious lesson while the K-Q-Qu'.... ugggghhhh.... is mostly interpreted literally given the symbiotic relationship of religion and governance in the Middle East.

I am still not done hearing all of the rigorous debate in this country over the proposed 'Ground Zero Mosque' and now I am hearing of the Koran burning day. I was able to listen to the local Youngstown, Ohio liberal firebrand in the morning, Mike Romigh on both subjects. Romigh took a very casual but decisive stand on the mosque issue: his attitude was "so what?" 'They have the right to and you can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold.' I honestly could not disagree as you can read in my previous post here on the mosque. Now, Mike Romigh is, in my opinion, a terrible talk show host because you can only talk on his show if you agree with him - otherwise he talks over you and belittles you. (Rush Limbaugh is not as similar as I've noted that he will either do one of two things to dissenting callers: listen for easy holes in their calls so he can pounce on them or he simply hangs up). Romigh talks over the dissenting callers deliberately. It makes it so I can't listen as it's just absolutely nerve-wracking. I'm not sure why talk show hosts think their arguments are so weak that they can't withstand any criticism but that's really getting off-topic. What's funny in this case is that Romigh not only took absolutely no stand on this issue, he left it up to the callers to get on-air in a "what say you" manner. ROMIGH HIMSELF TOOK NO STAND ON THE ISSUE!!!

This is my problem: I agree that whether we like it or not, the New York group has the right to build their mosque - but in the same breath - I must also acknowledge that the Dove World Outreach has the same rights to burn the Koran! How can one argue differently? I heard callers this morning state that the Dove Outreach should not be allowed to burn the Koran simply because their actions would incite violence. Ummmm.... HELLO??? This is the same argument that those opposed to the mosque made. While it may, indeed, be true in both cases - you can't take the Constitutional indemnity side in one and not the other because when you do, you instantly become a hypocrite! I don't really want to partake in a Koran burning (not because I care at all about Islam) but I can't deny this pastor and his followers the right to burn the Koran any more than I can say stop the mosque from being built. I want neither to happen but at the same time, can stop neither side as well.

What does this whole thing tell me? It tells me very clearly that while the conservatives show themselves as hypocrites every now and then, the same is equally true of the liberals as well. I stand here and wonder: what's a pragmatist like me to do?

The Spy Who Loved Me

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:46:00 +0000

When Ian Fleming sold the film rights to the James Bond novels to Albert R. Broccoli & Harry Saltzman, he stipulated that no part of the novel, The Spy Who Loved Me other than the title and (of course) the character of James Bond can ever be used in a film. Supposedly, Fleming was so disappointed in the finished work. Interestingly, Fleming credited the actual writing of the story itself in great part to the female character in the book, Vivienne Michel. The book is one of Fleming's shortest novels and easily the most sexually explicit.

Two very distinct and unique features of this Bond novel set it worlds apart from the others. The first is that the novel is narrated entirely in the first person by the aforementioned character, Vivienne "Viv" Michel. The second is that James Bond, himself is neither mentioned nor does he even appear until the beginning of the third and final act of this novel! (The three acts are "Me," "Them" and "Him")

Although Bond is not introduced to the story until Chapter 10 and is gone before the 15th and final Chapter begins, this book is actually one of my favorites thus far. The story begins with Michel in her current situation - staying at the Dreamy Pines Motor Court in the Adirondack Mountains of Upstate New York. She tells her tale - that of a young Canadian woman who winds up in England and falls for a young man who while professing to love her, takes her virginity then ends the relationship soon after. From there Michel, who goes into the newspaper business, begins working for a German named Kurt and they too fall in love. The physical relationship is a steady one until Michel becomes pregnant and Kurt sends her off to have an abortion. From there, Michel decides to head back to Quebec and outfit herself with a Vespa scooter and gear and head south to travel America. Shortly upon her entry into the U.S., she stops at the cheap motel and is offered a chance to work the final two weeks of the season for a chance to make extra money for her trip.

While at the now-closed and vacant hotel and awaiting the owner to arrive the next morning to pay her and officially close up, Vivienne is taken hostage by two gangsters who threaten to rape and kill her if she does not obey them. Bond soon arrives after suffering a flat tire driving from Toronto to Washington, D.C. on assignment and Vivienne manages to signal him about her current situation. Needless to say, Bond and Vivienne handle the situation and, as the title suggests, have a romantic encounter.

What makes this one of my personal favorites in the Bond series thus far, is that Vivienne is one of the most incredible Bond females in the entire series. Fleming (or was it Vivienne?!) has treated us to a very unique thing: the world as seen through the eyes of the female who encounters Bond. If one were to read this book and no other Bond novel, they would easily walk away knowing everything there is to know about Vivienne Michel and next to nothing about Bond aside from what Vivienne describes!

Of course we all view James Bond's life as being glamorous and jet setting but what is interesting is the fact that, although a staunch feminist may never view Bond as anything but a microcosm of misogyny, I would assert that as a reader I have a deeper understanding to James Bond as a flawed human with a very dangerous and unsettling job and less of a womanizing scoundrel. What a wonderful life one might have if we could only be James Bond - playboy, world traveler, mystery man with a career on the exciting and dangerous border of life! But, and Fleming alludes to this in the short story, "Quantum of Solace," his is a life without love and companionship. He neither has the time nor the ability to settle down with someone. One of the great things about the character is that he does have feelings and emotions. What one would consider "using" a woman, another might regard as his finding that love and companionship wherever he is able. Bond often has looked back at past loves. For example, when talking about Tatiana Romanova in From Russia With Love, he describes his feelings for her as strong and loving but stops to wonder how one day, after both have died, he could ever introduce her to his late love, Vesper Lynd - the tragic love he fell for in the first novel, Casino Royale.

With Vivienne Michel, the reader is able to know and feel for the female character so much more and can also understand her feelings for Bond and how she really did love the spy who loved her!

What Now?

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:03:00 +0000

U.S. troops are leaving Iraq. This is definitely a historic marker in our history. Not quite a Vietnam and yet not at all a V-J or V-E day either.

In this country, in our politics, in our broadcasts and even in these blogs, we've seen debate after debate about the legitimacy of the Iraq War since it began 7 years ago. 7 years. It's hard to think about it like that. Ours is no longer to argue the should or shouldn't have. We've all stated our cases clearly and what's done is inarguably done. We were there. So what's next? Our dead have been (and continue to be) mourned. Friends and family members no longer have loved ones. It doesn't serve them to continue our wonderings as they should really have time to grieve and put things in perspective if they can - we owe them that much and so much more.

To answer that question, though, "what is next," I think will best be answered in 20 or so years. It's not at all inappropriate in my mind to allude to an old Star Trek episode, "Space Seed." This was the episode that saw Ricardo Montalban first play Khan - a role he would reprise in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In "Space Seed," Khan and his men take over the Enterprise and very nearly kill Captain Kirk only to be thwarted in the 11th hour. At the end of the episode, Kirk allows Khan to be marooned on a planet where he is given the chance to make a living for him and his followers with nothing but the clothes on their backs and the food the planet provides. Khan accepts, is escorted out and Spock makes a statement that the show ends on: "it would be interesting to return to this world to see what crop had sprung from the seed planted today."

How does this equate with the situation in Iraq? We will need to allow time to pass to see what becomes of the Iraqi government, the state of the insurgency and the ability of the current one (or other allied regime) to overcome it. In 20 years, will we see a strong ally in Iraq with little violence in their daily lives or will we see chaos - or worse yet - an insurgent government with an unending desire to see the United States destroyed? The answers to these questions will, in some respects, determine a more definitive view of the Bush policies, good or bad; those same answers will also determine the choices and policies of the Obama administration. Was he right to withdraw the forces when he did or was he wrong in doing so? We cannot determine this now - we can only suppose and, as I said, we've already done our fair share of that these past 7 years. Long term effects beyond those I've already mentioned would be how do the initial decision to invade and the more recent decision to withdraw determine the policies of future presidents? Does Iraq somehow become the central comparison for future administrations on choices such as these? It's hard to say.

All we can hope for now is that in 20 years, we do not see our Khan coming back to destroy us in our own sequel all due to the seeds planted by taking out Saddam Hussein.

Mosque You Build it There?

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:05:00 +0000

The passionate arguments in this country are in full effect this year - you would almost think it's a presidential election year.

The latest furor is over the planned mosque that is planned a mere two blocks from Ground Zero in the shadows of what was once the World Trade Center, destroyed by radical Islamic whackjobs on September 11, 2001. I have heard the opinions from near and far ranging from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Harry Reid, local radio personalities, Billy Cunningham and Barack Obama. Some for and some against.

I see the First Amendment as inviolable in this case. As much as it pains me to say it - these fucktards have the right to do this. I say fucktards because, in my own personal view, their adamance in this case is deliberately provocative. Unlike many of the pundits I have heard, I acknowledge the First Amendment preventing the prohibition of the free exercise of religion, but I do not like it. But I don't have to like it. Many of the people I refer to - two of which include Youngstown, Ohio talk radio personalities Ron Verb and Mike Romigh - get on their high horse and say it simply doesn't bother them. To me, that doesn't wash. They can be so extremely passionate about health care, immigration reform and yet they're just passive on this issue? Sorry, not buying it for a second. I do acknowledge the First Amendment but would prefer the mosque be built elsewhere - far elsewhere. I submit that the Muslims have the right but mine is not a case of "Can vs. Cannot" - rather it is a case of "Should vs. Should Not." Just because something CAN be done does not mean that it SHOULD be done.

What purpose does a mosque so close to this site serve? I cannot help but think there will be serious backlash to come should this come to pass. I am not advocating it and yet, I believe it will happen. If it does, I can honestly say that I shall feel nothing - absolutely nothing when and if it does because not only are the Muslims building this doing so against major public sentiment, but, in my view, they - while claiming to be peace-loving and against radical Islam - do nothing to curb radical Islam and by building the mosque in this place, are doing more to further the ties between the Muslim religion and the rest of the country.

But this is not politically correct to say, is it? To hell with that (as I've always said anyway). I acknowledge your right to build the mosque - but I object to where you want to build it, your unwavering plans to do it and your underlying motives in doing so regardless of public sentiments.

My personal bottom line is this: just as the bleeding hearts don't like my views or comments towards some issues - I don't like what I see as a sustained, deliberate intention of stirring up problems but - and I tell others this all the time and this is an example of me living my own beliefs: in this country we DO NOT have the right to not be offended. This mosque offends me, personally - but I don't have the right to stop it - so be it.

But, with that in mind, Muslims claim to be compassionate and peace-loving? Prove it by going elsewhere this time.

Favre Watch VI: The Undiscovered Season

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:14:00 +0000

Guess What...?

...yes, that's right! Brett's coming back for another season according to the latest news reports. I really have to say, it's remarkable how his pre-season rituals, year-in and year-out always have the drama and intrigue of the maybe/maybe not but also the DEFINITE pattern of never having to go through OTA's and the preseason workouts.

Regardless, it looks like we will have the first grandfather ever to take the field of an NFL game this year!

Here Comes the Bride Groom Whatever...

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:46:00 +0000

A number of years ago, the State of Ohio had a Marriage Amendment issue on the ballot. I knew about it going in and gave it a good read when I went in to vote on it and I, along with 2 million other Ohio voters, opted to say no to a state Constitutional Amendment which stated that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. The year, I believe, was 2004 and I walked out without thinking about it. It didn't affect me, personally as I am a heterosexual and I figured most people would think that way too.

2 Million other Ohio voters agreed with me.

The problem? 5,394,797 total Ohioans voted on that measure that day. Well over 3 Million people did not feel the same way as I did. I can't say I was outraged because I wasn't. It's very hard for me to get passionate about a fight in which I have no dog.

California is one of the most progressively liberal states in the union and out of nearly 13 million votes cast for their similar measure back in 2008, Proposition 8, nearly 7 million people voted to keep marriage defined as being between a man and a woman. Now, a federal judge has overturned Proposition 8 in what is turning out to be a deeply divisive debate in this country. All the while, I am left pondering what propels people to be so passionately opposed to gay marriage.

I will admit, first off, that I don't wish to see two homosexual people - be they male or female - in public showing affection for one another. I also have to state that I am also pretty uncomfortable with seeing a male and a female couple sucking face while I'm walking through the mall.

Hmmm... I guess it's a toss up on that part of it.

What goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors also doesn't matter much to me. I find that if a person wants to wrap themselves nude in Saran Wrap and duct tape, sticking a pineapple on their head, whistling the theme to Titanic while listening to "Baby Got Back" by Sir Mix-A-Lot - well - as long as I don't have to see that... I really do wish them well. The same goes for two homosexual persons.

Well, let's see... that's two things that leave me at a loss for passion on this issue.

Are people simply opposed to the gay activism that goes on around us? If that's the case then I have a simple solution: if it's mere equal treatment they're requesting, give it to them, don't say another word about it and let it go and the "activism" is sure to go away. Now, if they want more or "special" rights - that's where I will have a problem but I don't really see where they're seeking anything beyond what's already granted to others.

Maybe I'm being selfish here. Maybe I just want gay men to be able to marry so that they will no longer have to go out and live that lie by marrying women which will, in turn, mean that my odds of finding a woman to marry will increase. Stupid notion, huh? Not anymore stupid than opposing gay marriage just because you don't like gays.

Look, I don't know why this is such an issue in our society when there are real problems like illegal immigration, oil spills, Iran, North Korea, the economy, unemployment and Utah to deal with.

Seriously, folks, pick your battles. (...and no, that's not a green light to the idiot "birthers!")

Where Did Our Responsibility Go?

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:30:00 +0000

I remember when I got my first credit card: MBNA had set up a table in the lobby of the dining commons of the college I was attending. FREE GIFT! Woohoo! What more could I ask for: A free water bottle and a card that would enable me to afford things around town if I was short on cash! How much more predatory can a company get? While I took their free gift, their card and hardly used it other than to build a credit rating that has stayed strong to this day, how many of my peers went down that road that so easily engulfs 95% of the student cardholder population? It doesn't get more predatory than giving credit (in my case a $75,000 limit!!!) to people with no income and an underdeveloped sense of fiscal responsibility which generally doesn't hit until after one has left college and faces the brutal world?

I'm all for setting limits on credit standards when it comes to requiring credit companies to be more responsible and only provide credit to those that are also exactly that. What I do have a problem with is some of the things I am reading about and hearing about in the news. The CARD Act of 2009 (most of which took full effect in 2010) has a great deal of positive guidelines laid out including protection from arbitrary interest charges, the fair allocation of payments and credit, limiting credit cards to teens and college students with a ban on college campus peddling and requiring clearer terms and conditions to the consumer to name a few.

These actions were arguably necessary when you consider the credit crisis in this country in the past two years. No longer can credit card companies run wildly in the streets and towns of America with little or no consequences.

But what about the consumers?

We've taken care of the big, bad credit card companies but Joe and Jane Doe must also realize that just as the credit card companies and banks must adhere to the common sense rules of the CARD Act, so too must the consumers. Placing a greater responsibility upon the corporate world does not reduce or dismiss any responsibility on the consumer and yet we are seeing Uncle Sam putting out its hand to little old Joe & Jane to help them cross the street!

Overdraft Fees

Overdraft fees are insanely high - and they should be even higher! Now, let's understand something first, I think it's only fair that the consumer be given the option of being put on a bank's "matrix" system - one where the consumer has the option of allowing an overdraft on a debit or credit card. It must be optional. But if a customer has opted-in and allows for this and also in the case of bounced checks - the banks should not only charge an overdraft fee but they should also increase the overdraft amount to something like $100 or more! Why? Because the consumer is the one who opted to have the so-called "matrix" and they made the choice to overdraft or exceed their limit! If you go to the store with $10 cash in hand and the items you are buying total $11 - you can't buy it unless someone provides you the service of loaning you the extra dollar. It's the same principle with overdrafting your account. You are spending money you don't have. The problem in today's society is that we feel the big, bad bank is the one that's screwing us when, really, we're the ones screwing ourselves by overspending. The bank is simply providing a service we're all too-happy to take advantage of until the bill comes. The U.S. Congress reaching out it's protective arm around all of us gives the message that we are somehow free from the cares of our own personal responsibility which is a terrible falsehood that can only serve to dilute that sense over time and, worse yet, over the course of teaching our children how to manage their money and so on down the progeny's line.

I've heard so many people who believe that banks shouldn't charge high fees and they all say the same thing: "it's just a way for the banks to make money." My response is simple:

News Flash: Banks are not non-profit, people!!!

Debt Collections

I heard recently on NPR how Congress is now looking at possibly setting up rules governing debt collection in this country. Yet again, we have a problem brewing. We are simply ignoring the fact that John Q. Public has a debt to pay and allowing him or her to take shelter under the wing of old Sam the Eagle. It really is a difficult time out there but when we start making it alright for people to run up debt and not feel obliged to repay it - we are really asking for a major problem. If there is really a concern on Congress' part, why not simply make mandatory the accidental disability or unemployment insurance that many financial institutions already offer consumers on their credit obligations? We, as debtors, assumed that debt and we must, therefore, not expect the government to hold our little hands when it comes to a company seeking what is rightfully theirs. If any real help from the government is to be provided, it should only be for the feds to intervene on a third party basis should a consumer be involved with a disreputable organization. We borrowed the money, folks, we need to live up to our obligations to repay. I know there are people out of work and struggling but the reputable companies have hardship programs for those people - maybe Congress should work to strengthen things like that rather than saying 'borrower good - lender bad.'

When I was a child, I remember my father bought me workbooks on personal finances. There was one book on Checking Accounts and how to write checks and maintain the account. The section on writing practice checks is one that stands out in my mind to this day: I left blank, the signature line, not knowing what went there. My father refused to let me up from the table until I figured out what went there. It seemed like hours but in reality it was only like a half hour - but I sat there until I went back and learned what it was that went on that line. Was my father a little excessive in this case, after all it was only a simple little practice workbook. Maybe he was - but I know just how important putting my name on a document that signs over my money to someone else is all because of what he did that day.

Our government is not doing us any favors by holding our hands and telling us that the monster under the bed is going away. We need to step up and do a better job of living within our means and doing the honorable thing and paying what we owe - even if it hurts. It wasn't so long ago that this country still had debtor's prisons! Begin by taking charge of your own situation and make absolutely certain to teach your children about the choices they need to - that they MUST make now and in their futures.

News Flash: Arizona No Longer a Border State!

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:22:00 +0000

The recent Arizona law which cracks down on illegal immigration has brought about a fancy trend by the so-called "progressive thinkers:" boycotting anything Arizona. Now, as citizens, we have the right to boycott what we want but a larger, less clear-cut issue is whether our governments, whether it be federal state or some form of local, should not only engage in but actively begin boycotts. Whether you agree or not is also not the central issue in this particular matter. What is the central issue is the remarkable stupidity elected officials engage in - whether that is California governments establishing boycotts when their state already has a nearly identical law to Arizona's on their books (California just chooses not to enforce it) or in this case of Peggy West, a county supervisor from Milwaukee, Wisconsin who says that she supports boycotting Arizona but that if this were someplace like Texas - she'd have no problem because Texas shares a common border with Mexico!!! She goes so far to state that Arizona should not concern themselves with such a law because the state is so far removed from the issue! OH. MY. GOD!

Even if this woman knew a sliver of what she was talking about, I still would have to question HOW she could have navigated her way through an educational system let alone the question of how she could get elected to a position. It just reminds me of what George Carlin once said when he was speaking about our elected officials and how they are products of our own educational institutions: "Garbage in... Garbage out!"

Speaking Their Minds

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:22:00 +0000

It's been a tough week for both Saul & Stan. Both have had run-ins with their employers for statements they made in public formats: Saul for posting on his Facebook page about the leadership of the Pittsburgh Pirates (his boss) and Stan for remarks in a Rolling Stone interview about the Obama administration (his boss).

Much like the famed 'Lincoln/Kennedy Coincidences,' the Saul/Stan Coincidences are just as prevalent. Consider that both wear uniforms to work, both made public comments regarding their employer and both did so in the same week!

The true issue, though, is one of that both Saul & Stan made essentially correct assessments but in the most incorrect of forums. Sauerkraut Saul said that after finding out that Pirates General Manager Neal Huntingdon and Manager John Russell were both given one year extensions - that the Pirates were doomed to at least one more year of losing. General Stanley McChrystal stated in his interview that, essentially, Obama did not properly or adequately confer with the military leaders in Afghanistan before making serious and vital choices regarding troop deployments, ability to set withdrawal standards and for being ill-prepared as the civilian leader of the United States Armed Forces. Both of these guys have valid points yet both chose the ill-advised manner of speaking out loud against their bosses.

So what happens next? Well, as of this morning, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that Saul has been re-hired while Stan still awaits news of his fate from his employer. We will have to watch and see what happens...

Favre Watch V: The Final Foot Here

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:48:00 +0000

Looks like we might be getting one step closer to Favre's return for yet another season! Grandpa Brett might be playing again!

NOTE: As usual, although I'm not insulting Brett Favre here, I am poking fun at him as I've previously noted that it's my right as a fan (not to mention an American!) so even though the serial commenter Nick hasn't shown up since being bitch-slapped, I wish to simply point out once again that I poke fun of Nick's lover, Brett Favre with no due respect to Nick! Thank you!

Senator (?) Alvin Greene???

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:49:00 +0000

Wha... ummmmm... he's.... ??? I guess I just want to know how this happened? Alvin Greene won the South Carolina Democratic Senate Primary with 58% of the vote. How? I think with no campaign signs, website or - possibly more important - no television exposure combined with his name appearing first on the ballot in alphabetical order, these factored into his "victory." The man has felony charges pending against him for showing pornographic images to a female college student. He refuses to comment on that or his honorable but involuntary discharge from the United States Military. It's also important to point out that he is currently unemployed and has no home of his own - he is living with his father. He claims that he paid the $10,000 filing fee out of his own personal pocket and it came from no one else. This might be so. Of course, He's jobless and homeless so when it comes to a seat in the United States Senate - that claim is worth investigating.

God Help South Carolina (and the rest of us, for that matter) if this guy is actually elected. Here's a video from ABC News that was recently put out - judge for yourself:

Goldfinger

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:56:00 +0000

Continuing my odyssey into the world of the James Bond novels written by Ian Fleming, I just finished Goldfinger and was very impressed.

Fleming's stories are definitely well-done and I have to honestly say I'm upgrading my views on his overall writing style. With Goldfinger, it is easy to see how true the filmmakers remained to the written work. There are, however, some notable deviations to what was written. Before I note them, I think it's fair to say I don't really need to recap the stories themselves as I will simply go with the assumption that most people have seen the film itself. If, however, you haven't, my apologies up front to you. But I digress on that point and as I was saying, there are a few notable deviations from the book in the movie.

First of all, Pussy Galore has a bit of a different role in the book: she is not Auric Goldfinger's personal pilot but rather one of the mob-bosses Goldfinger enlists to carry out the robbing of Ft. Knox. The twist is - and this is the second of the deviations I will point out: Pussy Galore is a lesbian in the novel and leader of an all-lesbian mob organization. She does wind up with Bond in the end and Bond asks her why she had never been with a man before and she explains that she never really lived among men and with the few in her life, it was an uncle who raped her when she was young.

Another deviation is that, in the movie, Goldfinger's aim is not to rob Ft. Knox but to irradiate the gold within so as to increase the value in his personal supply. In the book, robbery is the actual goal of Goldfinger - a robbery that's aim is to increase the coffers of SMERSH - the Russian spy agency Goldfinger works for which is also another change: In the movie, Goldfinger is an independent criminal and not a member of any organization.

Another difference which is really interesting is that his first "meeting" with Goldfinger in the movie where he catches him cheating at Canasta in Miami, is far less of a coincidence in the novel. Instead, on a layover in Miami after finishing a mission, Bond is approached by a man named DuPont that he first met in the novel, Casino Royale, and asked to help determine if Goldfinger is cheating him at cards.

These variations aside, the movie does hold very true to the book and the book turns out to be very engaging and a fun read. Until I come across a reason not to, I will continue to recommend the Fleming books to anyone who is interested in the spy genre or any Bond fans who have yet to read where the world's greatest secret agent originated!

Cross Country

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:18:00 +0000

While I awaited my latest order of James Bond books to arrive from Amazon.com, I picked up a copy of James Patterson's Cross Country - the latest entry into the Alex Cross series. I have enjoyed almost all of the Alex Cross books with the exception of the last one, Double Cross. With this one, however, it seems Patterson got back on track.

While not the best entry into the series, Cross Country is an engaging adventure which sees our hero travel to Africa to catch a brutal leader of a group of pubescent killers known as "The Tiger." Like many of the Cross stories, this killing is personal for him - one of the victims was an old flame of Cross' as well as her whole family. The most disturbing aspect of the book is "The Tiger"'s gang - a group of young teenage boys committing the most heinous of murders in the book, an all-too-possible situation especially given the great numbers of child soldiers that exist in Africa.

Cross Country is also more political than Patterson has ever gotten in the series. There is a tinge of irony when you consider that Alex Cross has been a Washington, D.C. homicide detective who has always remained apolitical in the political capital of the United States - he has to go to Africa to get political! The fact that Patterson has our protagonist going to Darfur and Sierra Leone, describing atrocities and the third world sufferings and vowing to "tell the people" of the United States about what he sees, is certainly important but also seems to be the "sexy" thing to do considering the issue of Darfur is something the lime lit celebrities cry about to raise money. Ultimately, I believe Patterson may be the most righteous when you consider he is not asking anyone to donate money (that the person donating has no way to verify the actual recipients) - unlike the Hollywood elite. Patterson is shedding light on the issue while the movie stars seem to make off putting attempts to promote themselves.

Good Lord!

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:12:00 +0000

I'm left totally speechless... what can you say to a photo of the floating head of Andrew Carnegie in the Allegheny River??? Not much, if you ask me!

Where is our President?

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:14:00 +0000

I am absolutely outraged at President Obama for what I perceive is a total lack of care and concern. When a tragedy of this magnitude occurs, we as a people have every right to expect and demand that our president should put all other issues aside and go to the where such an accident occurs and take action - IMMEDIATELY.

I'm sorry, I can't hold back on this one. President Obama has, up to this time, disregarded people in their time of need by staying in Washington and seemingly doing nothing. Maybe there is nothing the president can do, personally, but I think we can all agree that his mere presence can be comforting enough - and we need to have that in this very tense time in our country. I have heard enough cries about 'what is he supposed to do himself' and I can tell you this: he can show some backbone and leadership by going to these people who are suffering and pledging his support.

This is why I am taking it upon myself to demand that President Obama immediately fly to Utah and provide that much needed support to the family, friends and fans of Gary Coleman. It's not right that he should ignore this situation for as long as he has. After all, this country only has Willis left.

Casino Royale

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Tue, 25 May 2010 16:47:00 +0000

The moment I finished the collection of James Bond short stories, Quantum of Solace, I put in an order to Amazon.com for the very first Bond novel by Ian Fleming, Casino Royale. Yes, I have seen the wonderful 2006 film adaptation starring Daniel Craig several times but I read this so that I can go back to Bond's roots - to really get to know the character and how true the 22 films to date have held to the writings of Fleming.

Casino Royale is the first book and one of the latest films in the Eon Productions series. This is due to the fact that Fleming sold the rights to Columbia Pictures before Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli came along. The result was the 1967 spoof of the same title. When Sony purchased MGM in 2004, Casino Royale came home to Eon Productions. Sony had, by then, owned Columbia Pictures and MGM had long held the United Artists' rights so the producers could now make the film to show the beginning of Bond without having to concoct an entirely new genesis of the character.

I bring up the film because it's incredibly interesting to note the level of adherence to the book that the movie producers kept. I got to learn more about Vesper Lynd - her name, for example, is a play on the city of West Berlin. The character is as conflicted as the cold war city that was divided in its loyalties! It's amazing that the book and it's female character, the double agent Lynd, could be updated to today's post-cold war era so well and yet maintain so similar a character.

Thus far, I must say that of all six official Bond actors to date (Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and now Craig), Daniel Craig and Timothy Dalton have the best lock on the character. Connery and Moore had their own appeal but it has been Dalton and Craig who have played the character so close to the writings of Fleming.

Interestingly, the one part of the movie I imagined to have been a complete deviation from the book was the part of Bond being tortured by Le Chiffe. In fact, it is this depiction that is filmed almost as if the book were the screenplay. The only difference is the setting (the cold, steel-walled warehouse in the film was an apartment in the book). In fact, the most noticeable differences are merely trivial and were both updated to fit the times: The organization Le Chiffre belongs to and whom Vesper is doubling with is (unnamed in the movie until the next film) called Quantum while in the book it is SMERSH - the Soviet counter-intelligence directive known as "smiert spionam" meaning "death to spies." Likewise, the lesser-known-to-American-film-audiences game of Chemin de Fer (better known as Baccarat) with the more widely known and popular, Texas Hold 'Em. Aside from these, the differences are negligible.

Overall, the writing I once thought as a young boy to be difficult and stuffy, was not bad at all. As with all works of Fleming I have read, there is a great deal of foreign language phrases used, particularly in the card game as it is predominately a French game. But Casino Royale is a genuinely good story that flows fairly well. I am so very glad to be visiting the works of Ian Fleming and discovering this wonderful character of James Bond all over again.

It's the Religion of Peace!

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:26:00 +0000

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining...

Favre Watch IV: Voyage to the Retirement Home?

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Thu, 20 May 2010 23:00:00 +0000

Once again, with no due respect to the absent-of-late-but-still-a-flaming-ass-jockey-serial-commenter, "Nick," I will now offer up proof that senility is now settling into the geriatric mind of Brett Favre. Seriously though, I'm not sure I understand this latest entry into our "Favre Watch." ESPN is reporting this bizarro update to this year's saga:

Hmmm...

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:43:00 +0000

“(a) Every law enforcement agency in [the state] shall fully cooperate with the
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is
arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in
violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who
is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United
States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully
admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the
United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may
include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or
her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his
or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in
violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any
criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave
the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of [the state] and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and
provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public
entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county,
or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional
boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation
required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.”

The Arizona law is gaining reaction from the city councils in such places as San Diego and Los Angeles - so much reaction that they are passing travel and trade boycotts with Arizona and Arizona companies. Damn Arizona law.

Oh, by the way, the above quoted law is from the "great" state of California. Goddamn hypocrites. Read it here.

Quantum of Solace: The Complete James Bond Short Stories

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Wed, 19 May 2010 02:59:00 +0000

I've been a James Bond fan for as long as I can remember. Ever since I can remember those old ABC Sunday Night Movie events before the masses had cable. I remember the coolness of Moonraker at the time (and the campiness it spews today!), the utter LOVE for the greatest Bond flick of all, Goldfinger and the inevitable 9-year-old boy's blushing when the risqué-ly titled Octopussy hit the theaters.

What I tried to do as a boy was read the Ian Fleming novels. They were difficult to read for many reasons: First, Ian Fleming was not the greatest author. He had succeeded by virtue of the fact that he created the greatest superspy of all time and although he is mentioned as a contemporary of Raymond Chandler, he was no Raymond Chandler. Second, the narratives are difficult, particularly from the standpoint of a boy of 9 or 10 trying to read a 'stuffy Brit's' narration interspersed with French, Italian, Russian and countless popular-at-the-time cultural references.

Cut to 2010. I pick up the copy of the entire collection of short stories while at Borders and decide I'm going to give this a try 27 years later. What is my reaction? I still find the aforementioned pecadillos to hold true but, and maybe this is due for my love of Bond, I truly enjoyed finally learning about Fleming's Bond. Such short stories as "The Living Daylights, "Risico" (made into the film The Spy Who Loved Me), "The Property of a Lady" (Octopussy) are very, very close to the eventual film adaptations while "From a View to a Kill" and "Quantum of Solace" are stories whose titles only were transfered to the films. What's interesting, however, is how the filmmakers took stories like "The Living Daylights" and expounded an entire film (or a great deal of the story) out of it while in other circumstances small themes or incidents are taken from certain stories and inserted into films. For example, "The Hildebrand Rarity" has the character of Milton Krest and his yacht which wound up in the film License to Kill; the story of "Risico" becomes the smugglers and their gunfight with Bond aboard the ship in For Your Eyes Only and; the story of "For Your Eyes Only" is Bond's attempt to take out the hitman, Gonzales from the epynomous film, only to have the Havelock's daughter, Judy (named Melina in the film) arrive to take out the hitman herself with her bow and arrow. Interestingly enough, while the film, For Your Eyes Only has these events take place in the picturesque setting along the coasts of Greece, the Fleming story takes place on the Vermont side of the Canadian border with our hero being supplied some assistance from the RCMP in Montréal before he drives a Plymouth to the border and crosses on foot!

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed getting down the the "nitty-gritty" Bond and am planning on getting the full monty when it comes to Ian Fleming and his character who holds the Double-O status with Her Majesty's Secret Service. I'm going to go back and really find out who Bond is and explore him and his world all over again!

Count the Headlights on the Highway

noreply@blogger.com (The Chief) — Mon, 03 May 2010 00:04:00 +0000

How do you defy the odds? The city of Youngstown, Ohio - a city I was born near, lived in for several years and got both of my college degrees from Youngstown State University - has been grappling with that question for years. In fact, ever since "Black Monday" when the steel mills closed down in a practically simultaneous stab to the heart, Youngstown has been beseeched with the problem of how to move forward. Cleveland and Pittsburgh, the two major cities that anchored the stretch of what was then known as the rust belt, came out the other end of the mill collapses years ago. And then there was Youngstown.

Last night, the newest of the structures in downtown Youngstown, the Covelli Centre, played host to the legendary Elton John. How could this be? How could someone as big as Elton John decide to play such a small venue? According to an article in the Youngstown Vindicator, John was interested in playing smaller, more intimate venues and although Youngstown was the smallest, it came about by way of John's desire to play a secondary city and the determination of Covelli Centre Executive Director, Eric Ryan.

Why is this so big? Part of that question can really only be answered by those of us that either lived, worked or went to school in Youngstown at one time or another during the past 35 years. With numerous judges, a former sheriff and a former United States Congressman having been or still serving prison sentences along with countless other prominent local leaders and businesspeople over the years not to mention the organized crime running rampant under the thumb of such leaders as Lenine "Lennie" Strollo, Youngstown had become the laughingstock of the country. All of the crime, corruption and exodus of business and labor out of the city over the years has led to not only a negative image but to serious urban blight. Driving through the city, it's hard to notice the beauty and the history (it is there) without noticing the rotting mills, vacant houses, graffiti and decaying infrastructure.

An act like Elton John isn't going to bring Youngstown back. But an act like Elton John can show Youngstown how it can come back. I remember local radio talk show hosts laughing and mocking Jim Traficant years ago when he proposed using that dreaded political pork to bring a convention center downtown. 'It will never work," they would say. "Who's going to use it?" Well, since it's opened, they've done a remarkable job with it, culminating in last night's concert. Those same radio talk show hosts were part of the overall problem saturating the bar stool talk around town: 'Youngstown is dead and there's no coming back.' Last night, the restaurants were all opened - eager to show off what they and the city had to offer. Promoters of the concert were urging people to go downtown even if they didn't have a ticket just to see that the city that has been on life support for so many years might still be in the hospital, but for one grand night, the tubes and IVs were removed and the city was allowed to show what it really had to say during visiting hours.