Hey all. I hate to do this in such a new blog, but I just wanted to give a heads up that I won't have time to put a new post up this week. I am taking a mini-vacation to the Bahamas starting this Friday and I have a TON of work to do before I leave. Hopefully I have some kick ass stories to tell you guys when I get back. Preferably involving a nice little Bahama Mama. (Terrible song, I know)
Since I will be gone for Halloween, here are some creepy Urban Legends for your enjoyment. The living severed head one is pretty spooky.
Also, I turn 25 on Thursday. As tempting as it is please refrain from comments involving baldness, gray nut hair or erection problems. Haha, see you all next week!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Rays will Win Game 2
Ok, I know. Anyone can make a prediction based on one game. You guys all probably want me to grow a sack and pick the Series winner. Unfortunately, I can't. I have no idea who is going to win this Series. Both teams are hot. Both teams are talented. Both teams are well-managed. I prefer to take my pick on a couple of these games and see how it plays out.
Why will the Rays win Game 2? Because they own the pitching matchup. I know, James Shields gave up 9 hits in just 5 2/3 innings in Game 6 of the ALCS. I also realize that Game 6 was at home. But, I think when you look at Shields' season-long dominance at home in comparison with Myers' mediocrity on the road, the Rays come out with the clear advantage.
Shields was 9-2 at home this year and opposing batters only hit .234 against him at the Trop. In comparison, Myers was 3-8 with a 6.21 ERA and an opponent batting average of .301 on the road.
I realize I haven't discussed the bats at all. That's because after watching these two teams this postseason I've come to the conclusion that if you give them pitches to hit, they will hit them. That's why this World Series hangs on the pitching matchups. Both of these teams will crush pitchers that make mistakes.
Also, Joe Maddon has done a nice job keeping his young team on an even kilter. He allows exactly 30 minutes for either celebration after a win or depression after a loss. Haha, kind of strict but it seems to be working. Remember that the Rays lost Game 1 against the Sox too, before battling back with a vengeance in Game 2. Look for them to do the same thing tonight.
Hit or Miss?
By the way: Sorry this one isn't longer, but I am currently sleeping my way through a discussion of Natural Law in Civ Pro II.
Why will the Rays win Game 2? Because they own the pitching matchup. I know, James Shields gave up 9 hits in just 5 2/3 innings in Game 6 of the ALCS. I also realize that Game 6 was at home. But, I think when you look at Shields' season-long dominance at home in comparison with Myers' mediocrity on the road, the Rays come out with the clear advantage.
Shields was 9-2 at home this year and opposing batters only hit .234 against him at the Trop. In comparison, Myers was 3-8 with a 6.21 ERA and an opponent batting average of .301 on the road.
I realize I haven't discussed the bats at all. That's because after watching these two teams this postseason I've come to the conclusion that if you give them pitches to hit, they will hit them. That's why this World Series hangs on the pitching matchups. Both of these teams will crush pitchers that make mistakes.
Also, Joe Maddon has done a nice job keeping his young team on an even kilter. He allows exactly 30 minutes for either celebration after a win or depression after a loss. Haha, kind of strict but it seems to be working. Remember that the Rays lost Game 1 against the Sox too, before battling back with a vengeance in Game 2. Look for them to do the same thing tonight.
Hit or Miss?
By the way: Sorry this one isn't longer, but I am currently sleeping my way through a discussion of Natural Law in Civ Pro II.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Morality and Politics - How much should they be mixed?
I figured I would use my first real post to discuss a divisive issue that many people simply are not willing to talk about. The basic premise for my argument is that there is a line that needs to be drawn when making political decisions based on the individual voter's or politician's views on morality. Whether this is true and, if so, where this line needs to be drawn is the subject for much debate.
First, let me lay out the scope of my thoughts by telling you what this opinion does not apply to. Morality is inherent throughout all facets of our government. Our laws are based on right and wrong. Our society functions together because of a shared set of moral values and what constitutes acceptable behavior. It would be nearly impossible to operate a government without some set of inherent values shared by the majority of the population. This set of commonly held beliefs, such as you shouldn't kill people or rob old ladies, is not the subject of this post.
The moral beliefs I am concerned with are the tangential beliefs that seem to rear their heads during an election season more than any other time. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution in schools are the main focus here. The key thing about all of these issues is that their main opposition comes from the religious sector. I do not question the right of a religious person to make personal decisions regarding these issues based on their faith. However, I am tired of people picking a candidate or political party to support based solely on one issue of morality.
I am not going to go into a diatribe about the separation of church and state and how that applies to this discussion. Instead, my reasoning is fairly simple. If what you want is a government that serves, and is in touch with ALL of its citizens, then basing political decisions on moral beliefs that not everyone in the country holds is completely counter-productive to that mission. It's divisive and breeds resentment, because it assumes that your beliefs are correct and everyone else can (literally) go to hell.
Freedom is important in our nation. It was founded on the concept. Legislation on issues of morality necessarily requires some individual or some group to say they are morally superior, and therefore they know the answer to the issue in question. This is dangerous because it undermines the very backbone of our government's foundation. How can you tell someone they are free, and then not allow them to make moral decisions for themselves? Isn't that the very essence of freedom?
I don't care who you vote for this November. That is your business, not mine. However, when you do vote please take into account more than issues of morality. Consider the policies. Consider the candidates. Consider several different issues and weigh them appropriately. Believe me, whether or not they teach evolution in schools is not going to matter at all if you lose your job or the bank forecloses on your home.
So, what do you think? Did I hit or miss?
On a side note, I realize this topic is a little heavy for the first one but I will follow it with something much lighter. I'm thinking World Series.
First, let me lay out the scope of my thoughts by telling you what this opinion does not apply to. Morality is inherent throughout all facets of our government. Our laws are based on right and wrong. Our society functions together because of a shared set of moral values and what constitutes acceptable behavior. It would be nearly impossible to operate a government without some set of inherent values shared by the majority of the population. This set of commonly held beliefs, such as you shouldn't kill people or rob old ladies, is not the subject of this post.
The moral beliefs I am concerned with are the tangential beliefs that seem to rear their heads during an election season more than any other time. Issues like abortion, gay rights, and evolution in schools are the main focus here. The key thing about all of these issues is that their main opposition comes from the religious sector. I do not question the right of a religious person to make personal decisions regarding these issues based on their faith. However, I am tired of people picking a candidate or political party to support based solely on one issue of morality.
I am not going to go into a diatribe about the separation of church and state and how that applies to this discussion. Instead, my reasoning is fairly simple. If what you want is a government that serves, and is in touch with ALL of its citizens, then basing political decisions on moral beliefs that not everyone in the country holds is completely counter-productive to that mission. It's divisive and breeds resentment, because it assumes that your beliefs are correct and everyone else can (literally) go to hell.
Freedom is important in our nation. It was founded on the concept. Legislation on issues of morality necessarily requires some individual or some group to say they are morally superior, and therefore they know the answer to the issue in question. This is dangerous because it undermines the very backbone of our government's foundation. How can you tell someone they are free, and then not allow them to make moral decisions for themselves? Isn't that the very essence of freedom?
I don't care who you vote for this November. That is your business, not mine. However, when you do vote please take into account more than issues of morality. Consider the policies. Consider the candidates. Consider several different issues and weigh them appropriately. Believe me, whether or not they teach evolution in schools is not going to matter at all if you lose your job or the bank forecloses on your home.
So, what do you think? Did I hit or miss?
On a side note, I realize this topic is a little heavy for the first one but I will follow it with something much lighter. I'm thinking World Series.
Getting Started
Hey all!
This is my first blogging experience, and my blog is brand spankin' new. I wanted to use my first post to explain the purpose of this blog, and the idea behind it.
First of all, please click on my profile to find out a little about me. As you can probably guess, I am an extremely opinionated person. I don't think this makes me a minority by any stretch. However, being an opinionated person who is as willing to have my opinion changed, as I am to change the opinions of others does put me in a minority. I am personally fed up with attempting to have logical discussions with people about important issues, and having the conversation quickly deteriorate into name-calling, swearing, and incoherent, poorly formed arguments. This has never been more true than now when anybody can leave a comment on a chat board, purporting to have some idea what they are talking about.
This blog is designed to provide a haven for those who feel the same way as me. As often as my schedule allows I will write and post an opinionated, polarizing article. You will either agree or disagree with my views, and you are absolutely encouraged to let me know where you stand in the comment section.
I am sure some of you may be asking "Who is this guy, posting his opinions on everything, like we should care what he thinks?" If that is what you are thinking, then you are missing the point. I am not trying to convince my readers to think or feel one way or another about a topic. Rather, I am giving my readers a chance to become more secure in their own beliefs. By challenging what you believe in, and requiring you to defend it in an intelligent, rational manner I am helping you become more grounded in what you believe. One of the worst ways to live your life is to live it according to beliefs that you can neither defend nor advance, because you haven't thought critically enough about them to be able to do so.
So, why is the blog called hit or miss? Well, for every post I have I want to get a feel for how the readers lean. Every post will be accompanied by a poll. The choices will be simple. Did I hit or did I miss? I will try this easy two-option format first, but I may add a third option if the feedback dictates it as necessary.
Hopefully, I will have the first opinionated post up by the end of this week. Subscribe to my feed if this sounds interesting to you. Remember that all beliefs will be respected here. Comments will be moderated, but not to filter out ANY content or argument. The only purpose for the moderation is to prevent this blog from becoming another cesspool for intolerance and ignorance. Unfortunately, moderation is necessary in order to provide the haven I promised earlier.
This is my first blogging experience, and my blog is brand spankin' new. I wanted to use my first post to explain the purpose of this blog, and the idea behind it.
First of all, please click on my profile to find out a little about me. As you can probably guess, I am an extremely opinionated person. I don't think this makes me a minority by any stretch. However, being an opinionated person who is as willing to have my opinion changed, as I am to change the opinions of others does put me in a minority. I am personally fed up with attempting to have logical discussions with people about important issues, and having the conversation quickly deteriorate into name-calling, swearing, and incoherent, poorly formed arguments. This has never been more true than now when anybody can leave a comment on a chat board, purporting to have some idea what they are talking about.
This blog is designed to provide a haven for those who feel the same way as me. As often as my schedule allows I will write and post an opinionated, polarizing article. You will either agree or disagree with my views, and you are absolutely encouraged to let me know where you stand in the comment section.
I am sure some of you may be asking "Who is this guy, posting his opinions on everything, like we should care what he thinks?" If that is what you are thinking, then you are missing the point. I am not trying to convince my readers to think or feel one way or another about a topic. Rather, I am giving my readers a chance to become more secure in their own beliefs. By challenging what you believe in, and requiring you to defend it in an intelligent, rational manner I am helping you become more grounded in what you believe. One of the worst ways to live your life is to live it according to beliefs that you can neither defend nor advance, because you haven't thought critically enough about them to be able to do so.
So, why is the blog called hit or miss? Well, for every post I have I want to get a feel for how the readers lean. Every post will be accompanied by a poll. The choices will be simple. Did I hit or did I miss? I will try this easy two-option format first, but I may add a third option if the feedback dictates it as necessary.
Hopefully, I will have the first opinionated post up by the end of this week. Subscribe to my feed if this sounds interesting to you. Remember that all beliefs will be respected here. Comments will be moderated, but not to filter out ANY content or argument. The only purpose for the moderation is to prevent this blog from becoming another cesspool for intolerance and ignorance. Unfortunately, moderation is necessary in order to provide the haven I promised earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
