The One Stop Shop for all your Billy Cooper photo needs

I originally went to post all of these on facebook, but then I remembered how huge of a pain in the keyster it always seems to be to post pictures there.  Then I realized, what a great opportunity to force traffic to my blog!  I'm also certain that should you wish to save a picture (and I just *know* you will!!!), it'll be simpler and have better resolution here too.  Enjoy!

Thanks for looking!

Why is there even a debate about the debt ceiling?

Lately, the negotiations to increase the US debt limit have been catching a lot of attention in the media.  At first glance, it may seem idiotic that both sides are effectively playing chicken with the nation's, as well as perhaps the world's, economy.  Should the US fail to raise its debt ceiling, it would be unable to legally continue borrowing to fund its perpetual deficit, and its bills and obligations would start to go unpaid.  This, of course, would not only lead to social security and military paychecks stopping, but America's creditworthiness would (presumably) go down the toilet, and its borrowing costs would skyrocket.  In short, not raising the debt ceiling could be monstrously disastrous.  In fact, President Barack Obama has gone so far as to call out "professional politicians," saying, "for them to say that we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible."

But there have also been some interesting speeches to the opposite.  For example, in a speech on the Senate floor, one Senator said, "Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that the buck stops here.  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. . .I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

To be fair, President Obama's admonition against the irresponsibility of not raising the debt ceiling happened in 2011.  The Senator's speech was given in 2006.

Who was the Senator?

The Junior Senator from Illinois.

I was for the debt ceiling before I was against it.

What would Senator Obama have to say about President Obama?  So much for those "professional politicians," huh?

Baseball - once the thinking man's game, now the sport of morons?

OK, ok, it still is the thinking man's game, what with Tony La Russa constantly batting the pitcher eighth.  But it seems to me that after last Thursday, when a fan tragically died falling over the rail while leaning to catch a ball tossed at him, people would take greater care, you know, when leaning over rails to catch balls.

I guess I was wrong.

From last night's home run derby:

 I get being all excited to catch a ball from the home run derby, but come on.  Please be dumber.  What's especially notable is that this guy and his friends had already caught two home run balls.

Here's a different angle:

I'm kind of sad that they were able to successfully catch this guy, because I think the gene pool would have appreciated his exit.  Unfortunately, then there would be a lawsuit, and that would also anger me.  How is it that in America, if you kill yourself through your own stupidity, your family can still profit off of it?

Casey Anthony - untouched by justice system, untouched by porn industry

Unlike what I can only presume to be the vast majority of Americans, I didn't get all caught up in the Casey Anthony trial.  I didn't watch any of the trial broadcasts, and I didn't tune in for daily reports and updates on the trial.  I did occasionally stumble across news stories describing how a "smell expert" concluded that the trunk of a vehicle did, in fact, have the stench of death in it, and proceeded to roll my eyes.  Needless to say, I was not completely devastated when the verdict was announced (not guilty on murder, manslaughter, etc. - only guilty of 4 counts of lying to the police), because I did not have the kind of personal connection with someone I didn't know who lived a thousand miles away that only the media can provide.  I was somewhat taken aback at how many people on facebook pledged to wear purple the next day in honor of Caylee Anthony or complained about how dumb the jury was and how could such a tragic miscarriage of justice occur.  As I do oh-so-often these days, I could only shake my head in disbelief.

First of all, the tragic miscarriage of justice was the prosecution, trying a capital murder case with a pile of circumstantial evidence.  Sure, it can happen, but in this age of CSI and Law & Order, your "smell expert" testifying pretty much screams that the rest of your case is garbage.  Was that supposed to have the effect of a smoking gun?  It's no wonder that the jury took a day to return the "not guilty" verdict.

Second, yes, world, everyone knows that she did it.  Unfortunately (for you in this case, but very fortunately for you when you become the accused), in our system of jurisprudence, simply "knowing" that she did it because of the way she acted (not reporting you child's disappearance for a month?) and proving that she did it are two different things.  It's hard to find someone guilty of murder when you can't prove that a murder has actually occurred.  And as detestable as some may find it to be for Casey Anthony to walk free, I would much rather have that than a rash of innocent people jailed with the "come on, jury, you know she did it - why should we waste our time proving it?" argument. 

Not good enough for porn.

Speaking of detestable, I laughed a little when I heard that Vivid Entertainment made an offer to Casey Anthony to do porn.  I then laughed a little more when I heard that the offer was quickly rescinded. Vivid chief Steven Hirsch: "It has become obvious to us that Vivid fans, and people in general, want nothing to do with her and that includes a XXX movie. We want to make movies that people want to watch and we now believe that we underestimated the emotional response that people are having to the verdict. A movie starring Casey Anthony is not what people want to see."

So basically, people wanted to see Casey Anthony bent over by the justice system, but not bent over in a porn flick.  How hideously unwanted are you when there's not even enough demand for you to turn your notoriety into a porno?  I'm no connoisseur, but let's see - John Bobbit made one, the Octo-mom has an offer, Sarah Palin's lookalike made one, and I won't even discuss Ron Jeremy - but the sin industry says no to Casey Anthony.

I can't decide if I'm pleased because it reflects the world's collective disgust at her as a person, of if I'm a little sad because I wanted to see her completely sell out.

The President wants *you* to practice "civil discourse" (but don't worry about him)

Remember aaaaaaaallllllllll the way back in January, when Gabrielle Giffords got shot by some crazy whackjob? Before the identity (or lunacy) of the shooter was known, certain media commentators were sure of why he did it and to whom he belonged. For example, from the illustrious Paul Krugman: “When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen? You could see, just by watching the crowds at the McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen.” (Of course, far be it for Krugman to be above ideological opportunism – when something terrible happens, it’s only human nature to want the villain to be someone you hate.)

Then, once it was discovered that the shooter was a barely-political psycho harboring a John Hinckley-like obsession over the congresswoman, the conversation smoothly switched from why he did it (you know, since he was crazy, he pretty much did it because he is crazy) to why others could potentially do it (since we can’t pin “crazy” on someone, we’ve got to come up with something else). And so we were then subjected to theory after theory about how the toxic tone of American political discourse, while not responsible in this particular instance, was an impending danger to us, our elected officials, and even society itself. I hate going back to Paul Krugman, but he’s just so darn quotable. After more info had emerged, he shared that while “the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled . . . that doesn’t mean his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.”

Ahh, well, I’m pretty sure that the fact that he’s crazy means precisely that it should be treated like an isolated event, but quite a few others concurred with Krugman – enough that a “National Institute for Civil Discourse” was founded in Arizona. Also on list for improving civil discourse – mixed seating at the State of the Union Address, as well as a CNN anchor rebuking his guest for the use of the term “crosshairs,” and the promise of a bill to outlaw threatening language against lawmakers. Even the Reverend Jesse Jackson suggested that “it is exactly the mentally unstable who are most likely to be influenced by an atmosphere filled with hate and murderous rhetoric.”

OK, but would anybody really important care to weigh in on the subject?

It would seem that our president, Barack Obama, felt it important to “help usher in more civility in our public discourse.” At his Tucson memorial speech, he proclaimed, “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

That’s pretty profound. So I’m sure you can imagine my surprise when I saw that CNN reported Obama as saying that the debt ceiling should not be "used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners.”

It's about time we got some civility up in here.

Hmm . . . I guess in this new era of civility, it’s still OK for the President to paint Republicans as gun-wielding hostage takers, ready to shoot you in the face (coincidentally, Ms. Giffords was shot in the face, wasn’t she? How insensitive!!!). Oh well, it’s just a return to politics-as-usual from the guy who said that he was going to change the culture of Washington. I mean, he said that whole “way that heals” thing like six months ago anyway, so I’m sure he doesn’t expect us to remember what he said way back then. I guess he really thinks our collective short-term memory is shot, though, considering not two days earlier did he say, in regards to resolving the debt-ceiling issue: “it’s my hope . . . that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door.”

Sure.

Hope in one hand, and change in the other. . .



To be completely honest, I don’t really care about the "hate-filled rhetoric" that encompasses our political realm – America has always been a nation distrustful of government and we were founded on our opposition to authority. As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Promise of Disharmony, “The distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its anti-government character . . . opposition to power and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power are the central themes of American political thought."

I also believe that crazy people will be crazy, and bad people will be bad. So why should it surprise me that politicians will be politicians?

Harvard study finds participating in Independence Day parades makes you a Republican

Might as well go register Republican right now.

Really - this Harvard University study concludes that the more a youth participates in Fourth of July activities, the more likely he is later in life to identify as a Republican, vote for Republicans, contribute to political campaigns, and go to the polls. 

Some key findings for those attending Independence Day celebrations:

• When done before 18 years of age, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
• It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
• It boosts the likelihood an attendee will vote by about 1 percent.
• It increases the chances a reveler will make a political contribution by 3 percent

The study also suggests that Democrats gain nothing from Independence Day parades, stating "there is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization."

I find this study to be tremendously hilarious.  I mean, did Harvard have to waste time and money "discovering" something we all knew all along, like that Democrats weren't patriotic or that Republicans were goose-stepping fascists who need parades for recruitment drives?

Seriously, though, this study is hilarious, but for a much different reason than its result - look at its methodology.  What do the authors of the study use to determine whether "participation" in Fourth of July activities have taken place?

Rain.

Wait, what?

Rain.  When I heard the results of this "study" was linked to the number of rain-free Independence Day celebrations, I was immediately skeptical.  I couldn't even begin to guess how many rain-free Independence Days I've experienced. . .but that's OK, because we can look up the old weather reports and see exactly when it rained.  So that leaves our only problem with figuring out exactly how many times I went to a Fourth of July celebration, which could be especially problematic for me, since I oftentimes went down to my Grandma's over summer break.  How did the authors of the study solve this hurdle?

Rain.

Wait, rain, again?

Yep.  In what I can only describe as a "level-4 advanced pseudoscience maneuver," the authors of the study effectively concluded that if it rained on July 4 in the county you resided, you didn't attend Independence Day celebrations.  If it did NOT rain, then you went.  Simple as that.  The rest is all words and graphs.  Really, read the study; it's slightly more complex than I've made it sound (I was leaving out the part where they try to explain how, even though they are making tremendous assumptions about the basis for the study, they attempted to control for "other" variables, thus making it more accurate), but you'll see that I'm right.

And, Happy Independence Day!  Did it rain today?  Do you feel more Republican?

Ten *more* reasons Major League kicks ass

As has been previously established, I loves me some Charlie Sheen.  In concert with that, I loves me some Major League -  the 1989 baseball comedy Major League is consistently near the top of moviegoers' favorite sports films despite the ridiculous concept of the Cleveland Indians beating the New York Yankees for a pennant.  Sports Illustrated writer Chris Nashawaty recently interviewed the director, David Ward, and most of the cast for his latest feature, an oral history of the movie that digs deep and reveals some things we didn't know.

Here are the top 10 revelations from Nashawaty's exhaustive interview feature in the July 4 "Where Are They Now?" issue of Sports Illustrated. Hopefully, he'll avoid doing a followup for the cast and crew of that dud "Major League III: Back to the Minors."
1. Charlie Sheen was doing steroids during filming!: Or so he claims. Sheen, who played fireballing reliever Ricky "Wild Thing" Vaughn, played some baseball in high school but got kicked off the team because of poor grades. To prepare for his role in the film, Sheen says he improved his fastball from the high 70s to the mid 80s with the help of steroids. That's dedication to the craft. Or something.
2. Jeremy Piven was left on the cutting room floor: Director David Ward admits that Piven, then a prematurely balding 23-year-old actor with just "Lucas" and "One Crazy Summer" under his belt, played a supporting role as a bench player who pelted opposing teams with insults. All of Piven's scenes were (mercifully) cut.  

3. Dennis Haysbert can hit a baseball pretty far: All of the actors in the film had enough athletic ability to fill the roles of ballplayers, but Haysbert, who played voodoo-worshipping slugger Pedro Cerrano, actually hit a ball out of the park during filming. Sure, it was only 315 feet but there are enough Yuniesky Betancourts in the majors now who could use that kind of power.
4. Bob Uecker was hired for his work in commercials: Ward claims that when he asked Uecker to play the role of Indians radio announcer Harry Doyle, he did it because of Uecker's hilarious work in Miller Lite ads. Ward had no idea Uecker was already the real life radio voice of the Milwaukee Brewers.
5. Bob Feller didn't like all the swearing: Legendary Indians hurler Bob Feller saw a screening of "Major League" in Cleveland soon after the film's release and told director Ward that he was upset at the foul language used by ballplayers in the locker-room scenes, claiming that they "didn't talk like that." I guess in Feller's day, teammates spoke to one another with flowery prose and bend-over-backwards politeness!
6. The original ending was terrible: Spoiler alert! Ward originally put a twist in the end of the movie where evil owner Rachel Phelps, who spends the entire season trying to sabotage the team in an effort to move them to Florida, turns out to be the team's savior, working behind the scenes to make them better. Test audiences hated that ending, preferring to live in a world where good people are good and evil people own baseball teams in Miami.
7. Wesley Snipes is actually slow as molasses: Snipes played Willie Mays Hayes, a character who was supposed to have both the baseball skills and the self-aggrandizing attitude of Rickey Henderson. Turns out he had the latter but not the former. Scenes where Snipes runs the basepaths were shot in slow motion because he was "not very fast."
8. Corbin Bernsen is as arrogant as the characters he plays: All the actors playing ballplayers auditioned for their part by participating in actual baseball tryouts except Bernsen, who was shooting another film at the time and assured the producers, "Trust me, I can play." Playing washed-up third baseman Roger Dorn, however, didn't require much skill anyway except to be cuckolded by Ricky Vaughn.
9. "Major League" was Joe Morgan's "Citizen Kane": According to Charlie Sheen, the film became a quick favorite among the MLB community and that Hall of Famer Joe Morgan claimed that "Major League" was the only movie he brought with him on airplanes. Bringing your own VCR tapes on airplanes? Fancy!
10. Nearly all the cast members want to do another sequel: David Ward has written a third sequel (or second sequel, for those of us who pretend "Major League III" never happened) in which 20 years have passed and Ricky Vaughn is mounting a big league comeback. In these interviews, Bob Uecker, Dennis Haysbert, Tom Berenger (catcher Jake Taylor), Corbin Bernsen and, of course, Charlie Sheen are all open to come back and let Hollywood unleash foist another sequel upon the popcorn-addled masses.