From Kindergarten up through 6th grade, I went to Catholic school. I went to a Catholic church as well obviously during that time, up to the point when my family converted to Baptist. During my Catholic days I always had to give up something for Lent every year, including stuff like chocolate or bubble gum. I can't say for sure, but I'd say it's a safe bet that more often than not I did not hold up with my sacrifices every year.
Once my family converted to Baptist, I was somewhat relieved that I wasn't expected to give up something for Lent every year anymore. I enjoyed chocolate, soda, and other unhealthy stuff way too much in order to go without it for 40 days. Sure, that's completely lazy of me, and honestly it's anything but the right attitude to have.
I didn't set foot in a Catholic church from the time I was 13 up until my cousin's wedding when I was 26. That huge gap led to me forgetting most of Catholicism's practices and motions during a service, though much of that came back to me when I finally did find myself in a Catholic church again. Since then, however, I haven't been in any Catholic service or church at all.
Lately though I've been thinking it'd be good for me - both on a health factor and a spiritual one - to get back in the habit of giving something up for Lent again. My girlfriend has been getting on me for a while about not drinking soda anymore since it's so high in sugar and other unhealthy stuff, so I decided that I'd give up soda for Lent. In the past I tried gradually moving away from regular soda to stuff like Coke Zero, though it never took too heavily. Maybe quitting cold turkey would be the best thing for me to do, and now I'm a week into going without it.
Before you think I'm talking about any of this to get a pat on the back or anything, I didn't give up caffeine completely. I knew I'd likely end up killing someone from not having any caffeine anymore, so I still have my morning coffee every day. On the other hand, I could end up like this woman.
So yeah, I'm hoping to get at least a little bit healthier by giving up soda. Hopefully I can quit it all together, though I think even reducing the amount of soda consumed by a drastic amount would be beneficial long term. I know my girlfriend is excited and proud of me so far for even making the decision in the first place, but this is only the first week. She may end up begging me to drink a soda or two by the time we get closer to Easter.
Getting back to the point about simply giving something up for Lent, I've come to believe that it isn't just something for Catholics to do. Any Christian could benefit from making a sacrifice for the 40 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday as a symbol of his or her faith. I have a few friends who said they were giving up Facebook for Lent, but that's something that doesn't quite sit well with me. I always viewed Lent as a time for personal reflection and improvement, even though it's been 20 years since I've been a practicing Catholic. In most cases, giving up Facebook doesn't necessarily translate to not being able to communicate with friends or family at all. We've still got cell phones and email to keep in touch if we can't see each other in person, so what's the sacrifice? How exactly does one benefit from giving up something like Facebook?
I'm sure I'm being overly critical of anyone who decides to shut down their Facebook account for Lent. It could possibly mean a lot more to them than it does to me, so they could be giving up more than I give them credit for. Hey, they could just as easily look at me with an odd expression for saying I'm giving up soda.
We'll see how long I can keep going without soda. I once went a month without fast food and didn't think much about it until three weeks into it, so this strikes me as a very attainable goal. I'd like to keep this old habit of mine going for Lent in future years as well, so I'll have to come up with something just as good for next year.
I just know I could never go without red meat.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Review: Side Effects
I have to hand it to Scott Burns and Steven Soderbergh. They've crafted one of the most unique and creative thrillers in years.
I have a hard time labeling Side Effects as a thriller because for the first 40 minutes or so, it's a drama. It doesn't turn into a thriller until the second half, but wow what a second half!
The film opens with Emily and Martin (Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum) as Martin is being released from prison for insider trading. He's adjusting to a life of freedom once again, and concentrating on getting a new job through his old contacts. Emily is fighting her depression from the time her husband was in prison, and eventually meets Dr. John Banks (Jude Law).
Banks prescribes her a new anti-depressant on the market to help her, only it has little help. He eventually puts her on an experimental drug called Ablixa, one in which he is participating in a study program through a pharmaceutical rep. Ablixa seems to be helping her, except now she's prone to sleepwalking.
Or is she? Once the film reaches this point, the tone switches around completely into a mystery and a cat and mouse game. There's Vanessa Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), Emily's previous therapist and someone who Banks consults in trying to help her. At first she feels like a fairly unnecessary character, but her relevance to the story becomes much more clear by the second half.
To reveal any details regarding the shift in tone and how the film changes course would mean spoiling any number of twists along the way. There are at least five really good shockers in the film, all of which I leave to you to see for yourself. On one hand, I feel like my praise for the film isn't satisfactory because I'm not getting into specifics over why the film is so good in its second half, but on the other hand talking about the second half in detail means spoiling all those great surprises. It's a catch-22.
I can't say that I've been a huge fan of Soderbergh's work to date as a director. He's made truly excellent films like Traffic and Out of Sight, and thoroughly entertaining films like Ocean's Eleven. And then he's made real garbage like Ocean's Twelve and Solaris. I'll say his good films definitely outnumber his bad ones, so if this truly is his final film as he claims it will be, he'll end his career on a very high note.
February isn't a time of year when there are many decent films in theaters, so Side Effects is definitely a bright spot. I will be looking to add this to be Blu Ray collection when it's released later this year.
I have a hard time labeling Side Effects as a thriller because for the first 40 minutes or so, it's a drama. It doesn't turn into a thriller until the second half, but wow what a second half!
The film opens with Emily and Martin (Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum) as Martin is being released from prison for insider trading. He's adjusting to a life of freedom once again, and concentrating on getting a new job through his old contacts. Emily is fighting her depression from the time her husband was in prison, and eventually meets Dr. John Banks (Jude Law).
Banks prescribes her a new anti-depressant on the market to help her, only it has little help. He eventually puts her on an experimental drug called Ablixa, one in which he is participating in a study program through a pharmaceutical rep. Ablixa seems to be helping her, except now she's prone to sleepwalking.
Or is she? Once the film reaches this point, the tone switches around completely into a mystery and a cat and mouse game. There's Vanessa Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), Emily's previous therapist and someone who Banks consults in trying to help her. At first she feels like a fairly unnecessary character, but her relevance to the story becomes much more clear by the second half.
To reveal any details regarding the shift in tone and how the film changes course would mean spoiling any number of twists along the way. There are at least five really good shockers in the film, all of which I leave to you to see for yourself. On one hand, I feel like my praise for the film isn't satisfactory because I'm not getting into specifics over why the film is so good in its second half, but on the other hand talking about the second half in detail means spoiling all those great surprises. It's a catch-22.
I can't say that I've been a huge fan of Soderbergh's work to date as a director. He's made truly excellent films like Traffic and Out of Sight, and thoroughly entertaining films like Ocean's Eleven. And then he's made real garbage like Ocean's Twelve and Solaris. I'll say his good films definitely outnumber his bad ones, so if this truly is his final film as he claims it will be, he'll end his career on a very high note.
February isn't a time of year when there are many decent films in theaters, so Side Effects is definitely a bright spot. I will be looking to add this to be Blu Ray collection when it's released later this year.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Never Underestimate the Power of Arrogant Stupidity
Just when I wrote in my last post that kids seem to be tougher on one another than they were 20 years ago, along came this story.
I threw my hands up in the air after reading that story. My first thought was, "There has to be more than this. There has to be another angle or side that I'm missing. No school administration is so bull-headed and stubborn that it would actually suspend a student because her hair looked purple and/or pink in light."
I scoured the internet trying to find any such counterpoint. No such luck.
Now I don't know what's worse: social pressure from bullies in school, or school administrators who can't see past their absurdly over-the-top policies. Rylee MacKay - the main student involved in the story - wasn't trying to push any boundaries. She wasn't trying to skirt around any loophole. She wasn't trying to stir up any trouble. No, she just liked coloring her hair an auburn color. In fact, you'll notice in the picture included with the link above her hair doesn't even look terribly artificially colored.
So what if the light reflecting off her hair makes a few strands look purple or pink? For that matter, isn't such a perception subjective in nature? The school district's written policy stated a student's hair "should be within the spectrum of color that grows naturally." The administrators have the right to question any student's hair color becomes distracting.
That's an incredibly broad scope covered in such a policy. And like I said, the decision-making process is entirely subjective. One teacher's reaction could be entirely different from another. Hell, what about teachers who might be color-blind? How could they enforce such a policy?
Moreover, the punishment for this poor student is beyond absurd. Nothing I've read has indicated she was any kind of repeat offender, so instead of a verbal warning or something similar, she was dragged into the office and isolated so no other students could see her for the remainder of the week. Forgiving the policy's natural absurdity for a moment, what's wrong with a verbal warning for a first offense? Why go directly to proverbial jail? And what happens if the student does become a repeat offender? What other courses of action are left at that point?
During my high school years there were a number of students who dressed more alternatively than others. Some of them had some wacky hair colors and wore tattered clothes, but that was what they had liked at the time. I have no idea if they still dress anything like what they used to in high school, but I never saw any harm in how they dressed. The people who had originally came up with the policy probably assumed teenagers who had colored their hair in abnormal colors and/or dressed in tattered clothes were troublemakers, which is absurd to the point of being offensive. Talk about judging a book by its cover.
What's worse - and even more offensive - is that the people who had put this dress code in place thought they could control kids' behaviors by subjecting them to it. The principal himself even mentioned that what typically happens when students violate the code is a hair color job gone awry. They had planned on coloring their hair a particular shade, but it accidentally turned out to be something darker or lighter. Whatever behavior or actions the administration is attempting to curtail through this policy isn't happening.
I do understand the logic behind certain dress codes for public schools though. Skirts can be too short, dresses can be too revealing, and outfits can be too tight (Am I the only one who finds it interesting that it's almost always teen girls who are targets of dress code violations in schools? When was the last time you heard of a teenage boy who had worn something too revealing or inappropriate?). There comes a point when logic and reason jump ship, and we end up with policies like what this school district in Utah has.
Knowing what I know about government laws and such, I also know the somewhat unfortunate truth about policies such as this one in Utah. The truth is, even if enough parents and students raised hell over this policy, I doubt the school district could take much action even if it wanted to. There are thousands of stupid laws in this country from state to state, and even if these laws are archaic and useless, they can't be repealed because of the expense involved. Committees would have to form, boards would investigate, and lawmakers would have to build campaigns large enough to gain voter support. The end goal wouldn't justify the expense involved, and I suspect the case would be similar to schools like this one in Utah. I guess we're all at the whim of silly, outdated laws to some extent in our lives. Common sense and logic take a back seat.
I threw my hands up in the air after reading that story. My first thought was, "There has to be more than this. There has to be another angle or side that I'm missing. No school administration is so bull-headed and stubborn that it would actually suspend a student because her hair looked purple and/or pink in light."
I scoured the internet trying to find any such counterpoint. No such luck.
Now I don't know what's worse: social pressure from bullies in school, or school administrators who can't see past their absurdly over-the-top policies. Rylee MacKay - the main student involved in the story - wasn't trying to push any boundaries. She wasn't trying to skirt around any loophole. She wasn't trying to stir up any trouble. No, she just liked coloring her hair an auburn color. In fact, you'll notice in the picture included with the link above her hair doesn't even look terribly artificially colored.
So what if the light reflecting off her hair makes a few strands look purple or pink? For that matter, isn't such a perception subjective in nature? The school district's written policy stated a student's hair "should be within the spectrum of color that grows naturally." The administrators have the right to question any student's hair color becomes distracting.
That's an incredibly broad scope covered in such a policy. And like I said, the decision-making process is entirely subjective. One teacher's reaction could be entirely different from another. Hell, what about teachers who might be color-blind? How could they enforce such a policy?
Moreover, the punishment for this poor student is beyond absurd. Nothing I've read has indicated she was any kind of repeat offender, so instead of a verbal warning or something similar, she was dragged into the office and isolated so no other students could see her for the remainder of the week. Forgiving the policy's natural absurdity for a moment, what's wrong with a verbal warning for a first offense? Why go directly to proverbial jail? And what happens if the student does become a repeat offender? What other courses of action are left at that point?
During my high school years there were a number of students who dressed more alternatively than others. Some of them had some wacky hair colors and wore tattered clothes, but that was what they had liked at the time. I have no idea if they still dress anything like what they used to in high school, but I never saw any harm in how they dressed. The people who had originally came up with the policy probably assumed teenagers who had colored their hair in abnormal colors and/or dressed in tattered clothes were troublemakers, which is absurd to the point of being offensive. Talk about judging a book by its cover.
What's worse - and even more offensive - is that the people who had put this dress code in place thought they could control kids' behaviors by subjecting them to it. The principal himself even mentioned that what typically happens when students violate the code is a hair color job gone awry. They had planned on coloring their hair a particular shade, but it accidentally turned out to be something darker or lighter. Whatever behavior or actions the administration is attempting to curtail through this policy isn't happening.
I do understand the logic behind certain dress codes for public schools though. Skirts can be too short, dresses can be too revealing, and outfits can be too tight (Am I the only one who finds it interesting that it's almost always teen girls who are targets of dress code violations in schools? When was the last time you heard of a teenage boy who had worn something too revealing or inappropriate?). There comes a point when logic and reason jump ship, and we end up with policies like what this school district in Utah has.
Knowing what I know about government laws and such, I also know the somewhat unfortunate truth about policies such as this one in Utah. The truth is, even if enough parents and students raised hell over this policy, I doubt the school district could take much action even if it wanted to. There are thousands of stupid laws in this country from state to state, and even if these laws are archaic and useless, they can't be repealed because of the expense involved. Committees would have to form, boards would investigate, and lawmakers would have to build campaigns large enough to gain voter support. The end goal wouldn't justify the expense involved, and I suspect the case would be similar to schools like this one in Utah. I guess we're all at the whim of silly, outdated laws to some extent in our lives. Common sense and logic take a back seat.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Bully Pulpit
I make no secret that I'm more than a little socially naive. I lived with my folks off and on throughout my 20s, and it wasn't until I was nearly 29 that I had moved out for good. I had no idea until fairly recently - like within the last year - that kids are no longer taught cursive handwriting in school anymore. Supposedly the methods used to teach math functions like multiplication and division are also radically different from what I remember of my days in grade school as well. I almost wonder what will happen when I will likely help my girlfriend's kids with their homework as they get older, since I might have to re-learn everything I was originally taught all over again.
My point is that as shocked as I am over how education is handled these days, bullying has taken over schools now. I read this horrifying story yesterday about a boy who was beaten up by several kids in his school, and now lies in a medically-induced coma. This story was merely the latest example of kids fighting and bullying one another in school that I found.
At what point exactly did bullying become so prevalent in schools nowadays? I feel kinda old saying this, but when I was 14 and a freshman in high school, I never got into a fight with any other kids at all. Sure, I was super awkward entering a public school for the first time (I was in private school from kindergarten all the way up to 8th grade), and I didn't really build a network of good friends until probably late freshman year or early sophomore year. I don't even remember any other kids I knew who were bullied around by other kids in school.
Don't misunderstand me; there were plenty of clicks across my high school. There were the jocks, the bandies, the emo crowd, and the bookworms, among other mini-groups. I somehow danced around between each click, never really delving fully into any one circle. I don't recall of anyone really having a serious issue with me at any time, nor do I recall any kid or group of kids consistently picked on by others. There certainly weren't any cases like one linked above where someone was taken to the hospital and induced into a coma.
Clearly bullying has spiraled into a major, major issue affecting kids today. I follow Ray Rice on Facebook, and he posts links to stories like the awful one above, asking fans and parents to help resolve the problem. He also promoted a documentary that was released last year called Bully, which examined the state of kids who faced being bullied in school over the course of a full school year. I haven't seen it yet, but it will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray next week. It's supposed to be pretty rough with lots of foul language, though I don't see how the subject matter could be otherwise handled properly without it.
One thing I do wonder is how much of a role geography plays in bullying.. I grew up in a small town in eastern PA, not really close to any major metropolitan area. Had I gone to a school near a city like Philly or New York, my experiences in school might have been much different. Then again, the website for Bully has a few stories highlighting people featured in the film, and they all hail from small towns throughout the midwest. I'm not saying any one area is truly safe from bullying, but I have a hard time picturing Sioux City, Iowa, as a place where kids break out into fights. And yet, the stories on the website have proven me wrong.
Like I said at the start of this post, I've been very socially naive for most of my life. I imagine if a parent were to read this post, he or she would have lots to say about my reactions to why bullying exists, how kids deal with it, what parents can do about it, and how much times have changed (or not) in the last 20 years. My social awkwardness during my teenage years was mostly the result of being in private schools until my freshman year of high school. That was uncomfortable enough for me to adjust to life in a public school. I'm sure if a bully or group of bullies picked on me during those years, I would have begged one or both of my parents to move me out of my school.
As I'm learning more and more of what life is like for teenagers now, I have a better grasp of what my parents must have gone through when I was in high school. My mom has told me stories of what she feared during those years of my life, at least some of which surprised me. I didn't think I had given her much to worry about when I was a teenager, but a mother's instinct will override any comfort a kid can give her. I'm sure she was afraid there would come a day when I would get in with the wrong crowd at some point, but I always dodged that proverbial bullet. I made other mistakes and bad choices when I was a kid, but it never led to becoming a bully or being bullied by others.
I'm sure bullies in school are mostly a form of social acceptance so kids can feel more powerful than others. I don't envy parents who have to find ways to protect their kids from bullies in school, especially in the case of the child who is now in a coma. I'm not even sure what kinds of answers there are for parents or kids either, which is incredibly frustrating. Maybe documentaries like Bully can inform kids that they aren't alone, which is probably what they need to know more than anything else.
My point is that as shocked as I am over how education is handled these days, bullying has taken over schools now. I read this horrifying story yesterday about a boy who was beaten up by several kids in his school, and now lies in a medically-induced coma. This story was merely the latest example of kids fighting and bullying one another in school that I found.
At what point exactly did bullying become so prevalent in schools nowadays? I feel kinda old saying this, but when I was 14 and a freshman in high school, I never got into a fight with any other kids at all. Sure, I was super awkward entering a public school for the first time (I was in private school from kindergarten all the way up to 8th grade), and I didn't really build a network of good friends until probably late freshman year or early sophomore year. I don't even remember any other kids I knew who were bullied around by other kids in school.
Don't misunderstand me; there were plenty of clicks across my high school. There were the jocks, the bandies, the emo crowd, and the bookworms, among other mini-groups. I somehow danced around between each click, never really delving fully into any one circle. I don't recall of anyone really having a serious issue with me at any time, nor do I recall any kid or group of kids consistently picked on by others. There certainly weren't any cases like one linked above where someone was taken to the hospital and induced into a coma.
Clearly bullying has spiraled into a major, major issue affecting kids today. I follow Ray Rice on Facebook, and he posts links to stories like the awful one above, asking fans and parents to help resolve the problem. He also promoted a documentary that was released last year called Bully, which examined the state of kids who faced being bullied in school over the course of a full school year. I haven't seen it yet, but it will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray next week. It's supposed to be pretty rough with lots of foul language, though I don't see how the subject matter could be otherwise handled properly without it.
One thing I do wonder is how much of a role geography plays in bullying.. I grew up in a small town in eastern PA, not really close to any major metropolitan area. Had I gone to a school near a city like Philly or New York, my experiences in school might have been much different. Then again, the website for Bully has a few stories highlighting people featured in the film, and they all hail from small towns throughout the midwest. I'm not saying any one area is truly safe from bullying, but I have a hard time picturing Sioux City, Iowa, as a place where kids break out into fights. And yet, the stories on the website have proven me wrong.
Like I said at the start of this post, I've been very socially naive for most of my life. I imagine if a parent were to read this post, he or she would have lots to say about my reactions to why bullying exists, how kids deal with it, what parents can do about it, and how much times have changed (or not) in the last 20 years. My social awkwardness during my teenage years was mostly the result of being in private schools until my freshman year of high school. That was uncomfortable enough for me to adjust to life in a public school. I'm sure if a bully or group of bullies picked on me during those years, I would have begged one or both of my parents to move me out of my school.
As I'm learning more and more of what life is like for teenagers now, I have a better grasp of what my parents must have gone through when I was in high school. My mom has told me stories of what she feared during those years of my life, at least some of which surprised me. I didn't think I had given her much to worry about when I was a teenager, but a mother's instinct will override any comfort a kid can give her. I'm sure she was afraid there would come a day when I would get in with the wrong crowd at some point, but I always dodged that proverbial bullet. I made other mistakes and bad choices when I was a kid, but it never led to becoming a bully or being bullied by others.
I'm sure bullies in school are mostly a form of social acceptance so kids can feel more powerful than others. I don't envy parents who have to find ways to protect their kids from bullies in school, especially in the case of the child who is now in a coma. I'm not even sure what kinds of answers there are for parents or kids either, which is incredibly frustrating. Maybe documentaries like Bully can inform kids that they aren't alone, which is probably what they need to know more than anything else.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Cloud Nine
The Baltimore Ravens are heading to Super Bowl 47.
That concept has not yet fully settled into reality for me yet. I`m not sure there`s a word to describe the kind of elation or excitement that I`m feeling right now. This is unknown territory for me, and it`s a feeling that I will be riding for the next two weeks. And don`t even ask me what life might be like if (when) the Ravens win on February 3, because I doubt I could fathom what kind of answer I could give. Right now, the best thing I could guess is that I would become the most obnoxious fan by reminding everyone around me as often as I could that the Ravens are Super Bowl Champions.
For instance, let`s suppose it`s a warm evening in early September: ``Hey Ray, what are you up to tonight?``
``Oh, not much, just out celebrating the fact that THE BALTIMORE RAVENS ARE REIGNING SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS AND KICKING OFF THE 2013 NFL SEASON!``
See what I mean?
All kidding aside, there was something special about watching Ray Lewis in pregame ceremonies last night. While the national anthem was being sung, he was being brought to tears between the music and clearly saying the words ``Thank you, Father,`` over and over. I have to confess getting choked up just from watching that, and the game hadn`t even officially started yet. When it had finally ended and the Ravens had won, seeing Ray Lewis fall to his knees and thank God was even more emotional. Oh it was great to see the entire team high five and hug one another on the sidelines, knowing they were going to win. But Ray`s reaction was something special, knowing this would be his last go-round.
Back when I had made my predictions for the 2012 NFL season, I had said that I expected Ray Lewis and Ed Reed to hang it up after this season. So far I`m half right on that prediction, and I strongly suspect that if the Ravens do win it all, Reed will call it quits as well. I wouldn`t be surprised if Ravens center Matt Birk also rode off into the sunset following winning a championship either. If all that happened, the team would suddenly be short three long-term veteran leaders, and make defending their title next year that much more difficult. But that doesn`t matter to me at all as a fan. When the team had lost three straight games in December and changed offensive coordinators midway through that streak, I never thought for a second that they`d make such a playoff run in January. I expected them to win one playoff game, and then be eliminated in the divisional round.
Then came that ridiculous game in Denver.
The moment that Jacoby Jones caught that late touchdown pass in the 4th quarter to tie the game up, I knew the Ravens would find a way to win the game. Even had they somehow lost, I still would`ve been proud of them for putting up such a fight on the road. I had originally expected a very non-competitive game considering the opponent, but they kept moving point for point. When Justin Tucker kicked the game-winning in the second (!!!) overtime, I knew we`d also beat the Patriots in the title game and move on the Super Bowl. It was just a question of how close the title game would be.
Once again, my expectations were completely wrong.
I figured that the game would be extremely tight, and probably come down to the final possession just like last year`s title game was. Joe Flacco could find himself having to drive the offense down the field for either a game-winning touchdown or field goal once again, or the defense would have to stop Tom Brady from carving them up to win the game. Such an ending would be fitting with last year`s title game and the matchup in week 3 of the regular season.
Hey, at least the first half of the game was competitive. The second half, not so much.
The Ravens so totally dominated the Patriots it was almost kinda silly to watch. The Ravens fan in me loved watching the team manhandle the Patriots on both sides of the ball, but the football fan in me expected the Patriots to bounce back in the game at any given moment. I didn`t even want to go to bed after the game was over because I wanted to watch all the postgame celebration and interviews. I was on such a high that I wasn`t even tired.
Amid this entire postseason I think I`ve finally figured out who Joe Flacco is. I was a big Flacco supporter from the moment the Ravens had drafted him five years ago, but when the Ravens started to sink in December, I was jumping off the bandwagon. He didn`t look like he was progressing as a quarterback or a leader on the field, and he continued to make the same kinds of mistakes he was known for. I really did doubt the Ravens would be able to win a championship with him at quarterback, which put the team at a particularly difficult time to decide on what to do with the position. There weren`t any notable free agent quarterbacks coming up in the off season who would be worth taking over Flacco, and there weren`t any slam dunk options coming out of college either. What option did that leave the team?
Now that Flacco has put the team into Super Bowl 47, I`ve realized he is the anti-Peyton Manning. Manning has always been an excellent regular season quarterback and leader, but he has a history of collapsing in the playoffs (with the lone exception of the 2006 postseason). Flacco is up and down in the regular season, but he takes his game to a whole other level in the postseason. He hasn`t had a truly bad game in the playoffs since the 2010 postseason, and he now has the most career postseason road wins in the history of the NFL under his belt. Oh yeah, and he`s been to the playoffs and won at least one playoff game every year he`s been in the league so far. And he`s only 28.
In a league where a solid running game and defense gets most teams 10 wins at least during the regular season, I can take a quarterback who is fairly up and down during that time if he can get the team to the postseason and up his game in the process. The Ravens have an elite running back in Ray Rice, and their defense will still be solid next year, even without Ray Lewis at minimum. I know I`m getting WAY ahead of myself talking about stuff like this, but this is what happens when a fan is on cloud nine.
I hope wherever Bill Warble is right now, he`s just as excited and wearing his Ray Lewis jersey every day.
That concept has not yet fully settled into reality for me yet. I`m not sure there`s a word to describe the kind of elation or excitement that I`m feeling right now. This is unknown territory for me, and it`s a feeling that I will be riding for the next two weeks. And don`t even ask me what life might be like if (when) the Ravens win on February 3, because I doubt I could fathom what kind of answer I could give. Right now, the best thing I could guess is that I would become the most obnoxious fan by reminding everyone around me as often as I could that the Ravens are Super Bowl Champions.
For instance, let`s suppose it`s a warm evening in early September: ``Hey Ray, what are you up to tonight?``
``Oh, not much, just out celebrating the fact that THE BALTIMORE RAVENS ARE REIGNING SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS AND KICKING OFF THE 2013 NFL SEASON!``
See what I mean?
All kidding aside, there was something special about watching Ray Lewis in pregame ceremonies last night. While the national anthem was being sung, he was being brought to tears between the music and clearly saying the words ``Thank you, Father,`` over and over. I have to confess getting choked up just from watching that, and the game hadn`t even officially started yet. When it had finally ended and the Ravens had won, seeing Ray Lewis fall to his knees and thank God was even more emotional. Oh it was great to see the entire team high five and hug one another on the sidelines, knowing they were going to win. But Ray`s reaction was something special, knowing this would be his last go-round.
Back when I had made my predictions for the 2012 NFL season, I had said that I expected Ray Lewis and Ed Reed to hang it up after this season. So far I`m half right on that prediction, and I strongly suspect that if the Ravens do win it all, Reed will call it quits as well. I wouldn`t be surprised if Ravens center Matt Birk also rode off into the sunset following winning a championship either. If all that happened, the team would suddenly be short three long-term veteran leaders, and make defending their title next year that much more difficult. But that doesn`t matter to me at all as a fan. When the team had lost three straight games in December and changed offensive coordinators midway through that streak, I never thought for a second that they`d make such a playoff run in January. I expected them to win one playoff game, and then be eliminated in the divisional round.
Then came that ridiculous game in Denver.
The moment that Jacoby Jones caught that late touchdown pass in the 4th quarter to tie the game up, I knew the Ravens would find a way to win the game. Even had they somehow lost, I still would`ve been proud of them for putting up such a fight on the road. I had originally expected a very non-competitive game considering the opponent, but they kept moving point for point. When Justin Tucker kicked the game-winning in the second (!!!) overtime, I knew we`d also beat the Patriots in the title game and move on the Super Bowl. It was just a question of how close the title game would be.
Once again, my expectations were completely wrong.
I figured that the game would be extremely tight, and probably come down to the final possession just like last year`s title game was. Joe Flacco could find himself having to drive the offense down the field for either a game-winning touchdown or field goal once again, or the defense would have to stop Tom Brady from carving them up to win the game. Such an ending would be fitting with last year`s title game and the matchup in week 3 of the regular season.
Hey, at least the first half of the game was competitive. The second half, not so much.
The Ravens so totally dominated the Patriots it was almost kinda silly to watch. The Ravens fan in me loved watching the team manhandle the Patriots on both sides of the ball, but the football fan in me expected the Patriots to bounce back in the game at any given moment. I didn`t even want to go to bed after the game was over because I wanted to watch all the postgame celebration and interviews. I was on such a high that I wasn`t even tired.
Amid this entire postseason I think I`ve finally figured out who Joe Flacco is. I was a big Flacco supporter from the moment the Ravens had drafted him five years ago, but when the Ravens started to sink in December, I was jumping off the bandwagon. He didn`t look like he was progressing as a quarterback or a leader on the field, and he continued to make the same kinds of mistakes he was known for. I really did doubt the Ravens would be able to win a championship with him at quarterback, which put the team at a particularly difficult time to decide on what to do with the position. There weren`t any notable free agent quarterbacks coming up in the off season who would be worth taking over Flacco, and there weren`t any slam dunk options coming out of college either. What option did that leave the team?
Now that Flacco has put the team into Super Bowl 47, I`ve realized he is the anti-Peyton Manning. Manning has always been an excellent regular season quarterback and leader, but he has a history of collapsing in the playoffs (with the lone exception of the 2006 postseason). Flacco is up and down in the regular season, but he takes his game to a whole other level in the postseason. He hasn`t had a truly bad game in the playoffs since the 2010 postseason, and he now has the most career postseason road wins in the history of the NFL under his belt. Oh yeah, and he`s been to the playoffs and won at least one playoff game every year he`s been in the league so far. And he`s only 28.
In a league where a solid running game and defense gets most teams 10 wins at least during the regular season, I can take a quarterback who is fairly up and down during that time if he can get the team to the postseason and up his game in the process. The Ravens have an elite running back in Ray Rice, and their defense will still be solid next year, even without Ray Lewis at minimum. I know I`m getting WAY ahead of myself talking about stuff like this, but this is what happens when a fan is on cloud nine.
I hope wherever Bill Warble is right now, he`s just as excited and wearing his Ray Lewis jersey every day.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
When I saw news reports detailing how James Holmes opened fire on a movie theater audience last July at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, I immediately wondered how quickly his trial would move forward. In fact, the fact that he was even arrested in the first place somewhat surprised me, since most other mass shooters tend to kill themselves before police show up on scene to take them away (see: Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho). I've followed Holmes' case over the course of the last several months, and his trial started last week.
And it was then that I found out about Misty Benjamin.
Misty Benjamin is a 30-year-old woman who lives near Aurora, CO, where Holmes opened fire on the movie theater crowd. She's been following his case more than I have, and even watches his courtroom proceedings in person. She didn't have any friends or family who were shot or killed in the shooting, nor does she know Holmes personally.
Benjamin was recently interviewed by The Daily Beast where she openly discussed her support for James Holmes throughout his trial. I was shocked in reading her thoughts on Holmes and the crimes for which he is accused. I couldn't believe that there was even one person who doesn't want Holmes to face punishment for his actions. I think the single most bizarre thing that Benjamin had said about Holmes was that she didn't think he was bad himself, only that what he did was bad.
Exactly how does one excuse a man like Holmes, given how much time and energy he had spent in preparing his attack? I don't see how anyone can separate Holmes from his actions in how horrific they were, but not also think he was a monster as well. I might be convinced if he had acted out in self-defense or in a momentary fit of rage, but his plan was completely premeditated. He scoped out the movie theater and planned his sudden entrance to open fire as soon as he was inside. This crime was not any brief lapse in sanity at all; Holmes was in control of his faculties the entire time.
But wait, there's more.
Turns out there are at least two pro-James Holmes Facebook pages, "James Holmes Is Innocent" and "We Care About James Holmes." I'm sure there are others as well, but the idea that any such pages exist really terrify me. Who are these people and why do they think James Holmes could possibly be innocent?
Innocence in a court of law implies that the defendant on trial needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt that he or she had committed the crime in question. If such doubt or evidence to the contrary exists, the jury is expected to acquit the defendant. It's the prosecution's job to present enough evidence to legally find the defendant guilty of the crime (which was exactly why Casey Anthony was acquitted; the prosecution failed to present enough evidence in her trial, so she sadly walked even though everyone under the sun knew she was guilty).
Given all that, how can anyone in his or her right mind think that James Holmes is innocent? Multiple eye witnesses at the movie theater saw him open fire, and police searched through his booby-trapped apartment to find more weapons stacked away there. Those two pieces of evidence alone are more than enough to convict the guy, so the trial at this point is little more than a formality.
Here's something even more disturbing: Benjamin mentioned having a boyfriend in her interview, and he knew about her obsession over Holmes. I've dated some really wacky women in my life, but if I ever met someone who said she openly supported a mass murderer like James Holmes, I would be out the door faster than Usain Bolt. People who obsess over celebrities and know as many intimate details about them as possible creep me out already. I couldn't imagine being involved with anyone who had walls covered in pictures of someone like James Holmes in her house.
What exactly does it mean to "support" Holmes anyway? What's there to support? Do these sheep not realize that they're falling for the exact ploy that Holmes wanted in the first place? He opened fire on that crowd to get his name in print and have some brief notoriety before being sent off to prison. His so-called followers and supporters are giving him the kind of attention he wanted all along. They're suckers.
The scary truth is that James Holmes is merely the latest example of this kind of perverted obsession. The likes of Scott Peterson and Ted Bundy received hundreds of letters from women across the country professing their love for them, and even offered marriage proposals in many cases. What thoughts go through a woman's head as she writes a letter to someone like Peterson, who murdered his wife while she was pregnant with his child? I've dated enough to know that many women out there want to find a guy who carries some dark side to himself, and ultimately "fix" him so he becomes a nice guy. I've never understood the concept of the "bad boy," nor have I understood women who are attracted to them. As confusing as those women have always been to me, they pale in comparison to women who solicit Scott Peterson for marriage.
So here's the million dollar question: Who's scarier here, the criminals themselves or the sheep who flock after them? I imagine cult artists like David Koresh could be included in this discussion, since he fooled hundreds of people into buying his shtick as well. He preyed upon people who could easily be duped into joining his cult, though Holmes and Peterson didn't actively recruit followers the way Koresh did. The women who contacted Holmes and Peterson did so of their own accord, beyond any outside influence.
I've read about conditions like Stockholm syndrome, where kidnapped individuals build attachments to their captors. They'll empathize, sympathize, and even defend their captors depending on the situation. These people who feel the need to stand up for James Holmes or Scott Peterson defend them in similar ways to those who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. If I was more versed in psychology, I'm sure I could write about warning signs or talk about what kinds of people are more susceptible to being duped into obsessing over murderers. The trouble is, these types of people don't respond to logic or reason. In fact, I doubt even the most skilled psychologists could help them see the light.
And it was then that I found out about Misty Benjamin.
Misty Benjamin is a 30-year-old woman who lives near Aurora, CO, where Holmes opened fire on the movie theater crowd. She's been following his case more than I have, and even watches his courtroom proceedings in person. She didn't have any friends or family who were shot or killed in the shooting, nor does she know Holmes personally.
Benjamin was recently interviewed by The Daily Beast where she openly discussed her support for James Holmes throughout his trial. I was shocked in reading her thoughts on Holmes and the crimes for which he is accused. I couldn't believe that there was even one person who doesn't want Holmes to face punishment for his actions. I think the single most bizarre thing that Benjamin had said about Holmes was that she didn't think he was bad himself, only that what he did was bad.
Exactly how does one excuse a man like Holmes, given how much time and energy he had spent in preparing his attack? I don't see how anyone can separate Holmes from his actions in how horrific they were, but not also think he was a monster as well. I might be convinced if he had acted out in self-defense or in a momentary fit of rage, but his plan was completely premeditated. He scoped out the movie theater and planned his sudden entrance to open fire as soon as he was inside. This crime was not any brief lapse in sanity at all; Holmes was in control of his faculties the entire time.
But wait, there's more.
Turns out there are at least two pro-James Holmes Facebook pages, "James Holmes Is Innocent" and "We Care About James Holmes." I'm sure there are others as well, but the idea that any such pages exist really terrify me. Who are these people and why do they think James Holmes could possibly be innocent?
Innocence in a court of law implies that the defendant on trial needs to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt that he or she had committed the crime in question. If such doubt or evidence to the contrary exists, the jury is expected to acquit the defendant. It's the prosecution's job to present enough evidence to legally find the defendant guilty of the crime (which was exactly why Casey Anthony was acquitted; the prosecution failed to present enough evidence in her trial, so she sadly walked even though everyone under the sun knew she was guilty).
Given all that, how can anyone in his or her right mind think that James Holmes is innocent? Multiple eye witnesses at the movie theater saw him open fire, and police searched through his booby-trapped apartment to find more weapons stacked away there. Those two pieces of evidence alone are more than enough to convict the guy, so the trial at this point is little more than a formality.
Here's something even more disturbing: Benjamin mentioned having a boyfriend in her interview, and he knew about her obsession over Holmes. I've dated some really wacky women in my life, but if I ever met someone who said she openly supported a mass murderer like James Holmes, I would be out the door faster than Usain Bolt. People who obsess over celebrities and know as many intimate details about them as possible creep me out already. I couldn't imagine being involved with anyone who had walls covered in pictures of someone like James Holmes in her house.
What exactly does it mean to "support" Holmes anyway? What's there to support? Do these sheep not realize that they're falling for the exact ploy that Holmes wanted in the first place? He opened fire on that crowd to get his name in print and have some brief notoriety before being sent off to prison. His so-called followers and supporters are giving him the kind of attention he wanted all along. They're suckers.
The scary truth is that James Holmes is merely the latest example of this kind of perverted obsession. The likes of Scott Peterson and Ted Bundy received hundreds of letters from women across the country professing their love for them, and even offered marriage proposals in many cases. What thoughts go through a woman's head as she writes a letter to someone like Peterson, who murdered his wife while she was pregnant with his child? I've dated enough to know that many women out there want to find a guy who carries some dark side to himself, and ultimately "fix" him so he becomes a nice guy. I've never understood the concept of the "bad boy," nor have I understood women who are attracted to them. As confusing as those women have always been to me, they pale in comparison to women who solicit Scott Peterson for marriage.
So here's the million dollar question: Who's scarier here, the criminals themselves or the sheep who flock after them? I imagine cult artists like David Koresh could be included in this discussion, since he fooled hundreds of people into buying his shtick as well. He preyed upon people who could easily be duped into joining his cult, though Holmes and Peterson didn't actively recruit followers the way Koresh did. The women who contacted Holmes and Peterson did so of their own accord, beyond any outside influence.
I've read about conditions like Stockholm syndrome, where kidnapped individuals build attachments to their captors. They'll empathize, sympathize, and even defend their captors depending on the situation. These people who feel the need to stand up for James Holmes or Scott Peterson defend them in similar ways to those who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. If I was more versed in psychology, I'm sure I could write about warning signs or talk about what kinds of people are more susceptible to being duped into obsessing over murderers. The trouble is, these types of people don't respond to logic or reason. In fact, I doubt even the most skilled psychologists could help them see the light.
Monday, January 7, 2013
A Feel Good Story to Start Off 2013
A few weeks ago, I read a story online about a lifelong Star Trek fan named Dan. I don't know his last name or where he lives, but Dan suffers from terminal cancer and doesn't have much time left to live. He wanted to at least see the 9-minute prologue to the new Star Trek film, Star Trek Into Darkness, before he passed away. The prologue is showing in theaters now with certain IMAX prints of The Hobbit, but to his disappointment, he did not get to see it when he and his wife went to see The Hobbit in theaters a couple weeks ago.
Thus began a series of events, starting with a request on Reddit. Dan's wife wrote a post on there as a message to J.J. Abrams, co-writer and director of Star Trek Into Darkness, requesting the opportunity to at least see the prologue in a private screening since Dan isn't expected to live long enough before the film's theatrical release in May. From there, the post went viral, and a massive campaign exploded from petitioners online asking Abrams to give this fan a chance to see what he had missed.
I was pulling hard that Dan would get his wish. It's heartbreaking that he is living his final days filled with doctor's appointments and pain, so seeing the prologue would at least bring one final smile to his face. What a great way to kick off 2013 if Abrams gave this fan his dying wish.
Except JJ Abrams didn't do that. No, he had something far better in store for Dan.
Dan and his wife got to see the entire working print of Star Trek Into Darkness.
The film isn't quite finished; there are visual effects and some edits to complete, and the musical score is probably only a temp track right now. But they got to see the entire film as it stands. I'm sure they are eternally grateful for such an opportunity. I know if I were in Dan's shoes, I'd feel saying "Thank you" would be incredibly inadequate for something like that.
Last week I watched Ray Lewis' A Football Life on the NFL Network. The program had been previously scheduled, but the timing worked out in a way since he had announced earlier in the day that he was going to retire following the end of the Ravens' season. The footage was shot during the 2011 season, right up to the game against the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game.
Early in the program there was a story about Bill Warble, a huge Ravens fan in Dundalk, an area just outside downtown Baltimore. Warble is in his 60s, suffering from terminal cancer with only months to live, but his dream was to meet Ray Lewis in person. Lewis actually came to his house and met his entire family. The video below includes their meeting; Warble's story starts at about the 7:34 mark:
Later on, there's a conversation between Lewis and Warble's daughter. She was in tears from being so grateful for Lewis to come to her dad's house and fulfill his dream. Throughout the 2011 season, Lewis built a friendship with Warble and his family. That's genuine heart and love there. Lewis gave this man a gift that he had carried up until he finally passed after the season had ended. Even more so, the man's family will carry that gift on with them for the rest of their lives.
Generosity like either of these examples gives me hope that there are still people out there who enjoy doing the right thing. They don't care about personal gain or interest; they know certain actions will make a difference in another person's life, and that kind of reward doesn't come with a price tag. Ray Lewis has made his own mission of speaking publicly about his criminal past and the impact it's left on his life. His life is completely changed for the better, and he now passes that on to anyone else who wants to listen.
J.J. Abrams could have simply given what Dan and his wife had asked for, and they would have been just as grateful as they are now. Ray Lewis could have stopped by the Warble house once, and that would have been exactly what they had asked for. Instead, both men did far more than what was expected of them, and that's what the rest of us can take from those stories. It's one thing to do what someone asks or expects; it's another to exceed those expectations and truly touch someone's life.
I ended up spending a few days putting this post together, and this morning I happened to see a headline that Dan - the terminally ill fan who was allowed to see the entire working print of Star Trek Into Darkness - passed away over the weekend. While I'm sure his wife and family are grieving over his passing, I would hope the brief joy he had in watching the film ended his life with a positive note.
I've written a number of posts on this blog about odd ball news stories and the like, and while these two stories are rather bittersweet in nature, they share the same positive theme of hope and joy. The news tends to focus on pretty negative stories for the most part, whether they be the fiscal cliff, murders, or scandals of some kind. Why news outlets don't find stories like Dan's interesting or worth reporting I'll never know exactly, but it's a real shame we don't get enough good news in life. I hope 2013 gives us plenty more good stories like these.
Thus began a series of events, starting with a request on Reddit. Dan's wife wrote a post on there as a message to J.J. Abrams, co-writer and director of Star Trek Into Darkness, requesting the opportunity to at least see the prologue in a private screening since Dan isn't expected to live long enough before the film's theatrical release in May. From there, the post went viral, and a massive campaign exploded from petitioners online asking Abrams to give this fan a chance to see what he had missed.
I was pulling hard that Dan would get his wish. It's heartbreaking that he is living his final days filled with doctor's appointments and pain, so seeing the prologue would at least bring one final smile to his face. What a great way to kick off 2013 if Abrams gave this fan his dying wish.
Except JJ Abrams didn't do that. No, he had something far better in store for Dan.
Dan and his wife got to see the entire working print of Star Trek Into Darkness.
The film isn't quite finished; there are visual effects and some edits to complete, and the musical score is probably only a temp track right now. But they got to see the entire film as it stands. I'm sure they are eternally grateful for such an opportunity. I know if I were in Dan's shoes, I'd feel saying "Thank you" would be incredibly inadequate for something like that.
Last week I watched Ray Lewis' A Football Life on the NFL Network. The program had been previously scheduled, but the timing worked out in a way since he had announced earlier in the day that he was going to retire following the end of the Ravens' season. The footage was shot during the 2011 season, right up to the game against the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game.
Early in the program there was a story about Bill Warble, a huge Ravens fan in Dundalk, an area just outside downtown Baltimore. Warble is in his 60s, suffering from terminal cancer with only months to live, but his dream was to meet Ray Lewis in person. Lewis actually came to his house and met his entire family. The video below includes their meeting; Warble's story starts at about the 7:34 mark:
Later on, there's a conversation between Lewis and Warble's daughter. She was in tears from being so grateful for Lewis to come to her dad's house and fulfill his dream. Throughout the 2011 season, Lewis built a friendship with Warble and his family. That's genuine heart and love there. Lewis gave this man a gift that he had carried up until he finally passed after the season had ended. Even more so, the man's family will carry that gift on with them for the rest of their lives.
Generosity like either of these examples gives me hope that there are still people out there who enjoy doing the right thing. They don't care about personal gain or interest; they know certain actions will make a difference in another person's life, and that kind of reward doesn't come with a price tag. Ray Lewis has made his own mission of speaking publicly about his criminal past and the impact it's left on his life. His life is completely changed for the better, and he now passes that on to anyone else who wants to listen.
J.J. Abrams could have simply given what Dan and his wife had asked for, and they would have been just as grateful as they are now. Ray Lewis could have stopped by the Warble house once, and that would have been exactly what they had asked for. Instead, both men did far more than what was expected of them, and that's what the rest of us can take from those stories. It's one thing to do what someone asks or expects; it's another to exceed those expectations and truly touch someone's life.
I ended up spending a few days putting this post together, and this morning I happened to see a headline that Dan - the terminally ill fan who was allowed to see the entire working print of Star Trek Into Darkness - passed away over the weekend. While I'm sure his wife and family are grieving over his passing, I would hope the brief joy he had in watching the film ended his life with a positive note.
I've written a number of posts on this blog about odd ball news stories and the like, and while these two stories are rather bittersweet in nature, they share the same positive theme of hope and joy. The news tends to focus on pretty negative stories for the most part, whether they be the fiscal cliff, murders, or scandals of some kind. Why news outlets don't find stories like Dan's interesting or worth reporting I'll never know exactly, but it's a real shame we don't get enough good news in life. I hope 2013 gives us plenty more good stories like these.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)