And Yankees pitchers gave up a total of six walks. That’s a lot of 6′s.

Yankees starter C.C. Sabathia was decent last night, giving up only two runs (both earned on solo home runs by Phillies second baseman Chase Utley), but didn’t pitch anywhere near as well as he had in his earlier postseason games. He barely escaped disaster in the first inning when he loaded the bases on a walk to Utley, a double by powerhouse first baseman Ryan Howard and a walk to right fielder Jayson Werth (who looks remarkably similar to WWE superstar Edge) after a quick first two outs before getting designated hitter Raul Ibanez to ground out to second baseman Robinson Cano.

By comparison, Lee’s half of the first inning consisted of a strikeout to shortstop Derek Jeter, a groundout on a bunt attempt by left fielder Johnny Damon and a strikeout to first baseman Mark Teixiera.

This was a sign of things to come as Lee continued to dominate the Yanks through the rest of game. Only Jeter had any real success against Lee with three hits, and he happened to be the player who scored the Yankees’ single run when shortstop Jimmy Rollins went for a double play and ended up throwing the ball away.

Sabathia pitched decently (you can’t really complain when the starting pitcher gives up only two runs), but unfortunately Lee pitched brilliantly. Throw in a second straight poor outing from reliever Phil Hughes, who has not been the reliable pitcher in the postseason that he was in the regular season, and a *gasp* horrible outing from craptastic reliever Brian Bruney (he posted a 54 ERA for that appearance), and you get the dreadful results of last night’s game.

Speaking of Brian Bruney, I’m rather curious why manager Joe Girardi bothered sending in Phil Coke to relieve him in the ninth inning since bringing him in during a World Series game that was still, if ever so slightly, plausibly winnable at 4-0 pretty much indicated that Girardi had given up on the game (Bruney was “lights out” during the regular season – as in “somebody turned the lights out on his talent” – pitching worse than only the even more worthless Damaso Marte). At that point, he really should have just left Bruney in there and not wasted Coke’s arm, but maybe that’s just the clouded thoughts of a dejected and disappointed fan.

Many people will no doubt say that “it’s just one game with six more to go” and “there’s always tomorrow,” and they would undoubtedly be right.

However, it’s hard to ignore the realistically irrelevant stat about how the team that won the first game won the World Series in each of the last six years that last night’s broadcasters brought up.

It’s hard to overlook tonight’s starting pitcher A.J. Burnett’s last outing where he got pummeled by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for four runs in the first inning or his decidedly less impressive than Sabathia’s pitching throughout the year.

And most importantly it’s hard to escape just how similar Lee’s performance last night was to Josh Beckett’s performances as a Marlin in the aforementioned 2003 World Series.

Go Yankees.

Source: My own personal Hell.

Hidden F-bomb?

The Internet is now abuzz with theories that Governor Schwarzenegger intentionally hid the words “f**k you” in the first letters of each line of the second and third paragraph.

Personally, I don’t think Schwarzenegger is nearly intelligent or clever enough to do something like this on purpose. No offense to him, but he’s not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Although when I think about it… if you throw in the first letter of the first sentence, you get “I f**k you” which is exactly the broken English Schwarzenegger would use. Hmm…

Source: CNN

Proponents of both sides of the argument – Stand for Marriage Maine and Protect Maine Equality - are working at full force to sway the public to their side, and with good reason. The result of this vote affects not only Maine, the only state that has a same-sex marriage question on the ballot, but the entire country as supporters of gay marriage hope for a ballot victory and opponents of gay marriage hope for another nail in the coffin of equal rights for homosexuals: every time the same-sex question has been brought before state voters, the results have supported a ban.

Same-sex marriage is one of the most divisive topics at large today. It seems that few people venture into any sort of gray area about whether homosexuals should be afforded this right – you’re either for it or against it. I personally fall into the former category as I believe in liberty and freedom for all even if I disagree with them. I’m of the mindset that everyone has a right to their own beliefs and views but no right to impose those beliefs and views on other people.

I personally am disgusted with the idea of two men engaging in sexual acts (no offense intended to my gay friends). I’m also disgusted with the idea of eating a frog or smoking a cigarette but I similarly would not begrudge another person’s right to do these things (so long as doing so brings no harm to someone else).

A lot of opponents of same-sex marriage cite morality as a core reason why they feel the way they do. Apparently, these people lack any true understanding of the concept of morality, which is a code of conduct or belief that is arbitrarily and subjectively invented and maintained by society, religion or individual conscience. There are few hard “universal” morals, all of which are based on extreme acts of hostility against your fellow human being.

There are many people who feel that consuming alcohol, watching pornography, gambling, and pre-marital sex are immoral. Does this mean that we, as a society, should make it illegal for anyone to engage in these activities? Of course not, but people are more willing to attack the concept of same-sex marriage because it stems not from an affront to one’s morality but from a personal disgust by certain sexual activities in which homosexuals engage – when one feels such seething hatred towards something, it’s easy to rationalize  that everyone must or should feel the same way .

Others claim that allowing same-sex marriages will harm children and destroy the concept of the family. Have these people taken a look at the divorce rate in this country, which is estimated at about 40%? Clearly, the end of a marriage does more harm to children and the concept of a family than the beginning of one, regardless of the genders of the two people involved.

Recent history has shown that heterosexuals in the United States are quite apt to fail at marriage yet have few legal requirements to enter one. Possibly, many people take the right to marry for granted, something that homosexuals, who even now have to fight with every ounce of their being just for a glimmer of hope of obtaining this right, are much less likely to do.

And with few exceptions, the people getting divorces are not thinking so much about their children as they are about themselves. “I can’t stand living with her.” “She doesn’t respect me.” “I’m no longer happy with him.” “I shouldn’t have to put up with this.” Does fear that homosexuals may prove to succeed where they have failed factor into this at all? One has to wonder…

One scare tactic that opponents of gay marriage use (with great effectiveness as seen by the success of California Proposition is that public schools may teach children about it should it be legalized, despite assurances from government officials that this would not be an educational requirement.

The American public’s unnatural and illogical apprehension about anything related to sex aside, I find this excuse to be hilarious in its inadequacy. Is it any easier for parents fearful that teachers or *gasp* they themselves will have to answer questions about human sexuality to broach the subject of heterosexual acts than homosexual acts?

Does anyone really think it would be easier to tell their 10-year-old about a man inserting his penis into a woman’s vagina? More importantly, does anyone really think that the child will react with any more disgust or hilarity (probably both knowing most kids) to one scenario or the other? In the end, it’s all just peepers, wee wees, butts, gineys, etc. – to a kid raised in the typical American household, anything “down there” is bad until you’ve escaped the grasp of your parents, domineering in their attempt to stave off nervousness.

Other opponents of same-sex marriage cite religious beliefs (which may or may not tie into questions of morality) as the basis of their stance. I won’t get into my feelings about organized religion (that’s another divisive topic for another day), but will simply say that a) not everyone follows the same religion; b) there have been religions and societies that have sanctioned same-sex marriages and unions; and c) followers of any one religion have no right to expect followers of other religions (or people who don’t follow any religion at all) to adhere to their belief system.

The more zealous of religious people have historically tried to enforce conformity upon others, and it sets a dangerous precedent when such people are allowed to do so in today’s society. I find it ironic that people living in a country founded on the concept of diversity and tolerance and who frequently proclaim it to be the greatest in the world continue to seek to undermine those principals in a never-ending effort to deny the very same rights they and their ancestors have enjoyed for centuries.

These are sad and disappointing times indeed.

Source: New York Times

The award winning director, who wrote the screenplay for the James Bond franchise reboot Casino Royale, whose screenplays for Million Dollar Baby and Letters From Iwo Jima were nominated for Academy Awards and whose film Crash won the Academy Award for Best Picture (he personally won an Academy Award for his original screenplay for this film), wrote in the letter that he “could not, in good conscience, be a member of an organization where gay-bashing was tolerated,” referring to the Church of Scientology’s official backing of California Proposition 8, which in November 2008 amended the California Constitution with a new section that states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

What surprises me is that Mr. Haggis seems genuinely shocked that the Church of Scientology would support such legislation.

L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction novelist who founded the Church of Scientology in 1953 in order to make money, according to noted science fiction author Harlan Ellison in an interview in Issue 332 of the U.K. edition of Time Out, even wrote in his 1951 book Science of Survival, still referenced today as a core text by the Church of Scientology, that “perverts,” as he classified homosexual, bisexual and transgender individuals, were “intensely dangerous in the society since aberration is contagious.”

This is not to say that I think all or even most Scientologists support this belief any more than I think all or most Christians hate homosexuals, but to say that when one of the books written by the founder of your “religion” as an early foundation for what would eventually become Scientology espouses this kind of hateful ideology, you really shouldn’t be surprised when the Church gets behind legislation that would support those ideals.

Mr. Haggis goes on to chastise Mr. Davis for claiming in an interview that the Church does not follow a policy of “disconnection,” by which members are instructed to sever all ties with a friend or family member who is against Scientology, citing that his own wife was ordered to “(break) off all contact with” her parents simply because they resigned from the Church (they did not criticize the Church and were actually the people who introduced her in the first place). Davis and the Church obviously deny this and state that it is always a personal choice by the member to engage in this behavior.

I’m personally elated that a more high-profile celebrity member of the Church has finally recognized the serious flaws in the Church of Scientology and actually took action to distance themselves from it. I remain hopeful that more celebrities will realize what they got themselves into and do the right thing by denouncing the Church even if it means risking friendships.

On the other hand, I feel bad for the majority of Scientologists who I believe, like Mr. Haggis, are actually good people for whom the beneficial teachings of Scientology have actually helped and who simply want to make the world a better place. I believe that Scientology, like any other religion (I am wary of classifying it as a “true” religion although for simplicity’s sake I refer to it as such here), at its core can really help people but is too often warped and twisted by “the organized” into a tool for control, fear-mongering and money-making and is too often misrepresented by the more “entertaining,” for lack of a better word, individuals in the group.

There’s no doubt in my mind that many Scientologists will unfairly come under fire for being like Mr. Davis, Mr. Hubbard or any of the other more extreme members of the religion. To those people who would subject them to this kind of treatment, I can only caution that you don’t want to become the type of people you accuse Scientologists of being.

I recall a family trip to Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey when a rather menacing looking man verbally threatened a park employee with physical harm because the employee observed his family attempting to cut in line. Never mind that nobody except yours truly at 11 years old bothered to even say anything about said attempt – nobody wanted to get involved when the man started hurling expletives and making threats that put Serena Williams’ U.S. Open outburst to shame.

The worst part was that when security arrived to deal with the situation, the man denied all wrongdoing and nobody said anything! I finally took it upon myself to speak up about what happened, and security escorted the man out of the park.

While some may choose to call me a squealer, I think I did the right thing by getting a prick like that out of the park, showing him that there actually were consequences to his behavior and showing the park employee that he could do the right thing by the other park patrons without having to fear that he would get physically assaulted by morons who don’t think that the rules apply to them.

Plus, I got to a pass for the whole family to jump to the head of the line for any one ride I chose (which helped a lot since it was an unbearably hot day and the line for one of the splash rides was incredibly long) so I was rewarded with more than just the satisfaction of having done the right thing.

On a more grave note, a 15-year-old California high school student was a recent victim of the bystander effect on Saturday when she was gang raped outside of her school while the annual homecoming dance was going on inside. Investigators stated that as many as 15 male individuals gathered to observe the crime without notifying the police or trying to help the victim, with some eventually participating in the act. The victim was left unconscious in critical condition under a bench.

Now, I don’t doubt the legitimacy of such a psychological phenomenon as the bystander effect, but I think it is only responsible to qualify that individuals have to have a certain mental or moral weakness in order to be swept up in such an effect. If your parents raised you to have a strong moral backbone, you would immediately recognize a rape for what it was no matter how many people were standing around gawking or even cheering, and you would know to do the right thing either by intervening or contacting the authorities.

Some people may try to claim that the individuals in question were possibly scared of what the perpetrator(s) would do, but that claim is rendered null and void by the simple fact that any of those individuals could have easily removed themselves from the scene and contacted the police to handle the situation – they did not need to physically rescue the victim in order to help the situation. Instead, these individuals chose to watch the proceedings like some sick voyeurs watching a twisted rape fetish porno.

One has to wonder how we as human beings have become so apathetic that we can just stand around when someone is in need of help right in front of us and justify to ourselves that we don’t need to intervene or help because “someone else will” even when we are in no real danger ourselves.

Thankfully, the victim is now in stable conditions thanks to the efforts of the Richmond police and the staff at the area hospital to which she was flown… and no thanks to the worthless, spineless individuals who decided that it wasn’t their responsibility to do what was right and stop the rapists.

Source: CNN

No, really?

I don’t have a business degree from a fancy school and I could have told them that.

The thing is… you don’t advertise on a show like Family Guy because its content compliments your brand identity unless you happen to be a supporter of Proposition 8 or MFX Media.

You advertise on the show because you want to get the word out to the ever-desirable 18-25 male demographic who loyally watches a 3-time Primetime Emmy Award-winning show that’s been hailed by The New York Times as having “an outrageously satirical family” with “plenty of comic possibilities and parodies” and described by The Associated Press by way of The Seattle Times as a “breathtakingly smart… blend of the ingenious with the raw.”

Apparently, someone in Microsoft’s marketing department didn’t do their research and actually watch an episode of the show to see first hand the type of deliciously crude humor that makes the show so popular. What’s more, nobody else in the company spoke up about the sponsorship being a bad business decision (probably because everyone realizes how smart a business decision it is to advertise on such a hit show) such that it took a viewing of the taping of the special to get the marketing department to pull the plug on the deal.

The problem is that this leaves Seth McFarlane and crew to figure out what to do about all the mentions of Window 7 that have already been integrated into the program. Microsoft didn’t decide to renege on their deal until after they had seen the essentially finished television product, and now Fuzzy Door Productions (McFarlane’s production company) and Fox have to clean up the mess.

This is a, for lack of a better term, dick move by Microsoft. I don’t criticize them because they don’t want to associate with Family Guy’s style of comedy. It’s not for everyone and it’s understandable that a major corporation like Microsoft may be wary of how such an association would be perceived by the more conservative members of our society. However, they should come to this realization before they signed the sponsorship deal or at least before McFarlane and friends went through the trouble of actually finishing the program.

Microsoft has to be thanking their lucky stars that most of the fans of the show probably haven’t heard about this development, although one has to wonder how hard it would be for those fans to figure out what happened when the special airs on November 8 with all those strange, out-of-place mentions for Windows 7.

Source: Reuters

The idea is that if the restaurants now look more “sit-down” than “drive-through,” they’ll make a better impression on diners, who view Chipotle, Cosi and the like as “better than fast food.”

The flaw in this strategy is the failure to realize that the reason the fast casual demographic eats at those restaurants is because the food there actually is “better than fast food,” even if only by a margin.

1,000+ calories aside, a chicken burrito from Chipotle is better for you calorie-for-calorie than a double cheeseburger or an original chicken sandwich. The key is in the ingredients – for example, the fresh, free range, hormone-free chicken that Chipotle uses and the artisan bread served at Panera – and not in the decor.

I love fast food a lot more than I should so these kinds of changes are going to make my personal dining experience more enjoyable and comfortable, but they’re certainly not going to attract the crowd simply looking for a healthier alternative to the Whopper and the Big Mac.

And therein lies the challenge for Burger King corporate. Franchisees are required to update their restaurants every so often, and the company is trying to position “20/20″ as the most attractive option, but it’s tough to justify to a small business owner trying to get by in this less-than-stellar economy that they should spend the $300,000 to $600,000 necessary to implement the upgrade when the potential for new business is so small.

The money Burger King invested coming up with this new design would have been better spent creating higher end menu items that better matched those of the companies they so desperately want to compete against. As those companies have proven, people are even willing to spend a little more to get a higher quality of food.

But “20/20?” Well, that’s just putting lipstick on a Whopper.

Source: Burger King revamp aims at higher-priced kin

I finally made the decision to order one after my curiosity got the better of me. I mean, how could you go wrong with hot dogs, peppers, onions, and potatoes smothered in gooey mozzarella cheese on a greasy slab of pure carbohydrates? Do me a favor and don’t answer that!

I have to admit I’m really glad that I did overcome whatever reservations I had because the pizza is incredibly delicious. My wife is not a fan of pizza (although she will eat a slice if you put it in front of her) but even she really likes this specialty pie, probably because it lacks the key ingredient to her pizza adversity – tomato sauce.

Of course, those of you who would catch on fire if you even considered consuming a slice without any pizza sauce in it can very easily just ask for some sauce on the side to apply as you wish. In fact, I tried just that to be able to compare which version I liked better and ultimately decided that I would rather have it the way Verona Pizza designed it.

I don’t really eat much pizza anymore since I’m trying to lose some weight (a goal whose futility I have yet to decide) but I’m positive that anytime I fall off that horse I will certainly be doing it with a delectable mash-up of hotdogs, potatoes and cheese in hand!

Chillin' with Aidan

It’s been quite hectic since Aidan was born. Between work, a personal project and running errands, I don’t often get to see Aidan. It’s not that he’s not awake – it’s that he’s usually hungry, cranky and fussy (and usually more than one of those at a time). It’s nice to just be able to hold him, talk to him, sing to him, and enjoy him while we’re both in the mood to appreciate it.

Curious... as always

Chivalry is dead.

Maybe that statement is a bit extreme, but it’s hard not to notice that chivalry is, at the very least, on its deathbed. Sure, you see men doing those things for women every so often, but think really hard and try to remember the last time you saw it with your own eyes.

It’s no more apparent to me that chivalry is on its last legs than when I’m on the mass transit systems in the New York City metropolitan area.

I take the PATH (Port Authority Trans-Hudson) train system to and from work every day. One of the basic rules of etiquette on any mass transit system is that people be chivalrous with regards to who gets to sit down during a trip.

It’s a given that if you see a disabled, elderly or pregnant woman board your subway car, you offer them your seat so long as you yourself are not disabled, elderly or pregnant (I take it a step further and include young children as well). It doesn’t even matter if you’re a man or a woman. This is just common sense and decency.

Unfortunately, I see pregnant women, elderly people and the obviously disabled (never mind that not all disabilities are visible) standing for minutes after boarding the train. I make it a habit to look up at all the entrances at each stop to see if there is anybody whose comfort is a priority. Most people don’t care and don’t want to be bothered.

This sad, pathetic behavior affected me and my wife personally over the course of the year.

I recently had a mishap involving my basement stairs that resulted in a rather nasty sprain of my left ankle and put me on crutches for a few weeks. During the short period of time in which I was commuting to the office (I ended up just working from home for a little while because the commute was too difficult), I was offered a seat on just one occasion. Most of the time, I just stood in the middle of a relatively crowded train, two crutches in one hand with all my weight on one leg, silently praying that the train would not lurch.

But I’m a guy and I can deal with it. What I can’t deal with is my wife being able to count on one hand the number of times she was offered a seat during the 6 months in which she was very obviously pregnant (she commuted up to the day before she delivered). She told me that the worse part was that there were always young, able men who saw her condition but just didn’t care to offer her a seat. She’s not the type to ask, so she just stood during almost all of her commutes. Actually, she didn’t mind standing at all, but the situation bothered me nonetheless just on the principle of the matter.

The worst behavior came one day about halfway through her pregnancy when we were commuting home together. At one stop, a woman seated nearby got up to exit the train and the young woman standing in front of the seat was kind enough to offer it to my wife. However, before my wife could make her way over, the lady – if you could call her that – standing next to the young woman nudged her aside to sit down.

When the first woman informed the second woman that my wife was pregnant and that she intended to give her the seat, the second woman said, “It’s okay because when I was pregnant, nobody gave me a seat so it’s karma.”

That’s an almost exact quote (it was several months ago so I can’t remember every last word). I was too shocked at first that my reply – that if she wanted to be a jerk she should just admit it instead of hiding behind the concept of karma, which she clearly didn’t understand – never left my mouth. I couldn’t believe that someone would compete with a pregnant woman for a seat on a crowded train and then try to justify it in such a ridiculous manner. If she really had that bad an experience, should she not have been more sympathetic to other pregnant women?

If I was still the brash, hot-tempered person I was in my younger days (I’m still hot-tempered but not as brash), I would have said and possibly done some things that I would later have not been proud of, but instead I just left the woman to her seat and talked aloud with the decent woman and my wife about the death of chivalry.