Now that it is official that the Yankees and Phillies will face in the 2009 World Series, it is my turn to predict who will win. Again, my opinion is just as valid as any other fan, so here we go.
Yankees win, the Yankees win!
I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. This postseason the Yankees have been a great team, pitching has been great, great hitting, and a strong bullpen. They swept a Twins team that came in on fire, surprisingly winning the Central. Then came the Angels, who put up a good fight and were quite balanced and held the Yanks at bay in two games. But, this Yankees team is a great team. They have 7 players with at least 20 home runs, a record shared with the 2000 Blue Jays, the only other team to ever accomplish this feat. An opponent can not just walk one Yankee in hope of facing a weaker batter, there isn't one on this year's team. They led the league in runs as well, 915 in total, and several other offensive categories. They were 4th in ERA, so they are strong on both ends and with Mariano Rivera closing, it is near impossible to come from behind in a game against them in the postseason. Then, you have to factor in the postseason play so far, A-Rod has snapped out of his typically poor postseason player and become the leader the Yankees and the crowd favorite.
The Phillies have also had a great season and postseason, they were first in their league in runs, and were near the top in several other categories, and were 6th in ERA. They won 10 fewer games in the regular season though. They kept many of the same players from last season's world champion team, but I just don't think they have enough to keep pace with this Yankees team. Brad Lidge was erratic in the regular season, but has done well this postseason, and they will have a few extra days off more than the Yankees and if they go with a 4 man pitching rotation, a slightly better pitching staff. But, the Yankees scored nearly a 100 more runs, and as stated before, they are have so many good hitters that even pitchers like Hamels, Lee, and Martinez starting won't be able to top this.
So I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. I say 6 games because we haven't had a World Series go past 5 games in several seasons, it is simply about time. Although the Yankees are better, the Phillies did just win last season and really beat up on the Dodgers in the NLDS, plus they have had more time to rest up, thus, it seems like the Phillies will win 2 games, they will put up a good fight. As for MVP, I am going with Mark Texeria. Of the 57 MVP awards (including shared honors), 26 have been pitchers, about %45, the last decade keeping with this trend. The reason I am going with Texeria is that this is a new Yankees team, alot of new names and faces and one of the biggest changes was bringing in Texeria, Sabathia, and Burnett. Thus far, Texeria has under preformed, but I expect big things from him in the World Series, second choice is A-Rod, he has been unbelievable this postseason and since CC just got the ALCS MVP, I doubt he would get WS MVP too.
Oh, and America you do realize if Philly repeats this will turn into another Boston situation. In so far as they won't shut up about about how great their city is and then the Flyers, 76ers, and Eagles will all win championships in their leagues. C'mon, we know it will happen. Philadelphia fans are almost as bad as Boston fans, at least Yankee fans are in a city that you want to live in.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
W.A.S.P. - "Babylon" a CD review
The new W.A.S.P. CD came out this week, October 12th in Europe and sometime later in the U.S. (hopefully). I was able to get a copy off the Internet. First off, the band has stayed in tact from the previous album, Blackie Lawless (as always) Doug Blair, Mike Duda, and Mike Dupke. The overall sound of the album is quite similar to the previous album, Dominator. The band is a metal band after all. And just like the previous album, there are 9 tracks.
The album starts off with 'Crazy', a song which has a catchy chorus, of "you'd have to be crazy to love me", the song is about idol worship. The second track is "live to die another day", another strong effort. Track three is "Babylon's burning", which takes on a discussion of religion. There is an interview out there where Blackie says that the album has a strong influence from the biblical visions of "The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse". The cover seems to depict the four horsemen, or maybe it is the band members? Well, back to the songs. Track 4 is a cover of Deep Purple's 'Burn'. W.A.S.P. has not done a cover on an album in a while, there is 'Saturday Night's alright for Fighting' off The Best of the Best, but that was 9 years ago, and before that it was 'Somebody to Love' in 1995. Blackie's unique voice always make his cover choices interesting and often diverse. Selecting a Deep Purple song was interesting as Blackie's voice is a bit different than David Coverdale's (yeah, the guy from Whitesnake was in Deep Purple, look it up!). Blackie's take was solid and Doug Blair did a pretty good job on Ritchie Blackmore's guitars. the 5th track, 'Into the Fire' starts off a little slower, but by no means a ballad, it has some "Heaven's Hung in Black" on it, but it turns into a classic WASP rocker pretty quick. Track 6, 'Thunder Red' is a faster track, warning of the impending doom of the 4 horsemen. I found it interesting that the band had a song with a similar name, "Thunderhead" that track deals with impending doom as well, but the 1989 track is focused on drug addiction. 'Seas of Fire" is another strong rocker, sonically like "Hate to Love Me" off Unholy Terror, of course after 25 years and 13 albums, some songs might sound a little similar to another. "Godless Run" almost starts off as the big ballad that W.A.S.P. incorporates onto most of the post 'Headless Children" albums, but it is not the ballad at all, instead it is sonically a big and technical song, another strong song. The final track is "Promised Land" a cover a of Chuck Berry song from 1964. The song seems to be the way to close the album, after 8 songs that deal with the end of the world, it is nice to hear a song with some type of hope. The song is fast and has Blackie singing in a quick and positive voice, something out of character for him since, well several albums ago. The song is fast and lively, the closest song I can think of is Rock n Roll to Death off Still Not Black Enough, kind of a throw back to the songs of the 50s and 60s.
So overall, I would give this album a 7. The shortcomings; a little on the short side (only 9 tracks and two covers, makes you wanting more), a little too similar to the last album (it is nice to have a stable lineup in the band, but there are times where the band sounded a little too much like their previous works) and no ballad, (would have been nice and it could have been incorporated). The positives; the complexity of the album, going after the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a tough one to handle and Blackie did his research (it is over my head, but I am sure that his interpretation is based upon he understanding of the bible), though he has made it clear that the album is not a concept album (containing one story line), and Blackie's voice and the band's musicianship is solid, sorry to my personal favorite Chris Holmes, but these guys can play really well. The songs are all strong too, I cannot even say which is my favorite, it is going to take several listens before I can decide, but that is standard for a WASP CD.
There are so many W.A.S.P. albums to chose from and sonically there is a wide range, that it is tough to call this the definitive W.A.S.P. album. That title would again go to "The Headless Children" or maybe "The Crimson Idol" or possibly their first album "W.A.S.P". But, this album is another great effort and will hopefully be warmly embraced by the fans. It sounds like a combination of "Dominator" and "Unholy Terror", so newer W.A.S.P. As for non-fans, forgot what you know about 1980s W.A.S.P., their lyrics are much more complex, the musicians are stronger, it is not about making an over the top show anymore, it is about making good music. And to the metal fans out there, if you want something loud and aggressive, but also smart and lyrics you can comprehend, go check this one out.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Poorly named sport franchises
There are many sport teams out there that simply have badly named teams. I am not saying all are bad, but some simply do not fit in, and some are just look like the owners spent 5 minutes selecting the name or selected a name that needs to be upgraded. And then there are teams that need to change because they are offensive, but I will save that for a separate post.
The NFL is pretty good, almost all of teams have solid names that relate to the city or area. Though there are far too many bird teams, I mean birds are just not cool, Eagles are ok, Falcons (never saw one in Georgia by the way) could upgrade, Ravens (kind of scary if you think about the poem), Cardinals (I bet there are a lot in Arizona's desert), but realistically the names are not that bad. The Browns could upgrade, but that will not happen. I mean the name of the team is a color, the fans dress up as dogs, so is brown the color of the dog and if so, just call the team the wolves or foxes or something other canine. But, seriously, the NFL has done a good job of making the teams have good names.
The NHL is next. Almost all of the teams in Canada could upgrade.
Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks: Montreal and Vancouver both need to change because the team names are lazy, it would be like if New York had a team called the "Americans", and Canuck is a slur that non-Canadians use, so really they are making fun of themselves.
Ottawa Senators: where to begin? Well, the logo is a picture of a Spartan warrior or Greek warrior. What does that have to with Ottawa, nothing. The term Senator is a term for a representative in a democratic government, what does this have to do with hockey and this warrior guy? Solution, change the team name to warriors.
Calgary Flames: Why would you make the team name after something that ruins the surface you play on? Fire melts ice, what a bad name. Plus Calgary is cold, though they have nice summers, but hockey is a winter sport. The team moved from Atlanta 35+ years ago, so maybe it is time for a change.
Anaheim Ducks: The duck is quite possibly the least scary bird, well except for the robin. Where are these ducks by the way? Is Anaheim the duck capital of California or something. I think the name is a result of Disney owning the team, but still this is bad name. Ducks are not tough, they are cute. And why are there so many hockey teams in California, I love the San Jose Sharks, but even I am like it is too warm for hockey.
San Jose Sharks - Hate to do this to my favorite hockey team, but San Jose is pretty landlocked. The bay is north of the city, but not very close. Oh, and there are not many sharks in the bay, so they could have done a much better job in selecting the mascot.
The NBA
Well, most of the issues in the NBA result of moving teams.
The Utah Jazz: There are so many great jazz musicians from the state of Utah, no, the team moved from New Orleans and never changed the name. This is a terrible name, there is no association between Jazz and Salt Lake City, maybe a jazz club or two, but really this is just laziness.
Los Angeles Lakers: Originally in Minnesota, the land of a ten thousand lakes, the name made sense. But there are no lakes in Los Angeles, well maybe there are some, but the city is not known for their lakes. Maybe the LA Smog?
New York Knicks: Still not sure what Knickerbocker is and it is still technically the official name. Just change it already, no knows what this word means.
Memphis Grizzlies: Again, team moved from Canada to Memphis. It worked in Canada, but Memphis is not known for their beers, maybe they change it to the kings for Elvis and Sacramento change their name to something better since everyone outside of California thinks of the kings as the hockey team in LA. Wow, that was two-for-one deal.
Miami Heat: We all know Miami is hot, it is 85 degrees 10 months of the year. Please don't remind everyone of that. This is laziness on the ownership, you named your team after a descriptive term for the weather, and not even a creative one like the Phoenix Suns,
MLB
Philadelphia Phillies - Problem here is the laziness of the owners, though I will be nice since they named the team 120 years ago, so they probably thought it was catchy. Basically it is the name of the city a second time, like the Cleveland Cleves, or the Portland Ports. It must have been a very quick meeting when they thought this name up.
Cincinnati Reds - Similar to the Browns in the NFL, this team is simply a color, an adjective. Teams need to have nouns, not adjectives, adjectives modify, in this case, modifying the city of Cincinnati. Again, the was founded 100+ years ago, so maybe this was the best they could work with.
Kansas City Royals - I have no idea what royalty has to do with Kansas City, I guess this like the Reds, they simply took a color and made it the team name. Or maybe the name is for royalty, I don't know and it is confusing. If it is for royalty, than this team is unAmerican because this country was founded to protest the ideas of royalty and monarchs.
Oakland Athletics - Again, an old team with an old name. The problem is that the A's is much more popular than the full name and the shorter A's, makes no sense. The team is a letter? And athletic is not better, obviously they are athletes.
So, basically we have several poorly named teams between the four major sports. There must be better choices out there, or at least more creative ones (Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks)
Well, that wraps it up for this entry.
The NFL is pretty good, almost all of teams have solid names that relate to the city or area. Though there are far too many bird teams, I mean birds are just not cool, Eagles are ok, Falcons (never saw one in Georgia by the way) could upgrade, Ravens (kind of scary if you think about the poem), Cardinals (I bet there are a lot in Arizona's desert), but realistically the names are not that bad. The Browns could upgrade, but that will not happen. I mean the name of the team is a color, the fans dress up as dogs, so is brown the color of the dog and if so, just call the team the wolves or foxes or something other canine. But, seriously, the NFL has done a good job of making the teams have good names.
The NHL is next. Almost all of the teams in Canada could upgrade.
Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks: Montreal and Vancouver both need to change because the team names are lazy, it would be like if New York had a team called the "Americans", and Canuck is a slur that non-Canadians use, so really they are making fun of themselves.
Ottawa Senators: where to begin? Well, the logo is a picture of a Spartan warrior or Greek warrior. What does that have to with Ottawa, nothing. The term Senator is a term for a representative in a democratic government, what does this have to do with hockey and this warrior guy? Solution, change the team name to warriors.
Calgary Flames: Why would you make the team name after something that ruins the surface you play on? Fire melts ice, what a bad name. Plus Calgary is cold, though they have nice summers, but hockey is a winter sport. The team moved from Atlanta 35+ years ago, so maybe it is time for a change.
Anaheim Ducks: The duck is quite possibly the least scary bird, well except for the robin. Where are these ducks by the way? Is Anaheim the duck capital of California or something. I think the name is a result of Disney owning the team, but still this is bad name. Ducks are not tough, they are cute. And why are there so many hockey teams in California, I love the San Jose Sharks, but even I am like it is too warm for hockey.
San Jose Sharks - Hate to do this to my favorite hockey team, but San Jose is pretty landlocked. The bay is north of the city, but not very close. Oh, and there are not many sharks in the bay, so they could have done a much better job in selecting the mascot.
The NBA
Well, most of the issues in the NBA result of moving teams.
The Utah Jazz: There are so many great jazz musicians from the state of Utah, no, the team moved from New Orleans and never changed the name. This is a terrible name, there is no association between Jazz and Salt Lake City, maybe a jazz club or two, but really this is just laziness.
Los Angeles Lakers: Originally in Minnesota, the land of a ten thousand lakes, the name made sense. But there are no lakes in Los Angeles, well maybe there are some, but the city is not known for their lakes. Maybe the LA Smog?
New York Knicks: Still not sure what Knickerbocker is and it is still technically the official name. Just change it already, no knows what this word means.
Memphis Grizzlies: Again, team moved from Canada to Memphis. It worked in Canada, but Memphis is not known for their beers, maybe they change it to the kings for Elvis and Sacramento change their name to something better since everyone outside of California thinks of the kings as the hockey team in LA. Wow, that was two-for-one deal.
Miami Heat: We all know Miami is hot, it is 85 degrees 10 months of the year. Please don't remind everyone of that. This is laziness on the ownership, you named your team after a descriptive term for the weather, and not even a creative one like the Phoenix Suns,
MLB
Philadelphia Phillies - Problem here is the laziness of the owners, though I will be nice since they named the team 120 years ago, so they probably thought it was catchy. Basically it is the name of the city a second time, like the Cleveland Cleves, or the Portland Ports. It must have been a very quick meeting when they thought this name up.
Cincinnati Reds - Similar to the Browns in the NFL, this team is simply a color, an adjective. Teams need to have nouns, not adjectives, adjectives modify, in this case, modifying the city of Cincinnati. Again, the was founded 100+ years ago, so maybe this was the best they could work with.
Kansas City Royals - I have no idea what royalty has to do with Kansas City, I guess this like the Reds, they simply took a color and made it the team name. Or maybe the name is for royalty, I don't know and it is confusing. If it is for royalty, than this team is unAmerican because this country was founded to protest the ideas of royalty and monarchs.
Oakland Athletics - Again, an old team with an old name. The problem is that the A's is much more popular than the full name and the shorter A's, makes no sense. The team is a letter? And athletic is not better, obviously they are athletes.
So, basically we have several poorly named teams between the four major sports. There must be better choices out there, or at least more creative ones (Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks)
Well, that wraps it up for this entry.
Oh, that Zeppelin Song...
Recently, it came to my attention and now focus, that Led Zeppelin has many songs that simply do not have the title of the song in the lyrics of the song. Here is a list out of their 8 studio albums (Led Zeppelin to In Through the Out Door)
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Pearl Jam's Backspacer: Quick, catchy, and still going strong
I got an advanced, actually leaked, copy of the new Pearl Jam album, Backspacer. After nearly 20 years in the business and millions of records sold, Pearl Jam continues to make music and good music at that. For many casual listeners. they know the songs from their debut, "Jeremy", "Black", "Alive", and "Evenflow", and after that they don't feel a need to find out the rest of the band's catalog. After their debut, they skyrocketed into fame and released 7 albums between 1993 and 2006. The latest, number 9 overall, is a strong effort. The album is short album, about 33 and a half minutes. This was the first surprise to me, usually they are clocking in around 50 minutes. The songs are short, with only 2 of them over 4 minutes. Now, some might find this as a positive and some see it as a negative. The positive is that they have a bunch of songs that are radio ready, no need to make an radio edit that cuts parts out. The negative is that some might feel ripped off to only get 33 minutes for a CD that costs $17. I at first was hesitant to this idea, but after listening to the whole album, I saw it is as a positive, there are no long drawn out guitar parts that sometimes hinder their albums and if you have gotten any of their live shows on CD, there are almost always one disc that features 8 songs that clock in at 65 minutes.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
NFL Divisions: What the ??
Yesterday I was looking at the divisions in the NFL (National Football League) and realized that there are several teams that are simply in divisions that simply do not make sense.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama's speech to students: What's the big deal?
Over the past few days I feel like I have been inundated with news stories about President's Obama's speech to students. The speech aired today, after the speech was made available last night. Since I am not in school, I didn't see it, but did catch some news bits afterwords. The main fear before the speech was made was that Obama was going to indoctrinate America's youth with liberal ideals and was making a direct appeal for change to a segment of the population that is more easily persuaded.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
