Forward Edge of Freedom

Gong Show II: The Sports Reporters

Note to SW's...End the pop culture similies. What are you, sportswriters, or stand-up comics? These guys spit out trite set up one liners that can be seen from a mile away. Some sportswriters do, in fact, do it seamlessly e.g. Bill Simmons (who, by the way, is exempt from my attacks. he is a great writer, stays away from annoying politics, and just lets his readers have fun), Others, unfortunately, have realized his success and try to incorporate their usual analysis of sports by saying something that is totally manufactured and usually a step or two behind the rest of us. It makes me as uncomfortable as when parents attempt to "get down verbally" (Always, no, never forget to check your references...hopefully you got the reference, people) with their kids. Painful. Imagine something like this on the Sports Reporters (Affectionately known as "Hell" to the FEF)

Lupica: Tiger Woods's drives are as inconsistent as J Lo's wedding plans

Gallery of horrible writers: Hahahahahahahaha

Bob Ryan: The NBA Coaches are like they are on the Apprentice. Which coach is getting "Fired?"

Gallery: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Nice work, guys. A word of advice, when your intern writes these down for you, do not wait 6 months before using them...

In other news:
Sales of Russian Roulette: the Home Version increase...

We do not need curmudgeon reporters trying to appeal to a younger demographic. Talk about how bad a player is, talk about the need for a trade, etc, but do not insult the audience by playing the hip grandpa.

Have Other Side of Sports Argument, Will Post

Sorry for the lay off. But now there is important things to discuss. It involves again the worst insurgents in the battle for America: The Sportswriters. Easy people, I have not moved to the Unabomber shack to continue my postings, nor will The Turner Diaries now become required readings for all FEF fans. I am just a little fed up with the sportswriters and their infusing of their personal beliefs on politics into everyday readings.

Let's remember the Muhammad Ali issue. He is heralded for speaking out against Vietnam. Obviously, everyone was against Vietnam, correct? Uh, no. Hard for Mike Lupica and Bob Ryan to believe, but many, as in well over half of America supported our soldiers overseas while this vocal minority were more interested in whining and doing drugs. Obviously, no one wants to fight in a war fought by Democrats, but that is for another column. In the Tiger Woods Sports Century, sportswriters tell us that he has not reached his potential because he is not raising political issues. So, if Tiger Woods talked of how important tax cuts are for economic growth, or how quotas based on race are keeping minorities down by lowering standards would the sportswriters be happy? I can really see Mike Lupica screaming, "Thank God, Tiger Woods is speaking for conservative America!" Let me hold my breath for that revelation.

The excuse is not what the cynical writers say either. Their excuse is that writers write for controversy. They argue that they just want something to write about. They do not pick sides. Right. Ask Vijay Singh about that. He spoke his mind and stood up against the insanity of women playing as a sideshow in tournaments, and he was crucified from the first time he paused. If they really wanted the debate to continue to write about it, would there not be a couple writers to defend him? At the least, the sportswriters would act like there was an opportunity to defend the other side of the argument?

The issue is these writers have no counterargument in their newsrooms. There is no conservative sportswriters. There is no one willing to put a halt to the advance of liberal agendas in sports. It looks like news 10-15 years ago (Pre Fox News). Watch a debate with Stephen A. Smith versus a hapless white reporter. By the end of the argument, Smith is screaming so loudly at the other guy for being a racist, the man looks beaten down and I am sure he has apologized for slavery, Jim Crow, Plessy v Ferguson, and has offered half his salary as reparations. I am not saying that everything SAS is wrong, nor do I side with the white debater regardless. The point is we cannot have real debate without an issue having both sides to it.

So this front on the FEF must not be surrendered. Since there is not a National Review or Washington Times for sports, and judging by the searches for honest reviews on these people, I will reinforce this issue here. Once again, thanks for visiting and I apologize for the layoff. In the words of the chief defender of freedom, I will charge those in their sportswriter perch: "Let freedom reign!"

Great Thoughts, from a liberal, no less

Great article from Christopher Hitchens (yes, a liberal from Vanity Fair, no this is not my roundabout way to get invited to the tawdry parties...)

This should silence the Moore supporters

Hitchens Michael Moore Article

This kind of liberal I can appreciate because he recognizes that freedom is superior compared to tyranny. Even if the freedom is from a conservative, it beats totalitarian states. Why other liberals are more worried about defeating Bush rather than defeating evil shows their true lack of conviction for their supposed causes.

Moore and Chernyenko: Sharing More Than the Same Waistlines

I saw Roger and Me. I saw Canadian Bacon. One sided, sure. Hatchet jobs? Of course. Now I am not going to sit here and debate whether you can consider his new movies are documentaries. Because they are not. Note: I am NOT linking those movies on this site. You want information, go and get it yourself. There is not reason to debate how these propaganda pieces of Michael Moore are filled with exaggerations and outright lies. These tactics were used in propaganda films for Nazis and the Soviet Union and other totalitarian states. People like Havel, Walesea, and others who had to fight for truth would be shocked that so many of the United States would not only tolerate false information, but how many people who consider themselves "progressive" would endorse this type of information flow. I am not going to spend hours lambasting Mr. Moore because frankly, I would rather discuss thinking opposition.

My question is this: A USA Today article said that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good movie putting aside the politics. Let's remember our past note on double standards (The Misspent One conquers this issue as well). What if the USA Today had a headline for Triumph of the Wills by Leni Riefenstahl? Or, how about DW Griffiths, A Birth of a Nation? Both films are seen as two of the strongest films ever made. Since TOTW is seen as a propaganda film for the Nazi's (that is debatable, while Moore's is clearly propaganda), and DW Griffith gave a positive view of the Klan, they were blacklisted forever. One can barely mention these movies in the Hollywood circles. Yet, Hollywood praises a movie that promotes falsehoods. If this movie praised Bush, would the praise still want to "ignore the politics?"

Many would hang their heads and say the Liberal elites seem to be well entrenched. I offer a counter theory that has history on my side. Remember the Soviet Union in the last decade. They seemed to be so strong as they propagated some absurd theories. The shooting of Flight 007. The fact that they would wait months to announce a leader would die. Chernobyl meltdowns. During all of this, our liberal media thought there was not way for the truth to penetrate into the Soviets thoughts. Furthermore, some would argue (like today) that our enemy's words were truth and ours should be questioned. A short decade later, on nation no longer exists. The liberals are filling their supporters with scare-tactics (Every time you vote Republican, a lynch mob hangs a black, Bush went to war for oil…) As the lies get more preposterous, the silent majority grows.

When 15 Minutes is Not Enough...

After the starbucks (Glen, Glen, Glen) commercial, I came across this about Survivor's lead singer…I cannot even speak it is so off the charts hilarious.

http://www.jimijamison.com/bio.html

Pay special consideration to this rousing endorsement…

Give Jimi the mic and he's in his element... he uses the talent that God gave him and can work a crowd better than a preacher at Sunday morning services. He'll have your grandmother onstage singing "Eye Of The Tiger" or he'll hold your toddler while he's doing "High On You". Audience participation is almost a requirement at a concert with Jimi.

Now the question is this: Who is the target market for this. Am I supposed to feel compelled to go to a Survivor concert. If I am a songwriter, do I want them to sing my songs? This is the tough part about being in the "State Fair Zone." These poor souls cannot fill real clubs or stadiums, yet they are too big to play weddings. So there career is stuck in the Internet hoping for comeback albums that will never come, and maybe playing a venue for nostalgic purposes. Post Great White, perhaps that is not the best answer. So in short, thank God for hip Starbucks commercials. This would be the Music industry's version of "Extra Time." In Pole Position, when you do not qualify for the next race, but you get to keep going an extra lap until your time runs out. You really did not advance, but you did not end right away. I guess that is like a 16th minute in the overused Warhol analogy. Make sure you get your initials right at the end...

With this mention of Warhol, I now realize that I might have someone who is googling Warhol and went to the 500th O.

A Quick Memory Jog

Sorry for the lay off, I was basking in the success of the poker column and noticed that my Sports hero, Bill Simmons, wrote many of the same points. Now most of my readers know that I would not read other people's columns and copy it, so I figure I do not need to discuss any thoughts of improprieties.

There are quite a lot of things to discuss on the FEF. With the execution of another American who was guilty of actually liking the middle east, I can only think how much both Mr. Berg and Mr. Johnson would have loved being anywhere on the butt pyramid…There are many people who seem to wonder where the Hunter S. Thompson types (I much prefer this wording to describing people in the plural i.e. the Sammy Sosas, the Don Rumsfelds etc. There is only ONE of them. Please do your part to stop this.)

Where do we even begin with these people who want to cry over Abu Ghraib, yet do not have any plan to stop the murder of our own people? Remember Ted Kennedy wanted to invade North Korea rather than Iraq. I am sure his administration would have done that. I said a few days after 9/11 that if Gore were President we would be having forums to figure out why the world hates us. Well, apparently we do not need President Gore for that. Even though Russia, France, and Germany were getting rich selling arms and receiving oil from Iraq, a Kerry presidency would somehow get them on board in Iraq. The way they would do this is through appeasement, and slashing the military, and perhaps some sort of "arms freeze."

The only reason I bring these up is because these are the things the liberals have done in the past to protect us. The idea that somehow these anti military people would become more supportive of the military and want to keep our resolve fails the laugh test . How would this be? 30 seconds after the liberation of Iraq, we were in a "Quagmire." In short, these people did not have the resolve to win Vietnam, to rescue the hostages in Iran, win the cold war, destroy warlord rule in Somalia, stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo, and prevent terrorist attacks against the US Air force and United States Navy. All they can do is criticize the entire effort in Iraq so much that it is hard to discern which quotes are from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and which ones are from Al Zarkawi and Osama Bin Laden.

Voting for the Democratic party in 2004 is surrendering the war on terror.

ESPN: the FEF is Cashing You Out!

In a shameless plug for ESPN's own world series of poker, today on ESPN.com, they summoned all their columnists to produce the tired debate (read "tired" as whipping a pile of glue, much less a dead horse) on whether Poker is a sport. Today on the FEF, much like the Zulu warriors deploying on multiple sides with their Impiis, I will try and destroy two of the most trite and annoying topics that inundate us when we sit down and try and watch a little sports analysis.

The First: Anything to do with poker. I admit it. Rounders was cool. I thought Matt Damon's character going against John Malkovich in an underground poker house was awesome. It had this edgy New York underworld not seen since Mean Streets and Taxi Driver. Also, you had cool character names like Teddy KGB, Worm, and Knish. We also got to learn about professional poker players like Johnny Chan. Before, when we thought of poker, we assumed 5 card draw or stud. But with Rounders, we learned of No Limit Texas Hold 'em. Poker was not for fat old dudes anymore. Needless to say, the networks, sensing an opportunity started broadcasting the World Series of Poker. First, The Discovery Channel had a couple documentaries on it. Then, the Travel Channel hopped on board. (Note to Travel Channel: You want ratings? Play Spring Break and Mardi Gras shows nonstop. That is the only reason people stop at your channel anyway. Is this actually getting into the posting? Whoops.) Then ESPN, in the television version of "Smear the Queer" (If Bravo can use Queer, well, so can I. Besides gay is the new black…) started broadcasting "The World Series of Poker." The funny part is they are all at different venues, prompting all of us to demand: would the real World Series of Poker please stand up? (The real slim shady may sit down I suppose at this point) Baseball does not have this problem. Also, these shows are on ALL THE TIME! How can I track who is the world series champion of poker? Tracking them by any man wearing gaudy bracelets I am afraid will not work. If that were the case Newark, New Jersey and Philadelphia, PA have an inordinate amount of Poker champions per capita…

The point is the show is tiring. There is no dominant player. It always seems like a new champ is some first year guy. Could it be that no one knows how to read him right away? Or maybe it is GAMBLING, so LUCK IS INVOLVED! The play-by-play does not help. Norman Chad spits out tired one liners that seem as manufactured as his hairpiece. (Yes, that was also a manufactured one liner, and yes, I do see the irony…shut up.)

Obviously, Rounders is a great movie, but not realistic. Let's face it. A bar wench working in an illegal poker game room would not look like Famke Janssen. Therefore, let's realize that Poker is a card game with a lot of luck involved. Therefore, the Cinderella story motif is a bit overplayed. Maybe we should have the World Series of Slot Machines, and we can marvel in how the blue haired women only seem to keep their championship for a limited time, like until the Prime Rib buffet opens…

If these games continue to be televised, I demand this: No hats or sunglasses! Isn't the whole point of being a good player is to control your reactions and expressions? To bluff your opponent? What is to stop some player from bringing a plywood wall and slipping his cards in and out of his makeshift battlement? Get some control of this, people.

With televised Poker effectively ended by my searing commentary, I will now stop the "sport not a sport" debate. This is a phenomenon that was cool to chat about with the boys over a few beers. When it surfaced with sportswriters talking about it, we had a great "Coooooooooool" moment (the moment where we were mesmerized by the fact that sportswriters are talking about the same pointless debates we engage in). Here is the unfortunate part: we stop, they do not…over and over they drive it into the ground. Thanks, Bob Ryan for letting me know your opinions on Bocce and lumberjack sports.

(Quick Dreamality on this. Remember Quarterback Princess when Helen Hunt is invited by the boyfriend -the guy who played Cougar- to play lumberjack games to show off how tough he was? I am laughing thinking about that scene…I digress)

While they make fun of shuffleboard and bowling, then they start rampaging into track and field and race car driving. Then we get the half wits like Mike Lupica trying to make uniform rules (I drive on the Tappan Zee, I don't consider that a sport…Or there is no contact in golf, that is not a sport) The rants become tiresome, and in case some of you reading do not have friends, no one sits around and debates these things anymore. In fact the main thing my friends sit around and talk about that is sports related is which sportswriter is the most idiotic and ignorant.

So, ESPN: do not go the way of MTV. You are a sports station. Play sports. The focus should be sports, not the people who cover them. You don't see newscasters trying to be more important than the story…Oh, wait a minute.

A Quick Rule and an Even Quicker Dreamality

Well with all this traffic, I wanted to say thanks to all those who stopped by an made a comment. I would respond to my points, but I think since I publish my points, that I will let people voice theirs. I am always annoyed by the blogs where the writer responds to every attack by clarifying and making points that were not in the original article. I will say that one of the latest comments was very well spoken and made some great points comparing RW to jazz. Makes sense, since I cannot stand Jazz. That is for another post in general. Right now, a brief dreamality:

Dragon's Lair. It was an arcade game where a cartoon went on and you had to make moves at certain times. If you were successful the scene of the character passing the challenge was shown, not successful and you were shown falling into a well, getting eaten by a dragon etc. I suppose when we were used to Bump 'n Jump and Moon Patrol, this cartoon game was better. Sorry for another fantasy and video game reference, but man, it has been in my head all day.

Do you have a race card? Go Fish...

Well, once again, thanks to all the visitors. It has been interesting to see all the traffic, and like George C. Scott talked about at the end of Patton. The conquering centurion parades through Rome while a slave whispers in his ear, "Glory is fleeting…" I would not say that was a great movie moment, but it qualifies for today I suppose.

With the passing of a columnist who once postulated that Barry Bonds being accused of steroids use was because of racism (Yeah, Ralph the expanding head has nothing to do with the suspicions. It is all about race…), and with the accolades being passed down to Ludacris by the mayor of Atlanta, I thought it might be time to chat about some race issues.

Some might wonder where the FEF stands on these issues. I can tell you, on freedom's forward edge it is pretty simple. Here is the theory that if implemented, all would be solved:

Pick a nation:
Are people being murdered, barred from entrance to public places, or not receiving equal due process because of their race, color or creed?

If yes, then there are race problems that need to be addressed. Germany, France, Russia, and just about every country in the Middle East and Africa I am looking at you...

In case you missed it, the United States is not on the list. We are cured of racism. I have declared it. Now I suppose sometimes someone can play the race card and get away with murder and other times some people might wait a bit longer at Denny's, but to say that we suffer from racism is like someone who sneezes is dying of cancer. In a word…hyperbole.

Any other issues…Suck it up. People call you names? What happened to sticks and stones? A quick playground point: remember when you hated a nickname people called you? Did it help to show how much it annoyed you? How did we forget that lesson after age 8?

Another important point: If you are going to complain about racism, then keep the playing field level. If someone says something that when implemented would violate the above rule, then that is a racist statement. After an apology, everyone should forgive and move on. Also, the statement should be judged without worrying about what political party or race the person making it is. Confused? (I doubt it, but let's pretend) Try this. This statement could have been made by someone like Rev. Jackson:

"Blacks deserve extra opportunities in the workplace. We must examine companies to ensure they have enough minority representation. We must also look first to working with minority owned ownership."

Hmmmm. Tough…someone like Rev Jackson cannot be racist can he? Let’s try this tool. Switch black and minority to white and majority…

"Whites deserve extra opportunities in the workplace. We must examine companies to ensure they have enough majority representation. We must also look first to working with white owned ownership."

Whoa, who broke out their copy of Mein Kampf? Quite a difference. But why? Because, many people don't want to be treated like equals. Some people want to be treated better because of their race. So, we continue with guilt trips and character assassinations, and every once in a while we change how to address certain races. These so called Civil Rights Activists might want to ask themselves what is their really left to accomplish? Isn't this exaggeration of outrage of fairly innocuous events turning public opinion against the cause? The answers to these questions are never answered because why would the CRA want to go the way of the buggy whip maker...

Stand Down? No, I'm Just Getting Warmed up!

All right, I have taken the high road, and offered my peace to a man who I criticized (I am avoiding the name, because of it, google has built a superhighway through my little website). Oh well, while I do not apologize for a moment on my criticism of his writings and I think my analysis of it is good, thanks to everyone who decided to leave comments without reading my posting fully. But once again, it is excellent to have people respond angrily about me attacking RW personally, which I did not, with personal attacks on myself. The FEF was not won by a popularity contest, however, so I will continue to write what I think is right. Thanks to all who have visited lately, and I hope you enjoy the site. What you will NOT see, however, is any sort of qualifying of my criticism of RW. I was insulted by his defending of the girl basketball player turning her back on the flag, and I was insulted at his seemingly intentional omission of positive comments on Cpl. Tillman.

That being said, let's put that to bed, and let’s get back to another movie moment and a Ronbo tribute. First some words from the great communicator:

Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order because day by day democracy is proving itself to be a not at all fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than thirty years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.

Evil Empire Speech to the House of Commons 1982

The movie moment of the day, sorry but we will detour from the 80's and hit one of the favorites in the FEF: Scent of a Woman.
Where to we just choose one scene to solidify a moment. Some would say Pacino's speech at the end…fun, but not the best. The best scene is the Thanksgiving dinner at the Slade family. LTC Slade (Pacino) spends the entire evening insulting the family, holding court as he tended to do the entire film, and them like a moment nephew Randy(Bradley Whitford) starts goading Pacino, and explains in a few moments the failures of Pacino's entire career and life. At first Pacino, chimes in with a HUAH! Until the final few biting words:

Randy: God's a funny guy.

LTC Slade: God doth have a sense of humor…

Randy: Maybe he thinks some people don't deserve to see

LTC Slade: (under his breath) hooo, ah!

My first commander was an Irishman who stated that every year he stayed in the Army, he felt more like LTC Slade every day. Especially in times when people forget about the sacrifice brave men make on the FEF, it definitely felt hard to associate with the regular world. When I would tell people I was in the Army, people's first question was, "When are you getting out?" The other question was "Why did you want to join the Army?" How exactly do you explain about duty and patriotism and looking for a place where integrity is still important. Especially when the order of business is lying and stealing in the oval office. Also the people asking were members of our infamous "Baby Boomers." Americas greatest freeloaders…

When people forget about what the Army instills, we veterans and active troopers get a little louder and louder and then you have…LTC Slade. That scene always reminds me that underneath all the bravado is a man who wanted to sacrifice all he could, and ,deep down, would appreciate some recognition for it.