Hear the Hurd

Oscarblogging - Paul Newman

It has been some time since I posted about the Oscars for reasons best left unsaid. Suffice to say they do not really mean as much to me now as they once did. I used to pay attention every year but not as much anymore. However, the history of them remains interesting to me and having gone down a rabbit hole thanks to The Ringer doing a podcast on The Color of Money, I happily dug in. Especially on my favorite actor Paul Newman. Infamously he would win this Oscar in 1986 for that film after 6 times not winning for (arguably) better roles/performances.

I must backtrack slightly and say that one of the things that fascinate me about the Oscars are the wins/losses, so many or lack thereof and how they went down year in and year out when looking back at them. It astounds me that Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar (and I've blogged on this in the past.) So too Richard Burton. Not one win in seven tries. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar with five nominations. Arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. Glenn Close has never won an Oscar after eight nominations (pushing O'Toole.) To me, the one that kills is Al Pacino. He'd been nominated 6 times without a win and then got both 7 and 8 in 1993. He would finally win, but for the wrong film. (Note, he now has a ninth nomination but still just the one acting Oscar.)

But this post is dedicated to Newman (so it will surely be 12 times better than any other post.) In total, Paul Newman was nominated nine times between 1959 and 2003 before his death in 2008. And perhaps outside of his role in Sweet Bird of Youth in 1962, he was almost always given a nod when deserved (well, more on that below.) As before, what I want to do here is look back at each of these "contests" and see if the outcome was deserved or not. If nothing else, it gives me a chance to look back at some amazing films and at the worst, allows me to judge both the Oscar voters and the times in which these votes were made. So, we begin at the beginning:

1959

• David Niven – Separate Tables as Major David Angus Pollock
  • Tony Curtis – The Defiant Ones as John "Joker" Jackson
  • Paul Newman – Cat on a Hot Tin Roof as Brick Pollitt
  • Sidney Poitier – The Defiant Ones as Noah Cullen
  • Spencer Tracy – The Old Man and the Sea as The Old Man

Firstly, I must say here that I have sadly never seen The Defiant Ones. To my shame. That said, I have to think that Curtis and Poitier cut into each other's votes here. Poitier would go on to win an Oscar (which we will cover below.) This was Tony Curtis' only nomination. Spencer Tracy was nearing the end of his terribly successful career and had already won twice (and never would win again...shades of Bette Davis.) And Niven? I have seen Separate Tables and while I love the actor, the work itself does not hold up terribly well. Prestige picture, sure. Maybe ahead of its time given the subject matter. But to compete with one of the great Tennessee Williams plays? This is a year in which Gigi won Best Picture and Elizabeth Taylor did not even win Best Actress for her role in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I have to say, right off the bat, this was a miss. Maybe it should not have been Newman compared to Curtis or Poitier, but the eventual winner seems weak.

I'll call this a +1 in his favor.

1962

• Maximilian Schell – Judgment at Nuremberg as Hans Rolfe
  • Charles Boyer – Fanny as César
  • Paul Newman – The Hustler as Eddie Felson
  • Spencer Tracy – Judgment at Nuremberg as Dan Haywood
  • Stuart Whitman – The Mark as Jim Fuller

We're still early on in my film watching career so I've never seen César or The Mark. Boyer is a great actor and also never won an Oscar but this was his fourth nomination (most notably to me for Gaslight in 1944.) Whitman is most definitely a "that guy" and this would be his only nomination. So this contest comes down to the two films. As always, one must look at two actors nominated from the same film so it is impressive that Schell pulled out the win. But again, Tracy is nominated and having already won 2, maybe did not get the votes he might otherwise deserve. To me, this is one of Newman's iconic roles (which would later give him his actual Oscar) but I have to admit if I am looking at this objectively, I would probably give my vote to Tracy. So another fail. I think Schell is great, but Tracy is better. And so is Newman.

I'll call this a +0 because it would not have necessarily gone to Newman if Schell doesn't win.

1964

• Sidney Poitier – Lilies of the Field as Homer Smith
  • Albert Finney – Tom Jones as Tom Jones
  • Richard Harris – This Sporting Life as Frank Machin
  • Rex Harrison – Cleopatra as Julius Caesar
  • Paul Newman – Hud as Hud Bannon

I really cannot fault this year. Five great actors in five great films. While some might push for Finney here, I think this was a two man contest and the best man/performance won. Don't get me wrong, Newman is amazing in Hud (as is the great Patricia Neal who would win Best Actress for her performance) but Poitier cements himself as a power in both race and talent and I would not change this result in any way.

Call it another +0 because the right man won.

1968

• Rod Steiger – In the Heat of the Night as Police Chief Bill Gillespie
  • Warren Beatty – Bonnie and Clyde as Clyde Barrow
  • Dustin Hoffman – The Graduate as Benjamin Braddock
  • Paul Newman – Cool Hand Luke as Lucas "Cool Hand Luke" Jackson
  • Spencer Tracy (posthumous nomination) – Guess Who's Coming to Dinner as Matt Drayton

To me, this year is the oddest contest. I love Hoffman and he deserves his nomination, but he is the least deserving of these five great actors. And Beatty is amazing even if he is not one of my overall favorites. The oddest thing is that Poitier was NOT nominated and Steiger was (much less won the thing.) It was, obviously, a year in which race relations were widely considered and rightly so. Thus, Tracy certainly deserved his rightly given nomination even if he had died by this time. If both Steiger and Poitier had been nominated, I can see a split vote. But that only Steiger got the nod, I guess he eeks out the win.

All of this is backdrop to me to one of the greatest Newman performances of all time! It is his greatest performance and his most iconic role in a career of many. It's my 2nd favorite performance of his career (again, more below) and that it was even a contest is shocking to me. I suppose we can assume "timeliness" and all of that, but it doesn't make it right. This should have been Paul's all day long.

I give this a +4 in Newman's favor because he was better than any of the others to my mind.

1982

• Henry Fonda – On Golden Pond as Norman Thayer Jr.
  • Warren Beatty – Reds as John Silas "Jack" Reed
  • Burt Lancaster – Atlantic City as Lou Pascal
  • Dudley Moore – Arthur as Arthur Bach
  • Paul Newman – Absence of Malice as Michael Gallagher

I can't argue with these results in any way. It says something that Newman went over a decade without a nomination (and again...more below) but these are some amazing performances and Fonda absolutely deserved this nod and win! Here's another that had a long career without the recognition he likely deserved. I'm not a huge fan of Reds but Beatty deserved this and Lancaster is great in his film. More than anything, I love Arthur and Moore. It is one of my favorite films of all time and I'm just happy he got the nod for his performance. Newman too deserves his nod this year, but the right man won. Easy and hands down.

Definitely a +0 for Newman here.

1983

• Ben Kingsley – Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi
  • Dustin Hoffman – Tootsie as Michael Dorsey/Dorothy Michaels
  • Jack Lemmon – Missing as Edmund Horman
  • Paul Newman – The Verdict as Frank Galvin
  • Peter O'Toole – My Favorite Year as Alan Swann

Just damn! One of the toughest contests of Newman's career. These are five iconic performances from five amazing actors. I'm sad to say, as much as I love these actors, Lemmon and O'Toole are also rans here. They are great, but the real winner should have been Hoffman for Tootsie. Newman is awesome in The Verdict, but Hoffman goes all out. Did they cancel each other out? Hard to say. And Kingsley? I cannot fault his win here because it is an amazing performance in an amazing film.

Honestly I would rank them Hoffman, Kingsley, Newman, O'Toole and then Lemmon. And I'll watch any film of theirs at any time. All five I consider my favorite actors!

Got to call this a +0 for Newman. He wasn't going to win.

1987

• Paul Newman – The Color of Money as "Fast Eddie" Felson
  • Dexter Gordon – Round Midnight as Dale Turner
  • Bob Hoskins – Mona Lisa as George
  • William Hurt – Children of a Lesser God as James Leeds
  • James Woods – Salvador as Richard Boyle

It has been suggested over the years that this was a gimme Oscar. I think that is wrong. Paul finally gets his recognition by the Academy. Rightfully so. These are all great performances (most especially to me by Dexter Gordon, but he was an enlightened choice by the nominating committee...he wasn't going to win.) The interesting thing this year was William Hurt. At the time, he was in the midst if a five year run of amazing performances with all accolades given and deservedly so. He'd just won the Oscar the previous year for Kiss of the Spider Woman and would be nominated again the next year for Broadcast News. That, to me, is the only thing that suggests it might be a gimme Oscar for Newman. Marlee Matlin would win for Best Actress (which I might have given to Sissy Spacek for Crimes of the Heart or Sigourney Weaver for Aliens...but so be it) and it was clear this was a well considered film. But Newman had never won.

Like John Wayne for True Grit or Pacino in Scent of a Woman, it is understandable that Newman would get this ultimate nod finally. In my mind, he deserved it more than either of those two for their winning roles. And he joins a small group of people nominated twice for the same role (again, Pacino in The Godfather.) It is an amazing film (and the reason I'm blogging about it today) but as I look back at his career, it does look a bit as a gimme. By my count, he should have already won once, if not twice (and he did not even compete in some other instances...once more...see below.) I'll take the win.

No need to give a plus or minus here because he won.

1995

• Tom Hanks – Forrest Gump as Forrest Gump
  • Morgan Freeman – The Shawshank Redemption as Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding
  • Nigel Hawthorne – The Madness of King George as King George III of the United Kingdom
  • Paul Newman – Nobody's Fool as Donald "Sully" Sullivan
  • John Travolta – Pulp Fiction as Vincent Vega

OK. This is one of the most egregious years ever. Look, I love Tom Hanks and I enjoy Forrest Gump, but please! Hawthorne was amazing, no question about it. And Travolta? He was lucky to get this nod as much as I enjoy that film. This is a two man race and neither man won. We are talking about two of my favorite films and two of my favorite performances. It's hard for me to say which I might have voted for at the time should I have a vote, but I nudge towards Newman. Freeman should have won, in my mind, but I would have been happy (and rooted for) Newman to pick up a 2nd. I guess they felt he already had one now and Freeman would have to wait (as he would eventually win for Million Dollar Baby.)

What to give this one? Hmm. I guess a +1 because he should have had a shot.

2003

• Chris Cooper – Adaptation as John Laroche
  • Ed Harris – The Hours as Richard "Richie" Brown
  • Paul Newman – Road to Perdition as John Rooney
  • John C. Reilly – Chicago as Amos Hart
  • Christopher Walken – Catch Me If You Can as Frank Abagnale Sr.

I've no problem with this, especially because this was a Supporting Actor nomination. Prior to this, Newman was always nominated for Best Actor. This last was just the Academy being the Academy. Long time famous actor that does something interesting? Sure...why not. Look at Meryl Streep (and don't get me wrong, I love her!) I think the only competition here was between Cooper and Walken. The right man won.

Call it another +0.

So...what to make of all of this?

Nothing really since Paul finally got his Oscar. But I keep saying more later and here's where we get into that. Two years after Newman was nominated for Cool Hand Luke, he was NOT nominated for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It's only my favorite film of his and not only was he not nominated, neither was Redford. Instead, here was that year's roster:

• John Wayne – True Grit as Rooster Cogburn
  • Richard Burton – Anne of the Thousand Days as King Henry VIII of England
  • Dustin Hoffman – Midnight Cowboy as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo
  • Peter O'Toole – Goodbye, Mr. Chips as Arthur Chipping
  • Jon Voight – Midnight Cowboy as Joe Buck

Do you see the miss here? Burton, Hoffman, and Voight definitely deserved their nominations. I love O'Toole, so...OK. Wayne! And he won. How is Newman not nominated here??

+2 here because Hoffman and Voight likely deserved this and Burton was still on his losing streak.

Now how about 1973...

That year the Best Actor race was:

• Jack Lemmon – Save the Tiger as Harry Stoner
  • Marlon Brando – Last Tango in Paris as Paul
  • Jack Nicholson – The Last Detail as Billy "Badass" Buddusky
  • Al Pacino – Serpico as Frank Serpico
  • Robert Redford – The Sting as Johnny Hooker

I've no problem with the winner here or any of these nominations except that Newman is better than Redford in The Sting (AND the film itself won Best Picture.) As much as I love Brando, Newman should have had that slot and we'd still see the same winner. After all, Lemmon is one of the greats and this is one of his greats (and his second Oscar after Mr. Roberts.) Brando already had 2 after On the Waterfront and The Godfather, Nicholson had 1 from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (on his way to 3 with Terms of Endearment and As Good As it Gets) and Pacino was still on his losing streak. Redford has never won an acting Oscar (this was his only nomination) so he would wait to win for Ordinary People in 1980 as Director (and even there...Raging Bull anyone?)

So the way I see it, Paul Newman should have 3 competitive Oscars (and at least 2 more nominations.) I'll take the win for The Color of Money and add a win for Cool Hand Luke and Nobody's Fool (and possibly a 4th for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.) Honestly, he should have been nominated and then won for Butch Cassidy. He certainly deserved them and this is, of course, an exercise in what if. It wasn't. After all, and again, Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Burton never won an Oscar. O'Toole never won one. At least Paul got his the one time.

Feel free to offer your own opinions about such as I welcome them and if there is another you are interested in me looking at (as if you couldn't) please let know. But I went down a rabbit hole this morning and this is what I came up with. A whole slew of Hollywood history, films, actors and actresses and I find all of that interesting even if the Oscars mean nothing. So there is that. And...that is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 8

Yesterday was a good day, all told. Both of my local teams won and it's not too often that happens here. The Braves win was awesome, but for these purposes we're talking the Dawgs and yes...another resounding victory for what is clearly the best team in the country. I could do without some penalties and I'm still not sold on Stetson Bennett, but he played a great game and indeed he can use his legs.

For the rest of college football, things did not go so well. We'll get to that below so let's go ahead and list my latest scientific and oh so accurate top 10 list:

1. Georgia (7-0)
2. Oklahoma (7-0)
3. Michigan (6-0)
4. Cincinnati (6-0)
5. Oklahoma State (6-0)
6. Michigan State (7-0)
7. Alabama (6-1)
8. Penn State (5-1)
9. Oregon (5-1)
10. Ohio State (5-1)

I've already said my words on the Georgia victory and no team can really lay claim to the top spot right now other than them. Oklahoma is looking better week by week and may have found the QB to keep their offense going (still a question, but the talent is there) and Michigan didn't play. Loathe as I am to give Harbaugh any love, the Wolverines remain undefeated (for now) and so why shouldn't they be here? I'm not letting Cincy get any higher than 4th here because of their conference and schedule, so keep winning and enjoy a shot at my hypothetical playoff.

As for the rest, I allowed OK State to jump Michigan State because a comeback victory over Texas (now 4-2) means more than a near run thing against what was supposed to be a good Indiana team (now 2-4). This should be a byline, but Bama remains Bama (except for that loss to A&M.) That said, and on that score...what to make of the Florida loss to LSU? Are the Gators just talented enough to lose a close game, or does Bama have enough flaws that a just talented enough team can take them to the wire? Again...see the A&M game.

After that, we get into the other one loss teams. Once more apologies to your other unbeatens. Wake Forest (6-0) gets at shot at Army (4-2) this next week. SMU (6-0) is playing Tulane (1-5). And sure, Coastal Carolina (6-0) is at App State (4-2). But I don't see any of these teams being competitive with those I am placing in this top 10 list. So we begin ranking the one loss programs and I still say Penn State has some legs. They were off this week and still don't get a real test until later in the season but I'll keep them here. And while I think Ohio State is the better team, they still lost to Oregon. This ranking has to be this way.

I am still (and always) looking at who might crack this list and that includes Baylor (6-1) that took BYU (5-2) down another notch. It includes Ole Miss (5-1) that snuck out (and nearly got clobbered by golf balls and who knows what else) a win at Tennessee (4-3)...a team I think that is much improved even if their fans may not be. It still includes Kentucky (now 6-1) because they were not embarrassed and should not be dinged too much for losing to the top team in the country. I'm looking at a 5-1 Pitt all the sudden that plays Clemson (4-2) this next week. And Iowa (now 6-1)...wow! OK. My eyes are still there, and Purdue (4-2) can upset every now and then, but you just went from almost ran to why were we talking about you? Plus...Notre Dame is still sneaking around at 5-1. Their schedule doesn't look as good as it might at the start of the season, but their only loss is the highly ranked Cincy and they beat a ranked Wisconsin, a Purdue that just beat #2 Iowa and still have USC, UNC and Stanford on their list. Never underestimate the Playoff Committee's love for the Fighting Irish.

Overall, I think this is a solid top 10 given what we have seen thus far this year. Your networks are trying to tell you that Cincinnati is #2. They are wrong. They are also trying to say that your usual suspects will be back when Oklahoma, Ohio State and Bama get back into the picture. They are not so wrong there. One thing is clear...we won't be seeing Clemson in the playoffs but I'm not so sure these other usual suspects will be either. The Big 10 still has their late date round robin tourney and OK/OK State is still out there. For the SEC, Georgia pretty much punched their ticket to the championship game this week barring a complete collapse and as I see it, the only team able to topple Alabama in the West is Auburn (now 5-2) if they could win the Iron Bowl.

There is a lot more football to be played and I'll be there for it all (should you care whatsoever about my opinion my awesome two and a half readers!) Stay tuned and as always...that is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 7

So THAT was an eventful Saturday, wasn't it? 3 of my top 10 went down, not least of which was #1 Bama to Texas A&M. Dammit! I did not want my Dawgs ranked 1st, but now I have no choice. I don't mind saying, I had my doubts about Georgia early on against Auburn, but it turned out fine after a 34-10 victory. I will say that I continue to have little trust in Stetson Bennett as QB for a potential National Championship team, but I'll give him credit. He can run and I was more impressed with his arm after this last game. Here is some food for thought...in many of the years in which Bama ran the table and won or played for championships, the QB didn't really matter because there were so many other talents on the team. Just plug and play because everything around will elevate. I suppose that could be the case here, but I don't like taking that chance. Anyway, we've had some shake up and so here is my latest top 10:

1. Georgia (6-0)
2. Iowa (6-0)
3. Oklahoma (6-0)
4. Cincinnati (5-0)
5. Michigan (6-0)
6. Michigan State (6-0)
7. Oklahoma State (5-0)
8. Kentucky (6-0)
9. Alabama (5-1)
10. Penn State (5-1)

There can be little doubt that Georgia should be ranked number 1 at this moment. No team this year has looked as total as this Dawgs team and while the offense remains a little doubtful at moments, the defense remains all world. More to that, only Bama and Iowa have as many victories against ranked opponents with three for each. The Clemson victory looks less now, but they were highly ranked when we played and there is a chance for a fourth when Georgia plays Kentucky this next weekend.

As for Iowa, and while it was close, a victory against a top 10 team counts every time and so they naturally get the second spot. I must say that I am skeptical of this #3 ranking for Oklahoma, but that come back against Texas was rather epic and so I'll leave them high. And for Cincy...let's just say that I am being kind. For Michigan, this is likely too high given that they nearly lost to Nebraska, but for now I'll place them here knowing there are later dates with Ohio State, Michigan State and Penn State. With the Spartans ranked next, the sorting will work itself out as the season progresses.

OK State did not play this Saturday and so missed out on upset watch. They can breath easy for now until they visit Texas (4-2) this next Saturday and Kentucky is flying high after their victory at LSU (3-3). As I understand, this is the first time they have been 6-0 since the 1940's. Good for them but I think this ends on the 16th. As for the last two spots? Well, here's my thinking...

You are going to see Alabama still in the top 5 in most polls, most especially the AP and Coaches that come out today. Is that fair? Has their #1 ranking been due to their many long years of dominance or what they have done thus far this year? That said, if Bama played Iowa, Oklahoma or Cincinnati tomorrow who do you think would win? My ranking of 9 is probably too low for them because they remain with a plethora of talent and are still likely the second best team in the country. But they did lose yesterday. To a Texas A&M (4-2) team that lost pretty decisively against Arkansas (4-2)...that just lost to Ole Miss (4-1) in a shoot out...after the Rebels were destroyed by Bama the previous week. Welcome to the SEC where we eat our own week in and week out. It is a grind and other conferences should be so lucky to have so much talent.

The only other one that can lay claim to a top spot is the Big 10. Thus I will not ding Penn State too much for losing, and closely, to the aforementioned Iowa on Saturday. As stated, their round robin will start a bit later because there are still only four or five teams that could challenge and they are nearly all in the East side of that conference. Look, Ohio State (4-1) looked awesome yesterday. They likely deserve to be in this ranking. But they lost to Oregon (4-1) already and if I'm going to rank them, I have to rank Oregon before THE Ohio State (is there some question about which Ohio State team is which, by the way?) Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State will all face each other before everything is said and done. That will be telling and given that all are (or should be) highly ranked, it bodes well for the Big 10 getting into the playoffs.

As for your other unbeaten teams, there are five. Here I will list them...SMU (6-0) in the AAC, Wake Forest (6-0) in the ACC, UTSA (6-0) in Conference USA, San Diego State (5-0) in the Mountain West and Coastal Carolina (6-0) in the Sun Belt. I'll just ask this question...Arkansas has now lost to both Georgia and Ole Miss. and if they were to play any of these unbeaten teams, who do you think would win? OK, you say, maybe Arkansas wasn't as billed. How about Tennessee, now 4-2 as well? Florida (4-2)? Mississippi State (3-2)? SMU still has to play Cincinnati and Wake Forest has not even played either North Carolina schools much less Clemson. Sorry, but those unbeaten records will not last. As for the others...look, if you're a fan then I'm happy for you. As they say in the South, bless your heart.

So another week down and more separation between the contenders and the pretenders. This next weekend will see more. GA/Kentucky, OK State/Texas and one I think should be looked at BYU/Baylor. Both are 5-1 now. Outside of Michigan State at Indiana (2-3), it appears the rest of the big boys in the Big 10 are taking the week off. We're about halfway through for most teams and this season continues to provide what we all love about college football. I have no doubt that we'll see some more of that excitement and I will try to rank accordingly. That is all.

The Many Saints of Newark

Those two and a half readers of mine may recall that I was a huge fan of the HBO show The Sopranos. To me, it is the greatest show ever put to television (and yes, Breaking Bad is 1b.) You can drill back and find my reviews of the last seasons and certainly my most read and commented upon post here was my reaction to the series finale. Now, here we are many years after that finale and have a prequel film written by David Chase. What follows is a (sort-of) cross post from the place I spent most of time during those years - the great Sopranos forum The Chase Lounge (where I remain a moderator and admin.) If some of it sounds too familiar to the reader, that is why.

[Note - At the end of this post, I will add some spoilery so beware when you get to that point!]

So now, the review...

Short answer, I enjoyed it. Longer answer below.

I will state that I am of mixed emotions about it, to be sure. You will note that I did not say that I loved it above. I did not. Nor did I hate it. I think it was true to the spirit of the original show yet any one episode (outside of the few we might all agree were subpar) would have been (and was) more enjoyable, deeper in themes and ideas and simply better acted all the way round. All that said, it was nice to have (some of) the gang back. And do not get me wrong. There are some stand out performances in this movie. I think the main one would be Vera Farmigna as Livia Soprano. She does an excellent job trying to match the tone of Nancy Marchand without moving into parody. Body language and intent are all there and even allows some pathos seeing how Livia would become what we would see as the show began. Alessandro Nivolo is also a stand out as Dickie Moltisanti. There are some differences in what we see of him in this film from what we were told about him on the show, but it was highly interesting to follow his footsteps and entertaining (despite some of his actions) to actually see a character we never saw on the show itself. Finally, one must single out Michael Gandolfini as the younger teenage Tony. Obviously he resembles his father in both looks and actions so he fits perfectly in as the younger Tony. As well, I cannot imagine any one of us does not have somewhat of a bittersweet emotion seeing him inhabit this role.

The other younger versions of themselves were less successful, by and large. All of the actors did their best to find the motions and even in some cases the voice of the characters we grew to know and (sometimes) love on the show but at moments they do verge on parody or perhaps a well done SNL skit. The actor that plays the younger Silvio has his mannerisms and vocal tics down to the smallest thing (and it was humorous to show when and how he began wearing a wig) but at moments it takes you out of the piece. So too the younger Paulie and possibly even the younger Pussy. I could say the same thing about Corey Stoll as the younger Junior but at times he really does offer some excellent moments. You do get a brief shot of the young Carmela, the young Artie Bucco and even a blink and you'll miss it bit of Jackie Aprile. There is no sign of Ralphie Cifaretto or Tony B. And speaking of that, I did not think that Joanne Blundetto Moltisanti would have been old enough to be a peer to Livia but they do portray it that way here so a little bit of continuity blown there but not enough to kill anything.

I should also single out Ray Liotta playing a duel role here as the twin elder Moltisanti brothers. Firstly it is about time he enjoyed the entire rest of the cast of Goodfellas in finally joining the Sopranos universe and second I think he acquits himself well here even if his chops might not be as sharp as they once were. Lastly, I think that Leslie Odom, Jr. is excellent in his time as at first a soldier to Dickie and then later a rival. That said, Chase still does not know quite what to do with race in the world of the mafia. It's not poorly done, but not enough space was perhaps given here to fully flesh out what he attempted. Perhaps if this was stretched out to a full season rather than nearly two hour film.

Now on to the meat of the film:

This was billed as "how Tony got his start" but by now you surely know that it is really no such thing. The film belongs to the character of Dickie Moltisanti. It follows his rise and inevitable fall (no spoiler there) and only shows Tony's reaction to it from time to time, first as a small child and then later as a teen. I honestly do not have a problem with that except for the mislabeled pitch. As stated, Nivolo is excellent as Dickie and Chase takes him through his paces as he at first deals with his father, then his rivals and lastly with his girlfriend (and sometimes all of them together.) In the show, we were led to believe that Dickie was a junkie just like Christopher would later turn out to be, but this is not portrayed here. Now that could just be another lie Tony would later tell Christopher or it could be a missed opportunity for Chase to remember all of the things he put out there back in the show. However, what IS shown is just as troublesome. I will not spoil any of that in this thread, but if you thought Tony had some terrible traits, you will see a lot of that as well with his "uncle Dickie." Can we say that Tony learned such from him? I doubt it since Tony is rarely around when Dickie is doing these things (unlike when he sees Johnny Boy chop off Satriales finger or get arrested at the circus...which is somewhat recreated here.) But maybe he later heard the stories. Who can say?

And speaking of Johnny Boy, he's really not in the film that much which was a bit disappointing. I grew to love the actor that played Johnny in the flashbacks on the show and while this actor is good, he just isn't given much to do other than fill the beats of things we've already heard about him (yes, we do get a scene of when he shot through Livia's hair bun.) In many respects, what Chase has floated here is that it was Dickie as much if not more that was the natural father figure to Tony which both fits somewhat what we know of Tony's troubled relationship with his father but also contradicts the same at the same time. The real truth is that Dickie was fleshed out so little as a remembered character on the show, Chase had plenty of a blank slate to work with whereas he had only limited room with Johnny and Livia. Again, maybe not a missed opportunity but not enough time to truly explore these complex relationships as it relates to Tony and then later to Christopher.

And here is where my real beef comes into it...the framing device used. It is Christopher that narrates during the film. From beyond the grave. Knowing nothing about his father outside of what lies he's been told. Now true...who knows what we find out in the afterlife? And sure, it is surely tempting to try and tie this film to at least once actual actor that was in the original show. But it is the least workable aspect of the film. I just don't buy it. AND that it comes and goes, it's not even used particularly well. Sure, if Gandolfini were still alive, I can see the use of this narrative device. But Chase no longer has that luxury and should not have tried to shoehorn another into that role.

I'll say that Alan Taylor's direction is to his usual excellent ability and the music, as always is used well. Perhaps too much at times, but well. There remains no doubt that Chase still belongs to the Scorsese school of using rock music and liberally for his mafia stories. Locations were often quite nostalgic and I'm sure some would say too much as easter eggs throughout but I found them welcoming. I was a little confused about the house the Sopranos live in when Tony is a teen because I thought that would be the one used at the start of the show, but things could have changed between the 70s and 90s.

Overall, I really enjoyed this extra glimpse into the universe so many of us spent hours and hours considering many years ago. It brought back many memories and I'm sure I'll have more to say as I re-watch and/or read what others have to say. If you want to read some of the more spoilery things, you can go to The Chase Lounge, but I will say this here on my own platform...

 

AND YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...

 

It turns out is was Junior that called the hit on Dickie! I would have never guessed that even if it fits his personality in every way. So good on ye there, Chase. An inspired choice, especially since he puts out a hit on his own nephew many years later (a failed one, but "cunnilingus and psychiatry brought us to this!") 

So for this review, these are my two boxes of ziti. A good movie, but not great. Certainly worth my watch. That is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 6

At this date in the season, there are clearly two great teams and then everyone else. This is not a hot take or a controversial opinion. Coming into this weekend, Bama and Georgia had games which could have been a test and if so, they both aced it. Georgia beat their second top 10 ranked team this season and while Ole Miss wasn't ranked in the top 10, they easily could have been and after last year, Saban definitely said that would not happen again. Neither game appeared to be a contest. Arkansas and Ole Miss are both good teams. Neither looked it yesterday because of who they played. So there is a definitive top 2. And then the rest...

1. Alabama (5-0)
2. Georgia (5-0)
3. Penn State (5-0)
4. Oklahoma (5-0)
5. Iowa (5-0)
6. Cincinnati (4-0)
7. Michigan (5-0)
8. Oklahoma State (5-0)
9. BYU (5-0)
10. Michigan State (5-0)

While I might jump Georgia over Alabama due to personal bias, I won't at the moment. I maintain...Bama will be ranked ahead of the Dawgs until Kirby finally beats his mentor (and it will happen...eventually.) As for the rest, I have been high on Penn State all season and remain there. For them, next week will be a real test and we'll see who is who when they face Iowa. Oklahoma won at Kansas State and while it wasn't a blow out, the Sooners remain the Sooners. They face Texas next weekend. No matter where Sark has the Longhorns, it's still Oklahoma vs. Texas.

A small word (and I do mean small) about Cincy...their victory over Notre Dame yesterday vindicates somewhat their lofty ranking. That said...who else have they beat? Who else will they beat that helps their strength of schedule? I do not really think Cincinnati is the top 6 team in the country. But they are ranked high in the national polls and will likely be (if they keep winning) in the playoff poll when it comes out in November. So for now they will remain in this spot.

As for the last four, it is a crapshoot. I dropped Ohio State from the top 10 because I had to drop Oregon out after their loss to Stanford yesterday. Head to head matters and while, in the long term, I think Ohio State is the better team it remains - Oregon beat Ohio State. So let us then bring in some new blood. All four of these last teams have looked good so far this season but even after a month, the season is still early. And at this point, being unbeaten matters as well. That said, you're probably not happy with me if you're a fan of Kentucky (now 5-0 after beating Florida) or SMU (beat USF 41-17 yesterday and remain undefeated so far) or Wake Forest (no...I really don't have anything for here) or whomever else you like. I will stand by this ranking. At the moment. And then watch the rest of the season play out and rank accordingly. I will bet right now...these top 2 will continue to be the top 2 all the way to the SEC Championship Game. And when that is over and one of them has lost? They will still be the top 2. No one else looks close. That is all.

AL's 2021 College Football Top 10 Rankings, Week 5

So not much changed this weekend, right? Except Clemson and Texas A&M lost. That actually changed quite a bit. Clemson is pretty much out of the playoff picture at this point, even if they win the ACC. And Arkansas is ascendant. For now. So while not much has changed in my top 10, there remains a good deal of movement and still subject to change. Therefor my all kinds of scientific and well informed rankings become:

1. Alabama (4-0)
2. Georgia (4-0)
3. Penn State (4-0)
4. Oregon (4-0)
5. Oklahoma (4-0)
6. Arkansas (4-0)
7. Iowa (4-0)
8. Ohio State (3-1)
9. Florida (3-1)
10. Cincinnati (3-0)

I'm not changing Bama and the Dawgs place even if one looks a bit better than the other at the moment (I'll leave it to you to figure which one I might pick.) Nor will I change the rest of the top 5. For now. I'll give you a few of the games coming up this coming weekend:

- Ole Miss at Alabama

- Arkansas at Georgia

- Oregon at Stanford

- Oklahoma at Kansas State

All four games will be a tell. I'm not too interested in Penn State vs Indiana. Unless they lose. But the other four will or could swing things. Ole Miss and Arkansas look good right now. On offense and defense respectfully. If either of the top two teams lose, things will most definitely change. And if Oregon or Oklahoma look a bit less again, I am tempted to drop them down. And if they lose? That will really change things!

I give a lot of credit to the Hogs for beating two ranked teams already so they get the 6th spot and was not terribly impressed with Iowa this past weekend. For that we'll have to wait another week when they face off with Penn State. And the last three? Ohio State remains Ohio State. I've bumped up Florida for some nice work (late but against a bad team this past weekend...so there is that) and Cincy had the week off. The latter face Notre Dame this weekend as well, so I guess that should be another to watch.

I am looking at the Irish, but they always seem to impress before they fall apart these last years. Both Michigan teams are looking strong. For now. BYU continues to show strength, but not yet ready to be in this top 10. And again, if Ole Miss wins this weekend, they will definitely be in this list. Good luck, Kiffen.

So much like last week, I see 2 great teams and then a whole lot of others. This weekend will tell if the top two are real or not (I think we all know that they are.) And it will be yet another reckoning for the rest of those wanting that spot. Here's to another great Saturday for football! That is all.

AL's New and Improved College Football Top 10

Since I am trying to revive this long dismissed but still slightly surviving blog (and thank you to my two and a half readers), I figure it's time to go back to a well that has always worked. What's that you ask? Indeed, my college football rankings. In the past, I used to do a top 25. As much as I like that format, it can get cumbersome trying to follow all of that and truthfully there just aren't that many teams year in and year out that deserve such attention. So instead let's just focus on those at the top. Thus, I will give you my top 10 throughout the season and now, after week 3, we have enough information to give an informed opinion. All that said, let us get to the rankings:

1. Alabama (3-0)
2. Georgia (3-0)
3. Penn State (3-0)
4. Oregon (3-0)
5. Oklahoma (3-0)
6. Iowa (3-0)
7. Texas A&M (3-0)
8. Clemson (2-1)
9. Ohio State (2-1)
10. Cincinnati (3-0)

Honestly, outside of the top two, I'm not sold on any of these teams. And even there, Florida took Bama to the wire. Many have the the Gators in their top 10 and I don't blame them. Still, it's Alabama and until they lose there is no reason to question too much. Of course, I am a Georgia homer (Go Dawgs!) but their defense looks all world and the best in the nation. The less said about Kirby's choice to place Bennet in there the better. As stated on social media yesterday, there is no quarterback controversy at Georgia despite ESPN's decided attempt to make it so, but there is still plenty to prove on the offense. As for three, I place Penn State here because of two impressive victories against Wisconsin and Auburn, both ranked when they played. Ohio State may have a contender to deal with later in the season.

As for the rest, again I am not sold. Oregon played the Little Sisters of the Poor yesterday...oh, sorry...Stoney Brook. They won. And still have the Ohio State win on the record. That's big. Oklahoma won vs. Nebraska but it was not a going away victory. Still, it's Oklahoma. Iowa has the impressive win against Iowa State and Texas A&M will be tested next week when they face Arkansas (which I was tempted to place here after their win against Texas last week.) Both Clemson and Ohio State rank here because...well, they are still Clemson and Ohio State. Sure, they have a loss. But if I rank Georgia and Oregon so high, I have to give them some credit for not being embarrassed (although Oregon really did put a number on THE Ohio State University.) And Cincinnati? They are undefeated so far and the national folks still like them. I'll give them that. That said, do I think they would beat Florida, Notre Dame, UCLA (who I really wanted to place here until they lost to Fresno State) or North Carolina? How about against Arkansas right now? Even BYU? No. No I don't. But I saw with my own eyes a very near run thing against my Dawgs last year so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the time. As the weeks go by, we will continue to consider if they deserve such a lofty place.

The meat of the schedule is starting to come into place finally, so we can start to weed out those that are pretenders and those that are real contenders. As the season moves on (as I've done in the past) I will revise this list until we get to the playoff portion of the whole thing. Fall is upon is, folks. I think my favorite time of the year. So look forward to my terribly misinformed and biased look at those college football teams that have a chance to fight for the National Championship. As always, feel free to argue, agree, disagree or boo and hiss in the comments or on social media. I can take it. After all, I'm placing my opinion out there. Why not you? That is all.

20 Years and We Have Learned Absolutely Nothing

I was sitting in a hospital bed twenty years ago when I saw the second plane fly into the WTC and then watched in horror as the events of that day continued to unfold. People literally jumping to their deaths rather than die by fire. They had no choice that they would die. That was already made up for them. And the passengers of Flight 93 that chose their most certain death to be sure another horrific image like in Washington and NYC did not occur. Nearly 3,000 people died that day and countless more after as a result of actions taken to combat radical Islamic terrorism, and yet here we are as if none of it ever happened. Conspiracies remain by those that need them and those same people that harbored the terrorists, supported them in various ways and cheered them on remain all over the Middle East, most especially in Afghanistan.

Here at home, we're back to the fights that were ongoing for years in the lead up to that day. Abortion? You bet. That always plays. Congressional spending that just gets higher and higher every single year? We're just fighting over the right way to get it done. It doesn't matter what the national debt is anymore. No one gives a shit apparently. And for all those people that thought George W. Bush was BushChimpHitler and thought Trump was sucking off Putin every night while establishing a dictatorship seem to have little issue whatsoever with "I've got a phone and a pen" and "Governors just need to get out of the way." After all, when their guy is grabbing power and control it's all just perfectly fine so stop whining!

The real truth is, we have no principle anymore as a nation. No actual guiding light in which we can at least agree upon as citizens when we look at ourselves as opposed to the rest of the world. At our founding as a country, we were the most liberal country in the world...a classical liberal idea...a powerful message contained within it that a free peoples could govern themselves because our rights were ordained by God and not government. And yet, little by little, we have allowed government, tiny cut by tiny cut, take those rights back...away. That is how freedom dies. The old saw about the frog in the pot of boiling water is not quite true, but it remains an old saw for a reason. It has happened elsewhere and people noticed it. George Orwell noticed it. Vaclav Havel noticed it. And those of you with a brain are noticing it now.

The War on Terror began on September 11, 2001. Our first response? Develop an entirely new and additional government administration. Somehow this was to assist in sharing of information between the CIA, FBI and Defense Department. Notoriously unable to work with one another...because why would they? They don't think they work for us. They think they work for themselves and power is the ultimate desire, if not aphrodisiac. So how's that Homeland Security Department going? Do you enjoy having to take your shoes off every time you get on a plane? Because it's possible that a little old lady might have a bomb in their orthopedics.But no...we're going to get serious about this now after years of looking the other way.

So then we invade Afghanistan, which I supported. We followed that with the invasion of Iraq, which I also supported. There were different reasons for my support and I'll briefly outline them here: Afghanistan had been harboring terrorists and given them safe haven. We took that away from them. Iraq was an unfinished conflict, frankly. Bush pere should have finished the job in the 90's but instead left a dictator in power so he could pay off suicide bombers in Israel. He boasted about it. So Bush fils finished the job. And yet again...what happened? State can't agree with Defense which can't agree with National Security which can't agree with Homeland Security and we end up in a nation building exercise doomed to fail. That's at least four agencies that are supposed to work for us, but instead work for themselves. Yet again.

I'm not a military planner, but I am a student of history. We had won both of these conflicts as far as our limited military goals were concerned. But we had to throw on yet another level (which was poorly understood and defined) and ended up staying for years longer than needed. And then when we tried to get out when the numbskulls finally realized this, they did it...both times..ass backwards! Abandoning Iraq (because it was supposedly the bad war) under Obama led to the rise of ISIS and destabilized an already unstable Middle East. Abandoning Afghanistan will lead to a similar situation because we've seen this play before. We saw it in the 80's and 90's. We've seen it since and will continue to see it because these people that we have willingly elected to office to work for us only work for themselves.

From Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump to the ghost of Biden that we see trotted out from time to time when his meds are working, we are treated to worthless politicians that only care about power. Gaining power, keeping power, using that power to better their own lots but not ours. And yet...they still work for us!!! That is, if it remains important to anyone, if the Constitution still holds any sway. And on that, I am having my doubts. Executive actions by the Presidency have been out of bounds and overused for far too long. And Congress seems to have no desire to take back that power they rightfully hold unless they are in the opposition party to the President. And the Supreme Court just wants to be liked.

So here we are, twenty years later, and nothing has really changed. The Taliban are ruling in Afghanistan. Strongmen continue to rule in the Middle East from Turkey to Iran and all parts in between. We're over here arguing the same old talking points about abortion, race, and guns while seeming to look the other way as the federal government takes on more and more power for themselves at the expense of states and individual citizens. The debt keeps rising. The bureaucracy continues to grow. And if anyone remembers 9/11 now, it's just this sad state of history. Someday those memorials and statues will come down too, I guess. It's disgusting.

For me, I pray for all of those families that still grieve their fallen loved ones either on that day and since that day. I pray for this country. And I pray that at least some of you do actually care about things like federalism and the Constitution, personal rights and freedom, the country itself and what we've stood for all these years since our founding and for a future that is not preordained. We still run this country...if we are willing. Are we? Think about that next time your hard built business is looted. When you get fired for not putting something into your body that you find undesirable. Or when some snotty pseudo-intellectual tries to shout you down when you just want to share your well earned opinion. Most of all...think about that the next time you have the opportunity to vote.

That is all.

Bug Out...or Shame in D Minor

I could have alternately titled this post from the Lou Reed song Last Great American Whale...

"Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear..."

It is interesting to me that when someone is "woke" or thinking they are "in the right" they can just spew whatever venom they feel or wish to infect upon another, because they feel so justified. Except...the facts don't always align. It has been said...facts are tricky things. I believe that was John Adams. He that might be spinning in his grave right now, regardless of his worth as a President. We can be certain that we've seen no one of his ilk in any of our lifetimes, as President or any other.

And so we continue on as if this is all just normal. Two parties. Each hate one another. We get involved at whatever level and somehow...just believe what they say. Smart people! People I know with great intelligence! And yet the chance to throw something on social media is overwhelming, I suppose, and so we get something like this:

It should come as no surprise that this post and my words have to do with the situation in Afghanistan at the moment. My pedantic self wants to fix the punctuation. There are quotes that someone has enjoined to the meme, but they don't quite fit. Did Trump himself say that Biden couldn't stop the process? Maybe he did. I certainly wouldn't put it past the man. Donald Trump is the most shameless President of my lifetime and would say whatever and whenever anything that came into his brain at any given moment, regardless of the veracity. And yet...again...he is wrong. As is the person that put this graphic together.

I'd also say, I beg a question because it suggests 21 years. We've only been there 20. But whatever. It's the internet. Things get muddled, right?

Here's the thing (for those of you smarty pants that like to use that phrase)...Fox "News" isn't the only one blaming Biden. The world is. The Afghan people are. Allies of the United States are looking and wondering who or what is in power given this circumstance. A horrible circumstance. The Taliban is looking and seeing a perfect opening for whatever it is that they wish to do, regardless of whatever posturing they are doing right this minute. China is certainly seeing an opening, especially given their words to Taiwan in the wake of this. Russia? Sure, why not? Iran? You bet.

You know who else is blaming Biden? CNN. MSNBC. Obama's former Sec Def Leon Panetta. Biden's own top Generals and Intelligence Agencies (and more about them later.) And why? Because he fucked up. Royally. I won't get into the whys and hows of his former ill advised theories on geopolitics, but Sec Def Gates suggested he was wrong on nearly every situation of the sort over his lifetime and an apocryphal tale is that even Obama suggested that one should "never underestimate Biden's ability to fuck things up."  This would have been when he was Vice President. I'll leave it to you to decide if that was true or not.

The fact remains that there is only one truth in the above meme. Trump did indeed start the latest push to end the "War in Afghanistan." I use quotes only because it is a murky thing. Let the reader consider what is a war. WWII ended in 1945. We still have U.S. troops in Germany and Japan. Korea is indeed an armistice and factually that war is still ongoing. Since 1953. It's not a hot war, regardless of what North Korea might wish from time to time (and they don't...they just like to rattle the sabers.) Yet our troops remain. Under Obama, we were to get our troops out of Iraq and he did attempt. Which led to the rise of ISIS. A contingency seen by all with actual eyes and when it flared up, they were defeated. And so we remain with soldiers left in Iraq and Syria (as well as many other places within the Middle East.)

So what exactly was the impetus for the current President to get out of Afghanistan? Let us also remember that this was the "right" war as opposed to Iraq (which Biden voted for as Senator, by the way.) Was it to end an endless war in a far off land in which we had no stake and had spent countless lives and money? Or was it to score a political point...somehow? I put it to you that it was the latter. An ill advised attempt to score something that was not readily available (if one actually gave a shit about the actual geopolitical environment of the world.)

The fact is, we went into Afghanistan after 9/11 to scour the country and root out the terrorists that had been given safe haven and carried out that atrocity. We also desired to keep that from being a safe haven going forward. Now I will be honest (intellectually and otherwise) and say that many of the perpetrators came out of Saudi Arabia and we needs must continue to keep them honest, but they are at least willing to work with the western world. Sneaky about it, true. But they at least attempt to play as world actors. The Taliban does not give a shit about legitimacy. They don't care. Strong horse, weak horse. We've heard that for at least 20 years.

I don't want to relitigate the last 20 years, but some things must be made certain. We rooted out the terrorists. We "got" Bin Ladin (which Biden opposed, supposedly.) We made it so that the Taliban has fought to a stalemate with the Afghan forces propped up by the NATO alliance (and yes...it's not just the U.S.) There has not been an American casualty in country for over 17 months. The situation was stable, if not ideal. So the only reason to "bug out" was and is political. Trump made the promise because he ran on it. Ill advised, perhaps, but at the least he made it conditional. Biden did not make that promise but went so far as to make the bug out date 9/11! Really and truly? Let's just give them another fucking win??

And so let us look back at the meme above...so Biden had no choice?? The Iranian deal Obama made and then dumped by Trump. Biden had no problem trying to get back into that. The Paris Climate Accord that Trump got out of? Biden had no issue going back into that. The World Health Organization that excused everything that China did in the lead up to Covid? Trump was not a fan. Biden apparently is. There is chapter and verse of things that the previous President did that were wiped out on day one (so important!!) upon Biden getting into office and yet...he is beholden to a semi-peace deal with the Taliban? The fucking Taliban? Trump should have never met with them in the first place (anymore than anyone should with North Korea) but now...this is a thing that is set in stone and we "just can't get out of it!"

It would be laughable if it were not so serious.

The truth is, we are living with decisions made under four different Presidents and four different administrations, all of which have failed us poorly. Every single one of them are paid by our tax dollars and work FOR us. Choices made since 2001 that are coming back to haunt and choices not made are really coming back to haunt! The truth is that Afghanistan has become a political matter and so we deal with it as such. No need to really solve it. The American public won't remember. Just keep it as a ball to tumble for the next election. Except this one isn't. Not this time. No one gives a shit about Benghazi...why would they? What does it matter at this point, right Hillary? Maybe they don't, but the numbers of families that have fought and lost loved ones fighting in country for these last 20 years do. Those of us (and yes...I supported it) that thought we did the right thing in 2001 are left with an incompetent military infrastructure and more importantly intelligence forces...are left woefully disappointed.

And more? A President that wants to blame everything on someone else. Trump. He didn't say it but implied...Obama too. Why not throw Bush on the brush fire? Certainly the Afghan people and their armed forces, right? Pretty much everyone but himself...and the Taliban. But no...let's just put it on Trump. That's the meme, right? That's the one that plays. That'll get the votes. And people will forget. That's all that matters.

It's a Republic...if we can keep it. Can we? I'm having my doubts.

That is all.

The Past

I’ve had occasion of late to think about the past. To be sure, the past of high school. It honestly could be any past, but for me I think about those years when I was 12 or 13 to when I was 17 or 18. Some, both or all in between...I was not particularly a fan of school. I was shy, and so thus not able to make friends well, and as I’ve realized now over the years, I’m fairly anti-social to start with. I did not realize that at the time. I could not explain to you why that is the case (sadly, I need a better therapist) but as I’ve looked at it recently, I cannot let go of a certain emotion.

There are many people that don’t like school. Certainly high school. You have your groups, or at least I did, and I didn’t fit...always fit...never fit. I was discussing briefly to another recently about “The Breakfast Club” which is a fine movie...I love the movie...but it was not indicative of my high school career as much as I recognized it and it fit my generation. We did indeed have the dweebs...the nerds...the jocks...the stoners...but I got something when I moved into high school that I had never had before. A found a family. A family of friends that, in many ways, remain my friends today. Not everyone gets that so I guess I was lucky. I came up in the late 80’s. Maybe things were different before, but I found a group of people that have influenced my life then, in the many years since then, and continue to do so today. Honestly, I have a number of groups throughout my life that have done that. High school...college...post school and since. I’ve been on a number of dating apps over the years and a question is often asked or prompted… “The thing about me is...”

The thing about me is that I will be a true friend if you are in return. Nothing against my family, and I love them, but THE thing that has sustained me throughout my life has been the deep and certain relationships I have developed in every step of that way. I have my family, but I also have...my FAMILY. That is all of the various people that have colored my life since I was barely able to keep my short pants up because I was so damn skinny and so skin pasty as to be compared to Caspar the Ghost. An outsider, as I thought of myself, and yet...so many good people have moved in and out of my life. I didn’t think of myself as part of a group, not after I got to high school. Just one of many. Many that were trying to figure it out. And...we had each other.

I won’t go chapter and verse of the many, but they are there and they know who they are should they read this. Into college, I had more. After that...even more. The thing is, I have tried in my life to surround myself with good people. Honest people. Real people. I’m a singular person and so I am drawn to those likewise inclined. People that wish and desire to be more than just themselves. People that want to be...for others. That’s what I had. What I got. What made me want to be now. A good man that cares. A good man that values family. A good man that values FAMILY.

One could get deep into the modern political environment, so I won’t, but there is no doubt that we suffer from an era in which people don’t want to hear what they don’t want to hear. All the time. Listen to your networks, read your websites...find your echo chamber. That is not what helped me grow from a young man to middle aged, and it likely won’t help anyone else. What helped me, and maybe yourself, is to find a group of people and just...belong. Just accept. Just enjoy. Trust is always important. Loyalty too. But the biggest to me is...just listen. That is acceptance, because you WANT to hear what another is saying. Because you seem to like them, but what are they saying? Hear them. I’m not great at it, to be sure. I’ve spent a good portion of my life trying to be heard. Yet step back...open your mind...and just listen. It doesn’t always work because so many others want to be heard as well, but when you just open your mind...try to enjoy and appreciate...make yourself available...you might find a Family too.

I cannot deny that I hated high school in many ways. I hated my life. I was a teenager. Is it not always thus? My friends that know Latin could find an appropriate phrase for that because it has been around forever. I was angst ridden (hello, rock and roll!), unsure about myself and about relationships and unsure about my future (such as I thought about it.) Yet I was very lucky to find myself involved with a group of people (and not everyone is) that made those difficult years so much better for me and I hope I did the same for them. I’ve made life long friends from that era and beyond. I found people that were accepting (perhaps a life amongst the arts) and so it taught me to be the same. I found a lot of people that don’t really care about their past. They do...but they have moved beyond it. Because they found. They discovered. They learned. They...dare I say...accepted. What else can a human being do?

I’ve always been a fan of Thoreau. Not all of his philosophy, to be sure, but simply just being able to see what is around you and appreciate it. To try to do so. Go to nature. See what (in my mind) God presents. For me it was always hikes. Camping. Nature. And yet we see that day in and day out with those we encounter...and it is still there. The natural human being, with all of the warts...all of the petty problems. And the good ones remain. The good remains. Nature remains, pristine as it should be and our own awareness of nature, red in tooth and claw as it can be. Find the good ones. As I have, as I have tried to do and as I have found. In “The Tempest” Shakespeare suggests that “the past is prologue.” It is, and it isn’t. It is a foundational building block of our lives. History matters. Some Christian theology suggests that it is preordained...God has a plan. I believe that both work in tandem. We’re given free will to make of the gifts we’ve been given and then pass that forward to another. And then another. And then another! That passing on can be harsh, no doubt, but it can also be a saving grace. A grace by God and in the end it is how we interpret that.

I really don’t have a message here other than to say...one cannot dwell on the past too much. It is the future given our promise, and the willingness to accept and appreciate what came before to inform it. I can tell you plainly that I would not be the man I was...the man I am...without that influence. My family...and my Family...all of those that inspired me. Taught me. Colored me. And remain to do so now (I have lost a few along the way but they remain as an influence, to be certain!) Social media can be what it is, but I am so thankful that I have those people still in my life in some way. Close personal hugs are always better but just a note...a picture of a life ongoing...an idea that they are doing well. Just to keep in touch, certainly, but also to see their journey. Our journey. A journey.

I am touched by my recent experiences and find it fascinating that some cannot let go of the past and some don’t even care. Both, I think, are wrong. Yet who am I to judge? Because whomever you are, you are touched by your past. As you will be by your future. One informs the other if you are willing to pay attention. And no matter how bad things might have been, that does not have to be your lot in life. Life is promise, should you accept it. Enjoy the little things. Every single one matters! Ghosts will always haunt, but a foundation is built to last. It is a choice, no doubt, but what kind of house would you prefer to live in? One of bitterness born of the past and the slights and cuts offered by those that did not care or even those perceived that did not exist (who does not have those?) or one of a solid foundation built one by one from good friends over many years that provide at least some few memories and experiences gained that helped form what we might be today?

I, for one, choose the latter. (And thank you to all of those that made my formative years happy. It wasn’t easy...but you did so. It certainly informed my thoughts today!) That is all.

2020 In Review

Back in the days when I was in high school and especially college, some of you may know that I studied theatre. And most especially in college, I began the art of the review. Even in plays that I was in, or was part of, I could be unsparing (it was usually a class project and thank you to Dr. John Countryman at Berry College for making that the case for every production we did.) With that disclaimer made of my background and perhaps bona fides, I will say that this production of 2020 was pretty much shit...with some few highlights. Harsh, I know, especially with some very promising actors involved but a production team that has found their work wanting in many past works.

To set the scene, the work begins after a very involved Christmas of 2019 and our actor is moving into his new year ready to turn 47. He spends more money that he truly has to make it the "best Christmas ever", and I quote purposefully because that can be questioned as it is never shared what other highlights may have been missed from years of Christmas past (note Dickens, Mr. Playwright. Make it count!) He is moving off a multi-year run of successful writing and the times seem high before he (and many others) is hit by one catastrophe after another. This reviewer applauds the allegory of Job within the work, but it begins to become a tad too heavy handed after an early death and then a plague. More deaths occur, an oddly timed farce is introduced in the middle of the play, and then ends with...you guessed it. More death. One dare suggests that Hamlet is a sunny, happy picture compared to this vision.

And yet, this reviewer must single out some few performers from this work. There is the wife that loses her husband early in the play. Leaving two youngish daughters without a father, it is a heart-wrenching moment that promises perhaps a brighter future in the manner in which they respond to their grief. Our main actor is certainly part of this, being the brother of the wife, but then we get the plague. This, again to this reviewer, seems hard upon hard and perhaps too much to begin such a production unless it becomes a positive affair. This work does not do this. There is also the mother that loses her child, and not due to this supposed plague. A masterful actress does her best to elevate the work, but the subject matter is perhaps too heavy-handed by this point. And then there is the son that loses his father near the end. A terribly sad scene with two great actors that bring out the pathos, but now we are far past any sort of uplifting. How the audience has sat for this as long as they have (which this reviewer was forced to so it may be reviewed) is rather amazing.

And then there is the farce in between! While this writer is certainly a fan of Moliere, this is no drawing room, comedy of errors type of play. Shakespeare has already been mentioned, but even he did not put Othello or Macbeth through these paces! The great Brian Friel could put his characters through their harsh beats, but this? This is sprawling, across the world, political figures involved...and indeed, a plague! One might applaud the author for being audacious in their vision, but there is only so much grief, destruction and dirt pounding hopelessness that one can take when watching an over two hour production comprising just one year in the lives of these characters. It is too much. Worse, it is not terribly hard to follow because the writer beats you over the head with all of the hardship and destruction. While the aforementioned performances (and some others) elevate the piece due to their excellent acting, it is not enough to save what insane consideration this playwright meant when he sat down to put this play to page.

Given what they had to work with, one does applaud the lighting and scene shop for the excellent set and scene. It is definitely done well to create that slice of life setting, and the sound design is truly exemplary. One would be hard pressed to put sounds to this nearly terrible work, but it is done well. Outside of the actors, only this last joins to truly elevate the work beyond pure trash. Even there, however, this reviewer wonders if the constant reminders of the plague...the call for masks at every turn...the call for distancing when few are doing so...it is ever present and in the end, do not fully represent the characters involved. It certainly does present an ominous tone for each, our main character included, yet each scene is made less by the plague when more heart felt might be the singular instances in which they were found.

Lastly, I must call out the director of the play. I shant call him by name. That, in itself, would be a travesty close to this production as it might give him more exposure and ability to create much of the same. I must say, I wish not to see it. They say that the play is the thing, so I must ask the question...why so heavy handed? Mayhap I am too harsh, because one must blame the playwirght surely. But this combination between writer and director has produced one of the worst, harmful, and terrible plays of the season. One may write it, but it takes another to direct and produce it. This writer hopes he never works again. His behind the scenes efforts notwithstanding, these actors are able to produce their work without such deleterious interventions.

And that is why I must applaud the actors for their valiant efforts in working on this production. I must once more ask the question "why" such a play was produced, but I must say that I do applaud all of those actors involved for raising this piece beyond the intentions of those behind it. As I left the theatre, I was left with their notes...their beats...their hearts. It is that that has moved this from truly terrible to a piece worthy of your eyes and mind. I suggest, should you see this play, that you leave your seats with that in mind. No matter how terrible a thing you have watched may be, there are still some few that may rise above it and make it all worthwhile. As I wise teacher once told me, theatre is a symbiotic and synergistic thing and in times like this presented, one must remember that always. 

That is all.

2021 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

It's been a while since I've filled out my baseball Hall of Fame ballot (which I do not have but consider every year.) Even during these pandemic times, the world moves on and yet another year is upon us. Those elected this coming year will join a rather banner crop of elected Hall of Famers from 2020 which includes Derek Jeter, Larry Walker, Ted Simmons and Marvin Miller. Whomever joins them will all be inducted formally in Cooperstown in July of 2021 (assuming we've turned the tide of COVID by then.) This past year offered some many great names from which to choose. This year? Not so much. Before we begin, here is the list of players eligible for 2021 induction.

To remind those unfamiliar with the process, a player must have been retired for 5 years and the voter may only choose up to 10 from the list. Not every able baseball writer (those that actually get to vote) selects 10 players, but for the past many years there was a backlog on the ballot. For the first time in a long time, I do not see that issue this time around. I think I have a solid ballot, but it was actually quite difficult to choose the full compliment. I am a larger hall guy rather than a small hall guy. There are men that probably don't belong there but that water is under the bridge at this late date. So I always try to pick a full 10. There is no lack of talent in the Major Leagues and if we are supposed to honor the best of the best (which a Hall of Fame suggests, though that may be another discussion) then there should be little issue giving out this honor.

So, let us see the choices...

• Barry Bonds
• Roger Clemens

These two are beyond argument as among the greatest players to ever play the game. When one speaks of a small hall, 1st ballot, inner circle MLB player these two are indisputable. They are, of course, saddled by PED claims (none of which has ever been proved, by the way.) I need not get into discussion of PEDs other than to say that it is beyond hypocrisy that the Commissioner of MLB when this era occurred is already in the Hall of Fame. Say what you will about Bud Selig, but these 2 did more for the game than Selig did in his entire career as either owner or Commish. Barry Bonds is the greatest player of his era (hands down) and my favorite hitter of that time, regardless of his steroid use. Before it is suggested he began using PEDs, he already had a HoF case. It is absurd that he is outside looking in. And for Clemens, despite the fact that he may be the Anti-Christ, he ranks among the top 10 pitchers of all time by the numbers (though my beloved Greg Maddux has 1 more win. Hah!) There is no good reason that they have not already been elected other than sanctimonious baseball writers that wish to punish them for crimes that these very same writers looked beyond at the time because the numbers they produced were good copy. 'Nuff said. I'm not going to win that argument because I don't have a vote. Yet these 2 are easy.

The next tier gets a bit tough. Yet these are my picks:

• Curt Schilling
• Gary Sheffield
• Andy Pettitte

All three could be considered borderline candidates. However, each has plenty of evidence behind their case to be included in this august body. And also perhaps personal/integrity issues that may have stalled their various campaigns. When Schilling played, there was very little issue with his ability on the field. He went to the playoffs with 3 different teams (Pirates, Diamondbacks and Red Sox) and got a World Series ring from 2 of those. The bloody sock from 2004 is likely already in the Hall. Why not the man that wore it? Because people don't like his politics? That's outside the game. Sheffield, I think, is also dogged by PED claims (again unfounded by fact) and so he continues to wait. Yet I recall very well that he was known as one of the quickest bats in the game while he played and though he was perhaps known as surly, when he played for the Braves (my team, sure) there was no issue there. Over 500 home runs and 1600 RBI (which used to be traditional metrics for the Hall) should have ushered him in. Also waiting. Finally, Pettitte has his own PED issues. He's admitted his usage, but once more I don't really care. I do not love the Yankees (readers may already know this) but there is no mistake of what this man accomplished. He was directly involved in the late 90's run of that team and with 256 career wins, clearly shows his standing as we see numbers today. There are better writers than myself (and indeed number crunchers) but I believe he belongs in the Hall.

Now we move to the third tier. All 4 are definitely borderline cases but, I think, deserve the nod:

• Andruw Jones
• Jeff Kent
• Manny Ramirez
• Billy Wagner

When these 4 men played, no one would dispute that they were among the best of the game. Jones is considered by many the finest center fielder in the history of the sport. Kent is considered (and the numbers support it) one of the best 2nd basemen to play in the game. Wagner was a lights out closer that has numbers nearly similar to Trevor Hoffman (already in the Hall) and Ramirez...well, he's never getting in by the writers. His numbers are beyond dispute. He falls in the same territory as the PED suspects above and unlike them, he actually tested positive and has been disciplined for it (on more than one occasion.) I am open to argument why he should be different, but I'm looking at the player and not the man. Indeed his case is more difficult than Bonds, Clemens, etc. but the numbers do not lie. Before or after the juice, this man was feared. He also had his issues. Again, he is not likely to ever get enough support for the Hall, but I think he belongs.

So now we are at 9 and I need to make my 10th pick. While I said that this class was less than previous classes, that does not mean that the last pick is not difficult. I'm looking at 3 pitchers and 3 hitters as I wish to fill out the ballot. The pitchers are Mark Buehrle, AJ Burnett and Tim Hudson. All three were excellent pitchers (and I'm a bit biased as I watched a lot more starts by Hudson) but I don't consider any of them a Hall member. The hitters are Todd Helton, Scott Rolen and Omar Vizquel. All three were amazing athletes and excelled at their positions (1st, 3rd and SS respectively.) Helton and Rolen have the offensive stats to consider and Vizquel is a bit of a bridge between Ozzie Smith (HoF) and Andrelton Simmons as the finest defensive SS in the game. It really is a push. Vizquel got over 50% of the vote last year on his 4th year on the ballot. Rolen was at 35% in his 4th. Helton was at 29% in his 3rd. All 3 pitchers are going through their 1st time. (Note - a player needs 75% for those unaware.)

If I am pressed (as I am) to pick which should be chosen, I'd probably go with Rolen as his sabermetric numbers are slightly better than Helton (who played his career at Coors Field half the time.) That said, I think to go with Helton personally. Vizquel was excellent with the glove, but does not move the meter on me and none of the three pitchers gets above that level. So with my last pick I go with...

• Todd Helton

Difficult for me to do given that Mr. Helton was a Tennessee Volunteer, but there we are. I'd not really have issue if any of these men got into the Hall. But these are my 10 picks (should I have a ballot, which I do not.) If I have to guess which will actually be elected, I suspect Schilling alone. He, Bonds and Clemens all received over 60% of the vote last year. Schilling got over 70%. All three are on the 9th year on the ballot and these days, you only get 10 (used to be 15.) Bonds and Clemens have pretty much stalled over the years. There are simply too many that will not vote for them and these two can't move the numbers. But Schilling has moved up, despite his post career persona.

So these are my suggestions, should the writers wish to consider them (which they never have.) This year is a time to maybe right some wrongs, but I doubt that will happen. Next year sees a bit of a bumper crop - Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz and Jimmy Rollins (among others.) Of those left on the ballot this year that I would not vote for, let me allow a shout out to Torri Hunter and Barry Zito. Both great players but they just don't get there. So, there is my 2021 vote. That is all.

Where We Go From Here...

I must start this post with a disclaimer. I have voted Republican nearly my entire voting life outside of my first Presidential election in 1992 (gave that to the Libertarian) and for Governor of Georgia once (when I voted for Roy Barnes over Sonny Perdue in 2002.) Whenever I discuss a political issue these days, I think I need to make that known before I say the next piece...I DID NOT vote for the first time ever in 2016. OK, I voted in the primaries, but I did not vote in the general election. I consider myself a conservative (notice the small c) or otherwise a classical liberal. I don't tend to traffic often in the social stuff of the GOP, but fiscally I prefer their platform (usually.) Basically, I prefer the Constitution. I tend to like candidates, such as they come along, that will stand up for that and keep it in place as it should be. Due to that, I was not a fan of Donald Trump. I did not support him throughout his run through the primaries in 2016 (I was a Ted Cruz man) and I refused to vote for him for President. That said, I could not in good faith vote for Clinton either (anymore than I could her husband back in '92) so I was a man without a party suddenly.

Not a terrible place to be at first blush. Until Trump won in 2016 and then I was thrust into a position that was more than uncomfortable. I was never a NeverTrump person, I just did not wish to support his candidacy because I did not think he was a true conservative (and more, he was a Populist which I don't care for.) Yet once he won, I then found myself in discussions with two types of people. Those that REALLY loved him and those that REALLY hated him. I was REALLY in a small minority because I was neither. If I said anything positive about him to the Trump haters, I got blow back. If I said anything negative about him to Trump lovers, I got blow back. Suddenly the ability to discuss politics at all was out the window. Some might say that is a good thing, but I don't. I've been a political junkie since I was aware of politics and history.

I'm almost certain that anyone reading this that hates Trump will blame him for that environment. I say you are wrong. Trump is/was a product of that environment. One that has been going on as long as I've been able to remember. Reagan was going to start a nuclear war. Clinton was a scoundrel and the GOP spent 6 years finding a cum stained dress that led to perjury. George W. was selected not elected and was Bushchimphitler. Obama wasn't even born American. And on and on and on...

Look, it's politics. I get that. It can get heated and people passionately believe what they believe (as do I.) Yet what we seem to have lost is the ability to hear what someone else believes with a reasonable mind. We seem to want to live in an echo chamber so we only see and hear what we want to see and hear. The idea of of discussion has now become argument. All the time!

I won't get into a litany of the issues over these last 4 years other than to say that over that time I was forced to both defend him and speak against him, depending on with whom I was speaking. Flash forward to a week ago, I had a choice. I knew the election would be close and so I voted this time around and yes, I voted for Trump. (Waits for the vast exit for the doors from readers or those getting ready to type something on their keyboards.) I'm not going to list the things I liked or didn't like, but I thought he was better than the other guy. I get that choice, thankfully, due to the Constitution. And then suddenly we are in a whole new world once again.

Networks calling the election in certain states but not others before they should (as they always do), a tight election once again as I went to bed that night, a change in the morning (that might be expected given this year) and then finally another potentially premature call late in the week (since counting votes is also something we find harder to do in 2020 apparently.) I have written and said that it looks like Biden won the electoral college (which I still champion), and if so then we will have a new President. Certainly many are already celebrating and ready to usher him into the Oval Office (2 months too soon, by the way.) Others are crying foul as they say there is voter fraud and maybe this thing was stolen.

Here is where I come down on all this (get to it, already, because that's all we really care about!) - Count all of the legal votes and remove any that are proven illegal. (Prove, of course, is the important word there.) Given that it appears that there were certain abnormalities or anomalies in certain areas (which seem to be in highly contested states), that will mean challenges. The system provides for all of this. The election is in early November and gives each state just over a month to certify their vote in December. So go through the process and get to that point where each state can send their slate of Electors to Congress and do their part. There is no reason to concede defeat or declare victory until there is finality. I'm sure that makes many people uncomfortable, and on both sides. But that is how the Constitution works.

You can re-litigate the past and I'm certain whomever loses will re-litigate the future, but for the rest of us...just wait. Indeed, I did not and still do not desire a long protracted legal fight. Yet we've seen that in the past and still ended up with a victor. Is it good for the country? Likely not. But neither is distrust in electoral integrity. As it was in 2000, it could be again where a subset thinks a President is selected rather than elected. Make no mistake...whomever gives the oath of office in January will be MY President. I don't have to like him. I just love the country and the Constitution. The best way to get back to that ideal is to allow the process to work (legally!) and don't get too far ahead of ourselves. We're not going anywhere. 2020 (unfortunately in the near future) isn't going anywhere. The only thing going somewhere is this country and our future lives.

If you want healing, then stop calling people you disagree with horrible people, deplorable, racist, communists...(you can fill in the rest.) If you want healing, then listen (which I admit I needs must work on as well.) If you want healing, then allow the founding document of this country to work as intended...all the way through (there is a reason we have amendments.) If you want healing, then physician heal thyself. Especially on this day (as of this writing) when we celebrate and remember all of those that placed their life on the line to defend this great country of ours, I think we owe it to ourselves.

And to be sure to all of our veterans, thank you for your service! Would that keyboard warriors be as brave.

That is all.

100 Bands Better than Green Day Update (2020 version)

In 2015, Green Day was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Till this time, I'm still not sure why when so many other deserving acts had better resumes. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the band. Perfectly serviceable in the post grunge era and had a fine pseudo-punk sound (though I will never agree with any idea of pop punk - those two things do not go together.) They are a good band and maybe they were inducted because the HoF wanted to get better views, but they did not deserve it when compared to so many others over the years.

I spent some few hours over some many weeks with some friends in 2015 compiling a list of 100 bands (artists) that deserved it far more than Green Day. Today I revisit that list. Here is where we stand:

[Note this list is in no particular order]

Jethro Tull

Yes (inducted in 2017)

Soundgarden

Eurythmics

The Cure (inducted in 2019)

The Smiths

The Zombies (inducted in 2019)

Mott the Hoople

Adrien Belew

The Cars (inducted in 2018)

Blue Oyster Cult

UFO

Deep Purple (inducted in 2016)

Iron Maiden

Iggy Pop

Willie Nelson

Warren Zevon

Phil Collins

Graham Parker

Townes Van Zandt

Steve Earle

Emmie Lou Harris

Herbie Hancock

Judas Priest

The Misfits

Dead Kennedys

Motorhead

Ozzy Osborne

Duane Allman

Bjork

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds

Joy Division

MC5

King Crimson

David Crosby

Stephen Stills

Dire Straights (inducted in 2018)

The Replacements

Indigo Girls

Huey Lewis and the News

Janes Addiction

Journey (inducted in 2017)

Meatloaf

Sinead O'Connor

Harry Nilsson

New York Dolls

Tears for Fears

XTC

Jeff Buckley

The Pogues

Ted Nudgent

Henry Rollins

Peter Frampton

Ministry

Steppenwolf

NWA (inducted in 2016)

Joe Cocker

Chicago (inducted in 2016)

The Doobie Brothers (inducted 2020)

Black Flag

Roxy Music (inducted in 2019)

New Order

Steve Miller Band (inducted in 2016)

The Moody Blues (inducted in 2018)

Cheap Trick (inducted in 2016)

Def Leppard (inducted in 2019)

X

John Lydon

Sonic Youth

Pat Benetar

LL Cool J

Pavement

Rage Against the Machine

Thin Lizzy

The Commodores

ELO (inducted in 2017)

Jeff Lynne

Devo

Squeeze

Slayer

Anthrax

Roky Erickson

B-52s

Tina Turner

Blind Faith

Steve Winwood

Annie Lenox

Robert Palmer

Nine Inch Nails (inducted in 2020)

Procul Harem

The Germs

The Go Gos

Tommy James and the Shondells

Danzig

Graham Parsons

Sting

Rick James

Husker Du

Tori Amos

 

In 5 years, 17 of these bands/artists have been finally given their due. AFTER Green Day. I am keeping a running tally and will continue to do so until these folks finally get their deserved day. I'm sure that there are many others that I and my friends forgot or failed to mention. Please feel free to offer your own suggestions. You need not complain about the Hall itself because that is a given. Since its inception in Cleveland, they have become worse and worse about who gets in and especially why. A Hall of Fame is itself a subjective thing these days and the music industry is one of the worst offenders. But I love music and would like to see those I love honored. I'm keeping tabs and will continue to do so. Billie Joe Armstrong has his when so many others are so much more deserving. I am never going to let that go. That is all.

The Supreme Court and Term Limits

I'm no legal scholar, but I do pay attention to the news and remain politically active. Thus, it should not come as a shock that I am fully aware of the death of Justice Ginsburg and the now fight over the Supreme Court. Great, right? We needed yet another political fight before an already overly political election (which one has not been for the last 40 years?) That said, the goal in this post is not to advocate for one side or the other, but rather to sense the tone of the latest rhetoric and discuss if it is reasonable or just merely another partisan (or personal) goal. First of all, let us consider the situation. Justice Ginsburg sadly passed at 87 years old after spending over 25 years on the Court. At the moment, the considered balance of the Court is 8 justices and many presume a 4-4 split (though really, it's more 5-3 if you value who appointed who.) To both right and left (such as they are these days) the balance is all important for myriad reasons. We can at least agree on that.

On a basic Constitutional level, President Trump now has the ability and duty to appoint a new Justice that the Senate can either vote upon or not. Advise and Consent. That last part is important. That it occurs right before an election makes it an even more contentious issue (which I'll speak to below.) This is not new in the history of our country but others are more knowledgeable than I at giving you that history (so see here.) What is slightly new is the tone of our politics these days and the recent seeming precedent of 2016 after Justice Scalia died at age 79 after nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court. I need not recount what happened then, but we can all agree on the facts. President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat and the GOP controlled Senate decided not to take action as there was a split between the two branches of government and it was stated that the voters should decide who should fill the seat. The debate on the rightness or wrongness of that has been had and need not be rehashed here other than how it applies to this situation. And even there, I'm not so much interested in that other than to say there is a difference. Under Obama, you had a different party controlling the Senate. In this case, it is the same party in the executive and the consenting Senate. This point will matter more below, but there is quite a lot of opinions from that time that have switched to the opposite this time. Does anyone think a Democrat controlled Senate in 2016 would not have pushed through Garland's nomination? If you are being honest (and have paid attention to politics over the last 40 plus years, you know that they would have done so.) Further, does anyone truly think that if the situation were opposite here with a Democratic President and the Democrats controlling the Senate just two months before an election, they would choose the high road (as they suggest) and take the chance that the other party might come into power and lose the power to appoint? If you think that, then you have not been paying attention.

Term Limits

So now we get to the beef of this post. We can be clear that we are in a political moment rather than a pure Constitutional or jurisprudence moment, and both sides are doing what we might expect that they might do. There can be little argument that what is being debated is more about power and less so about reasonable discussions over the highest court. That has not stopped some people trying to make (possibly) good faith arguments over the future of the court to possibly "cool the soup" as it were over these types of disagreements. I'll give you one example here from The Atlantic published not 3 days ago. If you search my post title on your favored search engine, you'll find many more that have been discussing such an idea since the death of Justice Ginsburg (and some before.) I don't recall much of these same arguments made after Scalia died, but such is the temper of the moment. Yet I think that is your first hint that politics drive this and not Constitutional concern.

I found it an interesting article but was struck by the final paragraph:

"The best argument for term limits is that they would make the Supreme Court more of a standard issue in presidential and Senate campaigns and thus less of a political football when the winners of those elections get to nominate and confirm justices."

How anyone can assume (or merely think) that ANY issue cannot be made into a political football is fooling themselves. So...fail. That said (and I am sorry that I cannot find it right now) but I read another article just a few days ago that made a similar argument for term limits that I did not disagree with entirely. The point was that a Justice would serve a certain term and then "retire" to a lower bench as a Judge Emeritus or something. That would keep the Constitutional charge since Article III of the Constitution states:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

The term "good behavoiur" can be debated (and see here for such an argument...that I don't find persuasive) but it has generally been interpreted as a lifetime appointment. It is suggested that such does not require an Amendment to alter such language, but there would be a fight over it. However, so be it. Any change to our founding document should be debated, fought over, written about to convince we the people and if valid enough, passed and instituted. It's not an easy process. It's not supposed to be. But I have no issue with the idea of changing it. I have issue with why NOW is the time to do it. To be sure, this is not a new idea (one way or the other) but I recall few major pushes to get something like this passed (or even changed) prior to this moment in time.

What about the Congress?

And this is what has lead me to make this post. As of today, I understand that the Democrats (some at least) in the House are prepared to offer a bill to institute an 18 year term limit on Supreme Court justices. Again, search the terms and you will find it but I'll give The Hill's reporting here. As above, I really do not have issue with the principle of such an idea. However, I find it quite...shall we say hypocritical? I would hold this same view if Republicans offered such an idea were they in the same position right now. It seems convenient and not principled. It appears to be an "arrow in the quiver" to quote the current Speaker of the House. It strikes me as not serious given that I think few of those that have spent years, some decades, as elected officials in both House and Senate would never vote for themselves what they now seem to think (again...some) would be appropriate for the highest court in the land. And before I go forward, let me say this...there is no word or even phrase in the Constitution that says a word about limits for Congressmen or Senators. They could pass that bill tomorrow...but you and I know that they will not.

Let me then add (see a simple wikipedia page here) that the longest serving member of Congress was John Dingell at just under 60 years! Second? The revered "heart and soul" of the Senate, Robert Byrd of West Virginia after 59 years (and also a racist and former member of the KKK.) Both of them Democrats. In truth, if you look at that list, 16 of the longest serving Congress members out of the top 20 all time are Democrats (and I'm not even counting Strom Thurmond...47 years in government and ran for President under the Dixiecrat Party in 1948!) Four of the current longest serving members remain in office as we speak...Don Young (R) from Alaska in the House at 47 years, Patrick Leahy (D) from Vermont in the Senate for 45 years, Chuck Grassley (R) from Iowa for 45 years between the House and Senate and Ed Markey (D) from Massachusetts for 45 years also between the House and Senate. After that? Chuck Schumer has been in Congress for nearly 40 years. Steny Hoyer for almost as long. Dick Durbin? Almost 38 years. Nancy Pelosi? Working on 33 years. Oh...and Joe Biden? 36 years in the Senate before he finally got into the White House via the Vice Presidency. I'd run the Republicans here, but they are not the ones putting up such a bill. Suffice to say, they have their own longstanding members and might want to consider that if they should ever push forward such an idea.

All of this is to say "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." I've no trouble seeing limits on the number of years a Supreme Court justice might serve, and there may be some truth that if it is known it is limited, maybe the politics might not be played up as much as it is now (and has since at least since Robert Bork) yet why then does that not also count for members of Congress? Senators already get 6 years...and unending after that if they can keep getting elected. A member of the House in a safe seat after constant redistricting can stay there forever. A President only has eight years at most decreed and amended into the Constitution (unless something odd happens like gaining it before election and then running twice and winning...which has never happened.) If this current Congress is so hell bent on making the current politics and tempers more important than the ultimate goal of defending the Constitution (that they sweared upon when first elected) then they (and sadly we) get what they deserve.

That is why we should vote. That is why we should pay attention. That is why we should read. It remains OUR republic. Not theirs. And if we finally get tired of how they act? Guess what? The Constitution has a remedy for that. We only need 3/4 of the states to pass an amendment and make term limits happen to them. We actually don't need them to vote for it. But we have to care and we need to know why we do. That is all.

It's 2020...and it's time to blow everything all to hell

It's been over 3 years since I have posted anything on this blog. Even then, I was posting about little ideas...college football or the Oscars. When I began this endeavor, I had a lot of things to say about politics and frankly got in on the ground floor of blogging as a concept. The idea that I could share my ideas on the internet, and especially include links so that any reader might investigate for themselves, seemed like an awesome use of this technological advance. Much has changed since the early aughts. I am nearly 20 years older and so is this country. What once was a limited internet presence for certain points of views has now grown to Youtube influencers, established newspapers and magazines that have moved most of their content to the internet, twitter (shudder) and facebook (among others) in which people can tell you what they think immediately without coming up with a full cogent argument in lieu of a meme or graphic. In short, things have certainly changed.

I still hold my opinions, but don't wish to so readily share them as politics has changed on me. So has any chance that one could share an idea with others in which it might be considered with intellectual honesty and either agreed upon or discarded...or just discussed. I've lived long enough that I remember the days where Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan could argue to the public and then still have a drink together after. The idea that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump might do something like that is so far from my comprehension...is part of the problem.

We now live in a age in which an idea that differs from your own should be silenced. God forbid someone else see it and possibly agree. We live in a country that values click views rather than actual reporting by the media and so get fantastical headlines unsubstantiated by any actual and verifiable information. We get political moments in which your guy or gal can never be wrong and my guy or gal is entirely wrong entirely every time and all the time. If you are against candidate John Doe and John Dope says A, then the response is automatically B. No thought, no consideration...just wrong and B. That's it and that's all. No more discussion is required. I don't know about you...but that is not how I grew up. That was not how I was educated. That was not how I was taught to think for myself. I had awesome teachers that I sometimes disagreed with but never once was I told that I was wrong to think something. I was instead told to consider it further.

I won't get into a long dissertation here about this or that other subject bugging me (though I do not promise that I might or might not if I can sustain this revitalization of this blog) but I did want to post a message to say that I am still here. I still think. I still have a point of view and I still think mine...and yours...is valid and should be heard and considered. 2020 has been a hard year for many (maybe all??) and there is a lot of pent up tension due to health concerns, a political election, financial concerns and just day to day living (suicide is up these days...have you heard?)

And I want to say to everyone that might read this (my great two and a half readers, if they are still there) that I think we can move past this moment in history and still exist as a body politic, a great nation, as good friends and as a population that can live with one another in harmony even with disagreement. It is still possible, if you can allow it. We are still capable, if we can do the work. The basis of this republic remains, if we can move through the process each time and see a fair and peaceful transfer of power whether you like it or not without trying to blow it up when it does not go the way you or others desired.

I remain an optimist and a pragmatist. That may seem mutually exclusive, but it's not. The optimism allows me to move through periods when things aren't going so great. The pragmatism helps me step back and see things for what they are rather than what I may wish they were. And finally, I am (or hope I am) always willing to hear other points of view whether they agree with mine own or not. That's how you understand history. That's how you understand politics. That's how you understand other people. Full stop...that is the only way to navigate this year or any other.

If I can sustain this new attempt to blog, I'll likely move back to college football (if we get it) or baseball (depending if the Braves go far) but I may well make my point of view known on many other subjects. As was told to me some few days ago on facebook "My page...my rules." Well this IS my page, that I pay for and have for nearly 20 years. I can promise you that any comment you make will not be censored unless you cross a line (disrespectful to others, antisemitic or racist, misogynist or just plain full on nutter) and I value opinions that are different than mine. I also value those with which you agree. More importantly, what I have always hoped for with this work was a chance to share my opinion and if others had interesting discussion to offer in return, I welcome it. I do not believe in censorship, I do not agree with the idea of "cancelling" an opinion or person for that matter, and I do not think that we, as a public, can move forward safely and healthily if we don't start listening to one another as opposed to shutting off differing views.

So I guess I'm back. This is likely not all, but I have to use my historic tagline. That is all.

2017 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

For a baseball fan such as myself, today is a pretty big day as it is every year. Today we find out who gets inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Most years in the past (I think nearly every one since I started this blog in 2003) I have given my own personal picks even though I do not have a vote. No reason to change tradition, so what follows are this year's choices. As usual, while I would certainly vote for more than the 10 allowed to the current members of the BBWAA, I will keep that as a rule for myself. If nothing else, this proves why that rule is moronic and should change. We have certainly moved past the logjam of some years ago (that I blogged about here) but there remain many individuals on the ballot that deserve enshrinement, in my mind. For assistance, here is the ballot for this year (thanks to Baseball Reference as always.)

As I have done in the past, I will offer a few honorable mentions...players that have no shot but I recall with much appreciation. There are some ex-Braves on the list, so thank you for your time J.D. Drew, Derrek Lee and Edgar Renteria. As I recall each had a productive year or two with the organization (Lee less so than the others.) I should also highlight Tim Wakefield as a player that I remember fondly from his early years as a Pittsburgh Pirate during those NLCS games with the Braves in the early 90's as well as his later years with the Red Sox. An excellent knuckle ball pitcher, if not a Hall of Famer. Jason Varitek too spent some time with those Sox teams that finally won a championship again, as well as a stand out player for Georgia Tech. I'd also point to Jorge Posada who may have some credentials for enshrinement but would not find a place on my ballot and as it appears as of this posting, will likely fall off after failing to get the 5% needed from the voters (more on this below.) Much like Bernie Williams in a recent vote, being a stand out for those winning Yankees teams is not enough for consideration. One could consider it a shame, but one should also look once more to that 10 player restriction. Without that, both players would likely continue on the ballot at the least for further votes down the line.

So now, we start with the real candidates and by my count there are at most 18 players for which to vote (nineteen if you include Posada) all of which may be considered legitimate Hall of Fame players by many. I have ten slots so I look over the list and find my first choices...those no-doubt, inner-circle players. They are:

• Jeff Bagwell
• Roger Clemens
• Barry Bonds
• Ivan Rodriguez
• Manny Ramirez

For anyone reading, you may be able to see that I have little issue voting for PED using players, whether suspected or proven in the case of Ramirez. I will never say that the entire sport was using at the time, but so many were that it seems to me that the playing field was as level as it has ever been given the game's history. When you consider further that the Veterans Committee easily elected Bud Selig into the Hall late last year for this year's induction...I see no reason to punish the players if the Commissioner that oversaw that period does not also see the same amount of suspicion. You cannot have it both ways.

So we now have five and must cut down the remaining 13 players. The next choice is an easy one for me as I have listed him for some time:

• Tim Raines

Not only is this his last year on the ballot, but he has deserved it since his first. It took me a few years to support him initially, but once I came around there is no doubt in my mind that he deserves enshrinement. He may not be Henderson, but he comes in as a close second for that period of baseball.

To assist in culling the list, I will now cut out the closers. That means that Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith and Billy Wagner will not be picked this year. I do so not to discount their contributions to the game, as each was a special player. But with such a stacked ballot, I cannot vote for one over the other and justify it in my mind. I have "voted" for Smith in the past when the ballot was not so stuffed and Hoffman and Wagner were different in their respective greatness while both specialists at their job. I would have no issue voting for any and all of the three had I an unlimited ballot. I do not. So they are off for now.

So that leaves us with 9 players left and I must cut that down to 4. I happen to think all nine are Hall of Fame players but I have to start gaming my ballot at this point. Thus, I will cut Vlad Guerrero. I thought him a special player when he played but I am unconvinced he is far better than others on this list and it is his 1st time on the ballot. I will cut Sammy Sosa as well as I still don't think he is a slam dunk candidate. Steroid use or not, he was one-dimensional. He could hit, no doubt. But he was abysmal in the field. With 7 players left, I have to look again and see three that must get a vote:

• Curt Schilling
• Mike Mussina
• Edgar Martinez

Much like the closers above, I could not vote for one and not the other between Mussina and Schilling. Especially after Smoltz waltzed into the Hall in his first year (I was very happy about that fact, but he remains a comparative player for both of these pitchers.) As for Martinez, I have stated my case for him often in past years and will not rehash it here. DH or not, his hitting prowess was far superior to Sosa's. He may not have had the home runs, but his average and overall OPS for his career remains a thing of beauty.

Now I am down to one player to choose from the lot of Fred McGriff, Jeff Kent, Larry Walker and Garry Sheffield. While it may seem hard to pick between them as they were all special in their own way, my choice is simple.

• Fred McGriff

I happen to think all four deserve enshrinement, but this is McGriff's 8th year on the ballot. Had I a vote, he would get mine. I have said it many times before, but he should not be penalized for not getting those last seven home runs to get to 500. Any team of the 90's would have loved to have him and he has been severely underestimated as the years have gone by. Perhaps he lacks in comparison with the stud home run hitters of the steroid era as his numbers were not as gaudy. Maybe he gets dinged because those Braves teams only won the one World Series. I'm not sure why he lacks a following among voters, but the other three players have more time for consideration.

As it appears now, maybe two if not five of these men will get elected this year. If you look at the great Voting tracker by Ryan Thibodaux, you can see that Bagwell and Raines seem a lock with over 50% of the ballots counted. Hoffman, Rodriguez and Guerrero are in range for a potential nod as well. I am happy about all of this. Posada looks to fall off though it could change once all the votes are counted. And most interesting (and appreciated) it seems Bonds and Clemens have gained several voters from years past. As has been stated by many (and myself above), the choice of Selig to enter in with this 2017 class has had a freeing effect on voters. I applaud it!

Argue with my choices if you wish. In fact, please do. I need all the comments I can get to keep this poor blog alive. I look forward to the announcement later today and certainly look forward to next year when one Larry Jones, Jr. gets his shot. Let's go, Chipper! That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 7

I'm late with my rankings this week for obvious reasons. Losing to Vanderbilt sucks. Thus, I have been on a self imposed ban of all things college football for most of the week. But now that we are about to get back into another weekend of games, it is better late than never. So here are this weeks rankings:

1. Alabama (7-0)
2. Ohio State (6-0)
3. Michigan (6-0)
4. Clemson (7-0)
5. Washington (6-0)
6. Texas A&M (6-0)
7. Louisville (5-1)
8. Nebraska (6-0)
9. West Virginia (5-0)
10. Baylor (6-0)
11. Boise State (6-0)
12. Western Michigan (7-0)
13. Florida (5-1)
14. Wisconsin (4-2)
15. Arkansas (5-2)
16. Tennessee (5-2)
17. South Florida (6-1)
18. Utah (6-1)
19. Navy (4-1)
20. Houston (6-1)
21. Auburn (4-2)
22. LSU (4-2)
23. Virginia Tech (4-2)
24. North Carolina (5-2)
25. Florida State (5-2)

Not much to say about these other than why the hell do these national polls have Houston, Florida State and even Ole Miss still ranked so high? And why drop Tennessee so far? I cannot answer for it, but I can rectify in my own top 25. Bye Ole Miss with your third loss (even if to ranked Arkansas - you will be the first 3 loss team I talk to next time), hello again Houston (at least until you lose to Louisville) and watch it FSU (you better do well vs. Clemson in two weeks.)

This weekend we do get some good games, namely Alabama/A&M and LSU/Ole Miss. And I got these off just in time as the VA Tech/Miami game is in progress as we speak. Spoiler - they are tied with 3 points each in the 2nd quarter. Yep...about right. Georgia won't be back until next season, likely. Or at least until we beat the Gators. Right? RIGHT? That is all.

 

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 6

At the outset, let me say that while most of us spent the weekend doing many things, among them watching football, some more important things were happening in our country. Those people effected by the Hurricane are in all of our prayers, I am sure. They are certainly in mine. I was at least happy to see the game still played between Georgia and South Carolina on Sunday. Not so with Florida and LSU. I was very tempted to ding both for their seeming refusal to play and use this natural disaster to avoid a potential loss (the way I see it) but in the end, I allowed the numbers to speak for themselves with a few wise corrections.

There was quite a bit of movement by the top 25 teams in my ranking, caused mainly by a slew of upsets and losses. One will be readily apparent once you see my list, so let's get to it:

1. Alabama (6-0)
2. Ohio State (5-0)
3. Clemson (6-0)
4. Michigan (6-0)
5. Washington (6-0)
6. Texas A&M (6-0)
7. Louisville (4-1)
8. Wisconsin (4-1)
9. Tennessee (5-1)
10. Nebraska (5-0)
11. Baylor (5-0)
12. West Virginia (4-0)
13. Boise State (5-0)
14. Arkansas (4-1)
15. Virginia Tech (4-1)
16. Florida (4-1)
17. Western Michigan (6-0)
18. Miami (4-1)
19. Mississippi (3-2)
20. Georgia (4-2)
21. North Carolina (4-2)
22. Florida State (4-2)
23. Auburn (4-2)
24. Arizona State (5-1)
25. Utah (5-1)

You may immediately notice that 5-1 Houston has fallen out completely. Why you may ask? Well, who have they beat? And who did they lose to? If you include Houston at 5-1, then don't you have to include Navy sitting at 4-1? And if you include Navy, then shouldn't 4-1 Air Force be included since they gave Navy their only loss? Head to head matters, especially when you have the same record at this point in the season. It is arguable that Navy's win this weekend is a better win than Houston's victory over Oklahoma so early on. It is clear the pollsters still look at that. I do not considering where Oklahoma is now. Beating Texas this weekend is nothing to write home about.

Of course, there was another sticky situation as the polls came out today and I began to compute the numbers. It is clear the pollsters are still very high on Ole Miss, and to some extant on Florida State, especially after they beat Miami on Saturday. But those teams are both sitting there at 2 losses each. In a perfect world, one would still have the Seminoles ranked higher. But they also lost North Carolina...who lost to Georgia...who lost to Ole Miss. I will admit that the order I placed them is not perfect, but I will repeat my thoughts from last week - I think Ole Miss is the best 2 loss team in the country. I then just allowed the head to heads follow on that. Auburn is in there only because the polls seem to like them. Their two losses do come from two top 10 teams, so perhaps I should have jumped them ahead of the rest. But their best victory is over LSU, who might still be high in the voters minds, but not so much in mine (especially after this weekend.)

This coming weekend will see some high profile match-ups with Alabama traveling to Tennessee and Ohio State going to Wisconsin. Our two loss teams will see some thinning hopefully with Arkansas/Ole Miss and Miami/North Carolina on the slate and there are some interesting Pac-12 games to watch (if you can stay up that late.) It's homecoming at Georgia so there is that as well. Back next week to try and sort it all out. That is all.

AL's 2016 College Football Rankings - Week 5

It was another showdown weekend and while no major upsets (well, a few) there was a lot of loss to go around. Teams that briefly found a spot in my rankings fell out, TCU finally ran out of my patience and the top fifteen did not change drastically, but their order most certainly did. This weekend promises more of the same. But before we get to that, let's check out how I have them ranked currently,

1. Alabama (5-0)
2. Ohio State (4-0)
3. Clemson (5-0)
4. Michigan (5-0)
5. Washington (5-0)
6. Houston (5-0)
7. Texas A&M (5-0)
8. Tennessee (5-0)
9. Louisville (4-1)
10. Wisconsin (4-1)
11. Miami (4-0)
12. Nebraska (5-0)
13. Baylor (5-0)
14. Stanford (3-1)
15. Arkansas (4-1)
16. Florida (4-1)
17. North Carolina (4-1)
18. Florida State (3-2)
19. Mississippi (3-2)
20. Boise State (4-0)
21. Colorado (4-1)
22. Virginia Tech (3-1)
23. West Virginia (4-0)
24. Georgia (3-2)
25. Oklahoma (2-2)

First things first to get this out of the way, yes Georgia actually gained one spot in the rankings even after losing. One play separates position #8 and position #24. (One could say the same thing last week somewhat with LSU as one play, or lack thereof, cost Les Miles his job.) The Dawgs looked vastly improved from the team that got gobsmacked by Ole Miss the week before. If Tennessee doesn't catch the Hail Mary pass with 4 seconds left, then Georgia is likely ranked around the middle of the pack. But the Vols did make the catch and now find themselves in the top 10. Further, I looked at other teams that should possibly be ranked ahead of Georgia and did not find myself too impressed.

Part of that goes back to Ole Miss. Once the day was over, I started looking at various two loss teams. I happen to think Mississippi is the best of that lot, but they actually fell in my rankings because they had to. We cannot forget that season opening loss to Florida State. That they now have the same record suggests the Seminoles should be ranked ahead of them, like it or not. Head to head matters. But North Carolina just beat Florida State and has a better record, so they must come first. And once you have done that, and consider that Georgia's only losses come from the consensus #9 team and a strong Ole Miss ranked ahead of Florida State in most polls, plus beat NC to start the season, their record doesn't look so bad after all. Why polls have Oklahoma ranked and not Georgia, I do not know. Their season record is simply not as strong, but still strong enough to get that last spot.

I dinged Louisville a bit harder than most polls, but not enough to drop from the top 10. They lost to a strong Clemson team after all. Likewise Wisconsin. The game was far too close for a drastic drop. Washington's beat down of Stanford does show up in this ranking as I have them above Houston and Stanford drops down to #14. And I strongly considered swapping Alabama and Ohio State. For now, no change. But I'll keep watching this.

Welcome Boise State, Colorado, Virginia Tech (who's only loss is to Tenn.) and West Virginia. Bye bye Michigan State, Utah, TCU, San Diego State, Arizona State and Texas (sorry Gantz.) Oklahoma State, UCLA, LSU, Western Michigan and Maryland are on my radar as are Utah, TCU and Arizona State still. That's the beauty of this game. Every week matters. And this week is no different as some prime SEC and ACC games take place, plus Oklahoma/Texas and UCLA/Arizona State. Since we are ranking things, let's rank the most important games this weekend:

1. Tennessee at Texas A&M
2. Miami vs. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech at North Carolina
4. Alabama at Arkansas
5. Florida vs. LSU

All teams are ranked other than LSU who came back strong this past weekend. The shake-up will continue and I will continue to follow it here. I am enjoying doing this again as I hope so too are you. Please feel free to agree or argue as you wish either here or on Facebook. Back next week with a new ranking. That is all.