The World is Falling Down: Miss USA falls in a landslide

It what was a halfway decent show, considering how bored I was, The Miss Universe pageant had some interesting things going on. A delegate bailed out after her country thought it degraded women, another was told to change out of a garment that reflected too much political bravado, and finally, Rachel Smith (left) was booed and fell on her narrow tush in the evening gown competition.

Honey Lee (pictured right) should have won the competition, in my opinion. Japan though was a pretty good choice, at least better than the USA. Brazil was definitely not bad on the eyes, fellas.

This post is not one of my best works, it's base, has nearly zero purpose since the competition is basically a swimsuit and judge's taste contest.

I will be posting a Part III of Not Always soon. (Or maybe the whole thing...I haven't decided how many parts or where I am going to head.) So Joe, that I don't know, you'll have to wait a spell. (It would help me if I had known you were trolling my site...;) )

I struck gold this morning in the form of junk. In the trash, as I was going through the neighborhood to get high ass gas, I stumbled on a 19-in Computer monitor and a Pentium IV @ 1.5 GHZ, 256 MB RAM and decent storage at 20 Gigs. Now, this is usually junk. But it all worked! Had plenty of downloaded songs - some I liked (of the 1,000) and basic utilities, Microsoft Office 2000 and a few other neat things. Hey, for free and working, I can do something with it. These people did not take the time to hit format C:/ which is fine by me.

I deleted anything personal they had...so don't think I snooped it. Mainly pictures. All and all, a decent Junk find, if you are so inclined.

That's a quick view of the world I am living, falling down to catch myself, like a beauty queen.

Art of Language: Do you speak their tongue? Please Comment

Since the beginning, there has been a disconnect in language. I am not going all biblical on you, because I am not the expert on that "language" and don't want to offend. But certain professions have really taken to making their language so convoluted, so tiring to read and "understand" that most people have to buy a translator - thus making a deal with the devil usually because those hired translators are not always beholden to tell it straight.

The ones I think of that do this well:

• Lawyers. If Shakespeare in King Henry the VI had not made famous the phrase - "kill all the lawyers" - who else would have? Just about anyone who has had dealings with the law can relate some experience where they are doing you any way they can. (Shakespeare had bad dealings with them too.) Their language includes quasi-Latin, since it is just bits and pieces of long ago utter words. Most of the time they use 50 word phrases to express to the party of the third party what the hell they 3rd party was to give in consideration to the first party, where the aforemention, 1st party did not know the 2nd party was oblivious to the generalities and recourses of the law herein, wherefore and towith....Whew! Lots of words, little or no sense.
• Medical Doctors. These people get trained for how many years? At least a decade of university before they specialize in one particular field. And after all that education, many will not lock into a diagnosis and a treatment that works well. Besides that, they talk either down to you, or make for a poor conversation about what the problems are. They use Latin better than lawyers, but not much better.
• Pyscharists/Quacks. Their language does everything to distance themselves from the patient. They sit down often to contemplate the meaning of your words, nod often, and use phrases such as Rational Emotive Therapy to make you feel they are giving you a solution. They prescribe the latest pills - and do that well - and distance themselves from caring. Their language often leaves a person wishing they talked to a phone sex operator at $2.99/minute.
• Financial Analysts. Go long. Sell Short. EBITDA. Quick Ratios. Trends. Technical Analysis. These people talk about money as much as possible, just the language is so confusing to the average bloat off the street. You can see graphs they produce, understand that, but if they really want to get you in a hot stock/mutual fund, they say something so arcane, but explain it as: "you'll make a lot of money if you do it." Even doctors don't understand them and they speak an ancient language, whereas the business world is full of acronyms, quips and ha-has only a money manager understands.
• Engineers, Physics, Computer and Math people. Now, we all know how MDAS works. (My Dear Aunt Sally) is the tool we learned to know what operations in math come first. But the Engineers and Math people take numbers to a whole new level. Calculus is easy compared to the high minded logical number crunchers reality in 3 or 4 dimensions. Laplace Transform is child's play in these techno geeks little minds. They use symbols to represent universe motion and identity. They convert 20 symbols down to one answer in 200 or more lines of code. Won't socialize with outsiders in their realm and laugh at average joe stupidity in math.

There are many more, but that's enough. If you speak their tongue, leave a comment that most "non-speakers" could not understand.

All in good fun!!!

A very SAD and STRESSFUL thing: (Mohr) Events that have happen since my last...orally-inspired work by a female

A topic on A Girl in Shorts Talking About Whatever was related to what Belgium woman running for office was promising. It led me to think of what had happen since my last one, which I posted on her blog, but could not resist in posting here.

1) Newt Gingrich became totally irrelevant


2) Another Clinton wants to run the country


3) Another Bush got 2 Chances to run this bi-polar, ritalin-laden, money-grubbing country


4) Bill Gates and Bono are both Times men of the year at the same time.


5) Family Guy came to TV, got cancelled, then came back


6) J-Lo has "BEN" married, divorced, then hooked another star that sings better than she does


7) 3 Spiderman movies, 3 Jurassic Parks, ANOTHER Rocky, and ANOTHER leading man for Batman franchise


8) Will Smith no longer sings...


9) Jennifer Love Hewitt has been "legal" for nearly a decade


10) I've lost $350,000 in ways you could hardly fathom...and did not include any Gambling...Drugs...or a "Bad Investment"


And finally, four forces go into an "all-encompassing" BJ (Mohr's Circle 'Not' Jerk):

1. Torsional - The rotation of hand around the longitudinal axis of the penis.
2. Axial - Compression/Tension along the Long. Axis of the member
3. Bending - The end to end pull, like a hot dog ends touching
4. Shear - Think Lorena Bobbit and Scissors. NOT on Mine!

These basic Civil Engineering concepts are essential to the proper development of the HUMMER or H3.

Best Defensive Centerfielder: Richie Ashburn or Willie Mays?

As you know by now, I love centerfield play. So I did a comparison between two great defensive centerfielders.
This is an excerpt from my recent analysis.

Richie Ashburn was passed over for the Hall of Fame until 1995 (mainly due to lack of power statistics), but he defined what a leadoff batter was in the #1 Philly uniform. His tenacious play, reckless abandon and ultimate toughness in a town wanton of that grit, encourage teammates and garnered praise in the midst of less-than-successful seasons that usually beset the Phillies after 1950. A five-time All Star over his career (with Mays, Snider, Bell and Pinson sometimes making it in his stead in the National League), he racked up more seasons with 400 putouts (9) than any other centerfielder in baseball history.

Richie Ashburn’s greatness on defense, lifetime .308 BA and .394 OBP certainly should have been honored sooner by the National Baseball Hall of Fame than 1995. In reflection, this author would rate him the 5th best centerfielder of this group (behind Mays, Mantle, Joe DiMaggio and Duke Snider) if only because his defense was near the top amongst all Centerfielders in MLB History in as much as putouts, assist records and fielding percentage do reflect that. To further this point of view, an analysis of why this holds merit comes from examination against the standard which all Centerfielders in the post racial-integration era are measured:
The fairness of this analysis comes from certain measurements:

1. Utilizing 1951-1957 Records. Both players were in the same home ballparks each season; were both at the prime or near prime of their defensive abilities; each had roughly the same players flanking them during the time.
2. Pitching Staffs were very close in ERA (3.71 NY to 3.74 Philly) and gave up close to the same amount of Home Runs (977 NY to 948 Philly.)
3. Adjustments were made for higher percentage of balls hit to outfield. The Phillies did use the fly ball out more than New York. New York though turned significantly more double plays from both the outfield and infield. Phillies had mediocre corner OF defense (Del Ennis, Johnny Wyrostek, Rip Repulski and Elmer Valo amongst the group) whereas, Monte Irvin, Don Mueller and Bobby Thomson patrolled around Willie Mays. This does help Richie’s totals, but his high Fielding % reflects he made catches consistently even under a likely lack of support from his corners. Even if Mays was much more daring, he didn’t amass the same amount of catches from just poaching his counterparts’ chances.

Philadelphia did have an imbalance of Outfield Putouts made during this span of time. (Table 4.6) The benefit was most egregious in 1951 and 1957. However, the true measure of one players’ contribution to a team’s defense comes from the percentage of outs he is responsible for. And adjustments can be made for obtaining more opportunities than other outfields or centerfielders.Willie Mays lost two prime seasons (1952 & 1953) to serving his country in the Korean conflict. It is not hard to imagine what could have been the final totals of Mays if not for losing this time (over 700 home runs for certain.) But the fairest defensive comparison of these men can be seen from 1954 to 1957 when both played over 150 games and compiled staggering numbers of chances and putouts.

To adjust for Ashburn’s fly ball pitching staff, the additional Total chances were multiplied by his percentage of Total Outfield Chances, halved and then subtracted from his real Total Chances. And Mays received the same benefit but those chances were added to his totals. This adjustment gives both the same number of potential opportunities in the outfield.

Willie Mays and Richie Ashburn differ by a mere twenty balls and (.024 ball/game average) over a 4-year span. Given the statistical closeness, both playing in spacious ballparks (Connie Mack Stadium was in excess of 445 feet to Center and had much greater foul line dimensions than the Polo Grounds) and Richie’s mediocre cohorts (who even with his .985 Fielding % could muster only a .9784 % compared to .9793 % for the Giants with Willie’s .9813% during this span), Ashburn was nearly identical to Mays in terms of defensive talent and numbers, not offensive prowess. As Daryl Sconiers states in an Anaheim Angels web blog, www.Haloblog.com, “Any centerfielder who posted 500+ TC, behind even the weakest pitching staffs and teams, was a great defensive centerfielder, at least that season. And any player who posted 500 or more TC [Total Chances] in a season behind a strong staff is likely one of the, if not the, best of all-time.” Ashburn (5) five times in this time span achieved 500 total chances.

Any defensive centerfielder conversation without Ashburn included in it is ignoring all statistical information and anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Maybe more importantly, the New York media’s concentration on Mays, Mantle, Snider and even Joe DiMaggio, in his last few seasons (1948-1951), was more the reason Ashburn’s skills were diminished in the eyes of baseball experts, then and possibly, now.

This player distortion idea is not new. As Daryl Sconiers suggests, “…the truth is that most opinions about defensive center field are based largely on lore, anecdote and the regional or team biases of those crafting the tales of talent. Too often, any list of great defensive centerfield includes a majority of players whom the modern fan never saw play.”[1] As this fan can attest to, I did not see Richie Ashburn or Willie Mays play, other than highlight reels that played the over-the-shoulder signature grab Willie Mays made of a Vic Wertz bomb in the 1954 World Series, a play that etched Willie Mays in the immortality of baseball.

In 1950, Ashburn made a perfect throw to stop Dodger Cal Abrams from scoring the game winner at the end of the season, thus allowing George Sisler Jr. to hit the home run that put the 1950 Phillies in the World Series. In Mind Game (2005), Ashburn’s 8-year stretch in center field (1951-58) is rated amongst the best ever had by center fielders of any era using WARP 3 (Wins Above Replacement Player) factor. On the list, Willie Mays (1958-1965: 97.2), Mickey Mantle (1954-1961: 94.1), Joe DiMaggio (1937-1947: 85.2), Duke Snider (1949-1956: 74.0) and Ashburn (73.3) reflects the elite level at which these center fielders were playing. Two others of note, Kirby Puckett (70.8) and Ken Griffey Jr. (81.9) are considered the standards of excellence in the last twenty years.[2] This WARP 3 measurement also has CF Bernie Williams (71.7) considered a top 15 MLB player (16.3) from 1995-2002.
[1] Sconiers D. Defensive Centerfield. Unknown: http://www.haloblog.com/oct1504.html; 2004 October 15. 9. Last Accessed: August 2, 2006.
[2] Goldman Steve, editor. Mind Game: How the Boston Red Sox Got Smart, Won a World Series, and Created a New Blueprint for Winning. New York: Workman Publishing; 2005. 56.

Marriage: A 5-year deal, then Free Agency

This may be a controversial solution to what has become a rather interesting institution: Marriage. I firmly believe we would be best suited to sign a 5 year contract with stipulations both ways which could allow people to void a marriage after that time. Now, this smacks against all things religious and the sanctity of the forever bond. But let's face it: 50% of these life-long partnerships will wind up in a divorce court either in a backwater somewhere or maybe in front of some TV judge that has more quips than questions.
For those that are married, it very well is a workable, highly energetic, fruitful relationship. That it works so well is a testament to your work and resolve. But since the 1970's most of these unions are lost. So, why not have a stipulated time frame to work in? Much like professional sports - namely baseball - where a contract is guaranteed for a determined length. After that, the parties can reup for much longer (or shorter...) duration. Each would get certain things ( a prenump) in the initial bonding of the two souls. Kids, Career, Living arrangements, Income split and material goods would be bartered for. I think this would be good for Hollywood types, YUPPIES, DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) and any other bonding of "equals."

I confess that I have not been married; and will I likely not do that "I do." Not because I enjoy some lascivious lifestyle, but because of things are fairly cemented in my heart, and I am not given to see it going very far askew from that slope.

A marriage is supposed to be based on tremendous love of another. But under that I see four posts, which are:

1. Money. It is a fairly rare couple that does not discuss finances - as it pertains to each other and the relationship. Lack of it certainly stresses the fabric of a relationship, whether due to career advancement, unfortunate circumstances (Layoff, medical or natural forces) or bad deals made out of lack of knowledge. Money was a distant reason why my parents were unable to succeed.


2. Time. Couples have to spend time together (and apart) for well being. Each person has their comfort level as to that amount. Some lose each other if they are never around, passing in the night due to work or otherwise preoccupied. Without a rational amount of time together, I've seen some friends really lose their "loves."


3. Communication. Interrelated to Time, but seperate, is the art of communication. It is an art form; that I've never seemed to have master with a female. Whether You believe in John Gray's book or not, the ability to share rational thoughts and our feelings is the likely the most important of these poles.
4. Sex. Similar to Time, the needs (or wants) of the two people vary. People are not always compatible in bed. Generally the greater the difference in amount, variety and what have you, the worse the relationship is further along. From what I've read, each partner feels manipulated or beholden to the other's sexual desires.

I don't think we are necessarily meant to marry for life. Just the probability of meeting the best partner for us has to be fairly slim. Adaptability and fidelity to the relationship is also a very mutable situation. But the pillars to achieving a love in marriage I feel start with the above.
5 years is much longer than most can commit to a career - which is usually the 2nd most important deal any of us dive into nowadays. And how interrelated our jobs become to our marriage, it is no great wonder that marriages fail. Careers are no longer stable as baby boomers found out and Generation X and Y and whatever the new generation is called are finding and adapting too.
Women are getting married much later. (Or binomially; either 18-21 or over 31-35, due to career first orientation.) Men are no longer supreme bread winners; the time element is first to go south in a relationship. With a fast-paced world, people are even wasting time on computer relationships instead of REAL world meetings. So it is complex.

You no longer meet your wife in school alone; or a sock hop; or shortly before a war- with life or death in the balance. Even with more opportunities to meet whomever, like minded or not, I don't see it getting better. Add to that the same sex couplings and the "death do us part" is quite overblown.
Well, at least I know I'm a FREE AGENT.