where i take a simple joke way too seriously

see this graph?


Hardy har har, amusing way of encapsulating the rise and fall of various moving picture trilogies. Yes, yes. BUT ENOUGH LAUGHTER. I'm taking this graph TO TASK.

1. It is downright stupid to say Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade were equally good. Nonsense. The only thing saving Temple of Doom from outright obscurity is the presence of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. The movie itself really isn't that good. Raiders and Crusade, on the other hand, are two of the greatest adventure films ever.
2. We're giving Jurassic Park (the first one) a, what? 6/10? Are you kidding me? Who didn't love Jurassic Park? Deserves much more than 6/10.
3. Was Die Hard 2 really that good? I've never seen it, and I'd hate to think a 9/10 action flick is out there going unwatched by me.
4. Wait, why would I hate that? Don't I want there to be great movies I haven't seen, so I can, you know, go watch them and enjoy that two-hour window of my life? What the hell is wrong with me?
5. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who liked Terminator 3. You have to at least enjoy the firetruck car chase, right?
6. I don't think X-Men 3 was that bad. But yeah, Spider-Man 3 probably was that bad.
7. Was Blade 2 really that good?
   

That's all I got. Lockecrest out.

when stupid people are paid to know things

Today on a local sports radio show, one of the guys said that 6 of the top 7 players on the active career home run list have been linked to steroids, and the exception was Pujols. He kept repeating this over and over on my ten minute drive home from lunch, so it wasn't just an isolated misstatement or me mishearing him.

I instantly recognized about 37 incorrect things about this statement, and keep in mind I'm not the one who is getting paid to know things about sports. In fact, I'm currently turning my brain inside out in order to accommodate an entire state's legal system, and most of my other knowledge and expertise is currently gathering a considerable amount of dust.

Anyway, (and firstly) I knew Griffey was the active leader with 600+ homers, and Thome had to be in the top 7, and neither of them were connected to steroids. So that's two non-juicers right there, in addition to Pujols.

However (and secondly), I highly doubted Pujols had already reached the top seven in the active leader list.

Third, this list sounds like it includes guys like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Palmeiro. Toward the end, he even referenced "Sosa and Palmeiro" being on the list, yet still not swaying from calling it the "active" list. This makes the inclusion of Pujols even worse because I knew Pujols hasn't hit anywhere near 500 home runs, which he'd need to to be on this "past decade" list. Plus, Griffey still has to be on whatever list he's using, and he's clean. So, the list he's actually describing is more like "most homers from guys who played in the past decade not named Ken Griffey, Jr., plus Albert Pujols."

When I got home I pulled up the real list of active home run leaders. Here it is:

1. Griffey (clean)
2. A-Rod (dirty)
3. Thome (clean)
4. Manny (dirty)
5. Sheffield (dirty)
6. Delgado (clean)
7. Chipper Jones (clean)

What? No, Pujols? Shocking! Turn's out he's down at #13. And four clean to three dirty, not one to six? Again, I AM SHOCKED.

true story

i am having recurring day dreams of having the everliving crap beaten out of me. nose bleeding, ribs cracked, head smashed against the wall, thrown to the floor and kicked repeatedly, etc. but i always wind up fighting back, and giving to my assailant more than he gave me.

with me spending every waking moment either studying for the bar or cursing myself for not studying, i think the metaphoric lesson my subconscious is trying to convey is pretty transparent, but i find it fascinating nonetheless.