Andre Agassi and his Autobiography

This is a direct response to Martina Navratilova's comments regarding Andre Agassi's drug use: it's absolutely NOTHING like Roger Clemens.

For those that don't know, Agassi is coming out with a book on November 9th that talks about his life. This includes his feelings about his dad (not good), his feelings about tennis growing up (not good), and his feelings about himself (not good). If I'm understanding the story right, Agassi basically was forced to play tennis by his Olympic Boxer dad, which caused a lot of those feelings. Agassi was also in a marriage with Brooke Shields that wasn't really helping with the positive feelings. So, when he was tempted with crystal meth by one of his friends, he gave in. Then he got caught. Then he lied about it and got off.

Agassi wasn't a user for very long. It probably lasted less than a year (from what I can tell) and he wasn't playing good tennis either. His game suffered as he dropped in the rankings to around #160 in the world. Eventually he figured out how to love the game, started to like what he was doing, wasn't using drugs anymore, and got up to #6 in the world within a year from hitting rock bottom. He also eventually learned to appreciate his dad and now he's married to Steffi Graf and seems to have a loving marriage.

Roger Clemens was a great baseball player who worked hard at his sport and had great success. He's accused by his trainer of using performance enhancing drugs (HGH, I believe) and Clemens has been investigated for lying to a Congressional panel about his drug use. Clemens has not admitted to ever using PED's but there seems to be a decent amount of evidence pointing to that fact.

Okay, Ms. Navratilova, here are the major differences between Agassi and Clemens:

1. Agassi, though he lied at the time, has owned up to his drug use. Clemens has denied it, even though his playing days are now over. Maybe he's worried about the hall of fame.
2. Agassi is likeable. He's always been likeable. He doesn't seem full of himself. From all anecdotal knowledge I have of him (including a second-hand account of someone who met him during his playing days), he seems to be genuinely nice. I don't have any anecdotal anything of Clemens being nice. Plus he played for the "Evil Empire" in NY. Advantage Agassi.
3. Agassi has admitted to using crystal meth. Clemens is accused of using PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drugs. BIG difference in my book. Agassi wasn't made to be a better tennis player through drugs. Just look at his ranking during that time period!

Agassi was stupid. He made a dumb mistake at what was a difficult time in his life. I can't condone his actions. But he's human. He wasn't trying to be better than someone else by taking drugs. He wasn't trying to make more money by taking drugs. He wasn't trying to build on his legacy by taking drugs. He did something stupid and now he's admitting to it.

So what that he chose to do it now? Why not now?? When is a good time to write about the mistakes in your life? When you're old and forgotten? When no one remembers who you are? Maybe by writing it now Agassi has a chance to make a difference in someone's life. Maybe he can inspire someone to get away from that lifestyle.

Or maybe he's just making a buck with his book. Either way, it is what it is. Agassi can't go back in time and change his mistakes. That's why Navratilova needs to mind her own business.

Pet Peeves

I think most people tend to share the typical driving pet peeves. Ya know, when someone is driving slow in the left lane and won't move, or when you pass a car because they're going slow and then they speed up and pass you just to get in front of you and then slow down. One related to the speed-up, slow-down annoyance is that of the non-cruise-control user: the person who can't figure out how fast they want to go so they keep passing you in the other lane and then slowing down randomly. This process continues invariably until they possibly realize that the car next to them in the other lane hasn't changed speeds once.

And do i need to even mention the cell-phone drivers? They get on their phone and then totally lose all sense of reality. "I'm doing what? Driving? You're crazy! I'm obviously talking on the phone with my long-lost twin brother that needs my undivided attention since it's been 45 years since i've seen him..."--which explains why they zone out and have no concept of what speed they're going, or what lane they're in, or the fact that they're even in a car--"wow, this scenery is wonderful...and it keeps changing and i don't even have to do anything except sit comfortably in this soft chair that reclines..." I'd be hypocritical if i said i never talk on the phone when i drive. It's true, i do talk on the phone sometimes. But i can say with confidence that i'm always aware of what lane i'm in, i always check my blind spots, and i'm constantly aware of how fast i'm going (i use the cruise control...one of the greatest inventions ever...). I get tired of the guy on the phone going random speeds or going as fast as the person in front of them, not realizing how fast that speed is.

So, i have a new pet peeve that i just realized this week. Once again, it's related to the use of cars. This time instead of having to do with driving, it has to do with parking. In my apartment complex (as well as in many parking lots at shopping centers) there is a section of parking spots in the middle that are separated by a line in the middle (see this picture since i'm bad at discriptions). Basically you can either park facing towards the center line or if no one is on the other side you can pull all the way through and face away from the center line. That's totally cool...unless you don't pull all the way past the center line. So basically, you're almost taking up two parking spaces because you have no idea how to use your sideview mirrors to see the parking space lines behind you and because you're clueless as to what the length is of the car you drive every day.

I'm okay with people making mistakes, and maybe struggling with depth perception. But one thing i'm not very okay with is not fixing things that are easily fixable. The fact that the person driving the silver '08 honda civic can't properly park the car isn't a big deal. What is a big deal to me is not properly parking it and then just leaving it after getting out of the car and realizing it's not properly parked. Thanks for taking up two parking spaces! I have no pity on you if someone else who cannot properly park decides to park behind you and they too, like you, struggle with the length of their car and happen to put a severe dent in your bumper that is overhanging the center line by a couple feet...but i'm not angry or anything...

High School Reunions

I tend to surf around the web a lot looking for random stuff to read but one of the sites i started going to over the last several months is abcnews.com (i'm blaming that on an ex-girlfriend that used my computer to visit that website one time). Anyway, sometimes they have interesting articles or videos about random things that you normally don't see. One that i came across this morning is from Good Morning America and deals with the awkwardness of high school reunions.

If you want to look at the video click here. So the story is that this girl was dreading her 10-year reunion and decided to hire a stripper to go in her place and pretend to be her. She video-taped the whole thing and is making a documentary about what she did or something. I'm not really sure the point of the documentary. The woman who hired the stripper is a comedy writer now, so i guess she's just trying to make an extra buck off the awkwardness of her classmates.

The premise behind the sharing of the story in the first place was that reunions are awkward and people worry about how their former classmates look, or how they're going to be judged by their former classmates, or something random like that. Back in October i went to my 10-year reunion, sort of reluctantly, but what i found wasn't anything like what GMA wants you to think.

First of all, all those "popular kids" from back in high school weren't so popular anymore. They were just normal people doing sort of normal things. I mean, "normal" obviously is kind of a vague term but i think that's the point. Normal includes pretty much everyone, because we all do weird things or think weird things, or have jobs or go to school, or have spouses and kids, or are stay-at-home moms. I mean, there almost isn't anything that isn't normal. Even breaking the law is normal these days (it's my understanding that we have the largest population here in the U.S. of those in prison/on probation/on parole in the world).

Second, any dread or awkwardness is related more to old feelings from high school than any real need for active concern. I used to have this thing that when i was around my dad i sort of reverted back to a silly teenage boy. I think it got on his nerves because i wasn't able to be serious for two seconds! I would sort of even do the same thing with my mom. It took an active effort on my part to get past that. Unfortunately we don't usually see all our old "pals" from high school on a regular basis, so when we go back and do see them we risk feeling things we haven't felt in 10 or 15 or 20 years or whatever. Memories we may not have actively thought about in a long time suddenly come back. If high school was a horrible experience for you, or in your head has become a horrible experience, the level of anxiety will probably be higher than for someone who loved it and had tons of friends (unless of course they're worried about all those friends still accepting them).

I was feeling moderate levels of anxiety when it came to seeing people at my 10-year reunion. I think it's normal for people to wonder how they measure up to others after not seeing them for so long. But whether i "measure up" to others or not, once i leave that building my life goes back to the way it was before i stepped into that building. That means that no matter what happens that night my life won't revert back to me being in high school and i won't suddenly become a nerd, or band geek, or jock, or nobody, like i might've been back in high school. And that's exactly what happened. Very little changed from that night to the next night, though i do have more classmates from high school as friends on facebook.

I guess what i'm really trying to say is that high school reunions don't have to be anything more than just seeing people with whom you went to school. That can be a difficult task for some, but the anxiety is created in our heads. There is no real pressure to live up to anyone's expectations. That is something we create based on what others say, and on movies, and on what the media talks about (like GMA reporting on that documentary the way they did). I mean, i seriously doubt Diane Sawyer or any of her co-anchors are really all that worried when they go to high school reunions, no matter how much they pretend that they hate them. I would hate it too if i had become a relatively wealthy and well-known person on tv with a steady and (somewhat) respected job...

The World As We Know It

There was a time when i felt like i had a lot to say. There was always something on my mind about sports or politics or life. Lately i just haven't had much to say for whatever reason. Sometimes life gets a bit hectic so i just don't have much to say. But despite all the difficulties, here's one thing i've learned: there's more to this life than just what i experience.

I think it's part of our human nature to get caught up in one's own life, thinking that he/she is the only one feeling pain. The truth is that everyone feels pain. Some people just won't admit to it. I think pride is the downfall for those that won't admit they feel pain.

With all the murder-suicides that have been in the news lately it made me think how someone could possibly kill their own family, the people that they supposedly care about and that are supposed to care about them. It just doesn't make sense to me. But somehow in the mind of someone so desperate and sick there is a thought that killing everyone that is close to them will somehow make it all better. They'd rather escape and take everyone they love with them so that they won't leave their family here to feel the pain they would inevitably feel without them.

But what motivates someone to do something like that? Are they so worried about money and finances that they feel like killing their family is better than being homeless? I can't help but think that a major component of that decision is pride. Those that make the decision to not just kill themselves but also kill everyone close to them are cowards. They can't face the possibility of being a failure, or being looked upon by their family as a failure, or they can't handle the thought of being poor and letting down everyone. So they decide to choose the "easy" way out and leave it all behind...everything except what they supposedly care most about. Unfortunately it seems that they care most about themselves and lose all perspective on what it is like to actually care about others.

I just wish these people would get help instead of turning a gun on themselves and on others. It is time that instead of getting caught up in the perception (or misperception) of what society requires of men (to be providers, to be macho, to not let anything bother them, to be invulnerable) that we realize that people have weaknesses and faults and issues. Just because someone has problems doesn't make them any less of a man (i'm using this perspective because it seems that all the news has recently been about men killing their families). Being able to admit that you have problems makes you a better person than any stone-faced superman who doesn't allow himself to ever be vulnerable. At least the person who admits he has problems is one step closer to getting help. There was only one perfect person who ever lived on this earth, and you are not Him!

Political Debates (and the hours wasted on them)

No wonder people get tired of politics and have a hard time trusting politicians. Why? We don't just stereotype them as liars: we actually EXPECT them to lie! Why else do debates get so much attention (i.e. Palin-Biden) without the words travesty or farce being muttered even once. Let me explain.

Debates have been going on for years. The first time the two major-party candidates debated was in 1960, when Richard Nixon faced John F. Kennedy. I can't tell you what happened in that debate, and i can't tell you how truthful they were (factcheck.org hadn't been invented yet...and Al Gore hadn't gotten around to inventing the internet quite yet either) but i do know that the debate is more about show than anything. I'll get to that in a minute.

When people tuned into the Palin-Biden debate they were looking more for a trainwreck than anything, especially after her Katie Couric interview. You know the kind that you are horrified to look at but can't seem to not slow down or stop alltogether out of curiosity? Sometimes i think it's more about being able to say "yeah, i not only heard about it, i actually saw it first hand!" to your friends or co-workers or family. Do you really think people tuned in to find out what the McCain-Palin ticket was all about? Or they were wondering what Obama and Biden were going to do about healthcare? Truth is debates are less about the issues and more about appearances. Let me go back to the Nixon-Kennedy debate.

Back in 1960 televisions weren't quite as popular as they are today. There was still a transition from radio to tv, even though around 87% of households had at least one tv in 1960 (i haven't been able to verify that data). Now that number is around 99% with the average number of television sets per household is above 2.2. So anyway, there was a survey done back in 1960 after the debate. Those that listened to the debate felt that Nixon (the more experienced of the two candidates) won the debate. Those that watched it felt that Kennedy won the debate. Nixon, while more experienced, was older and also apparently had a sweating problem. Kennedy was much younger looking and appeared more collected than Nixon, leading those that watched him to feel that he had won the debate. That fact wasn't lost on politicians.

So here we are in 2008 when all the debates are televised. And candidates have realized that it's as much about appearance as it is about what they say. I would argue that it's more about appearance than what they say. Truth is, the average American isn't going to know the truth of what the candidates say. Even the above average American is going to struggle to know if what anyone says is true. Our population only consists of about a quarter of the population with at least a bachelors degree. Still, that education doesn't make much difference when the candidates are often speaking of things that normal people just don't know about. Here are some examples:

In the presidential debate from October 7, 2008, Obama brought up McCain's plan to allow Americans to afford health insurance through making employer insurance benefits taxable income while allowing for a $5000 tax credit. He basically claimed it was pointless because you're going to be taxing current benefits just to try to give you a tax break somewhere else. Well, that's sort of true, except for the fact that the tax credit is going to mean more money saved than that which is paid through taxing the benefits.

Here's my assessment of what Obama is doing here: To me this twisting of the logic of McCain's plan is actual pretty clear because i would find it highly unlikely that the average person is receiving more than $5000 in benefits. A tax credit, from my limited understanding from my Accounting 200 class, is income that is exempt from taxes. So by getting a $5000 credit you don't have to pay taxes on this, thus lowering your taxable income as long as your current insurance benefits don't exceed $5000. Obama is trying to play to the ignorance of the average American with regards to taxes by using logic that seems to make sense when looked at face value. That doesn't mean McCain's plan isn't flawed. There have been estimates that show that implementing this plan would cause a $1.3 trillion budget deficit over a period of 10 years.

That's just an example, and i'm not trying to single out Obama here because both candidates do the whole twisting thing. When Obama talked about attacking Bin Ladin in Pakistan McCain classified it as being irresponsible though, when asked about that same situation a year ago, McCain gave the same exact answer Obama did. So who's the one being irresponsible? The one claiming we should do it? Or the one that did claim we should do it, and then when asked on a public stage the same question tried to come across as the experienced and the responsible candidate in order to gain political points?

Just so you know, i didn't watch the presidential debate. I did however watch most of the Palin-Biden debate. I don't like debates because it seems to be the same thing over and over again, with things being made up or stretched to make it seem to be something that it isn't. I watched Palin-Biden on NBC and after it was over they were asking their political guests to comment on the debate. The whole discussion was about how she didn't look nearly as bad as they expected her to, and about how she "held her own" against the more experience Biden. They refused to recognize the fact that she has a very "cookies and ice cream" understanding of government and national issues. There was very little substance to anything she said! All i know is that she lives in an energy-producing state and that she thinks we should drill because that's what the "American people" are calling for. Why don't we talk about the issues more and less about how people performed in a debate. Yes, she held her own, but what about foreign policy and what about financial crises and what about global warming and what about budget deficits?

Being a leader is more about knowing what you're doing and doing it well than your ability to speak in public or debate with another person. It feels like we've completely lost sight of that! We're stuck with a two-party system that gives us two candidates that really are probably just as qualified as the other, if you think about it. What they actually do in office is really a toss-up. It's totally a gamble because presidents are rarely held to the promises they make. We can't kick them out until at least four years have passed. And sometimes, if there isn't a better alternative, we vote them back in office, regardless of what they've done the past four years.

I'm mostly against party affiliation, from the simple fact that not every republican, and not every democrat, are going to make the best candidate. What i mean is that by voting strictly along party lines you're basically saying that no matter the ignorance of the candidate, or their record, or what they really stand for, you agree with them because they wear a certain badge that means they'll sort of go along with the group that you pretty much agree with. To me, voting along party lines is just the political form of laziness. If you research them and every republican candidate, or every democratic candidate, out there goes along with your belief system, then vote for every one of those candidates of your party. But please make sure that they really do stand for what you believe in, and you're as sure as you can be that they'll do what you feel is best for the majority of us.

A thought on the Circus by the name of Favre

Brett Favre is finally gone. After all the back-and-forth, the Packers finally decided they were done with Favre. The silly thing is that we knew that a long time ago! Here are a few more silly things:

• Brett Favre can still play! (look at last season)
• The Packers KNOW he can still play! (look at last season/not letting him go to NFC)
• The Packers were going to pay him NOT to play!
• Favre's replacement, Aaron Rodgers, has never started a game in the NFL
• The Packers are coming off a 13-3 season WITH Brett Favre

I'm sure there are more things you can add to that list. So now that we're done with all this, what's going to happen this season now that Favre is with the Jets? Here are a few things to think about:

• Favre has been in basically the same, if not the same, offense for the last 16 years (meaning he'll have to learn a new one with the Jets)
• The Jets are coming off a 4-12 season and allowed 53 sacks (Favre was sacked 15 times last year)
• Chad Pennington, who compiled a decent passer rating of 86.1, was 1-7 as a starter
• The Jets averaged 3.8 yards per rush in 2007 as a team (the Packers averaged 4.1 yards per rush)

Basically Favre is an unknown commodity at 39 (in October) in the Jets' system (just so you know, i realize it sounds stupid to call Favre an unknown commodity, but i kind of feel that way, especially since he's been with one team and in one offensive system for so long). The learning curve is going to be very large, especially for someone who hasn't had to learn a new system in so long. He'll need to learn some new plays, new naming system, new protections, not to mention new opponents. That means a lot of work for someone who wasn't sure if he even wanted to play this season. Now you're throwing him into the largest market in the NFL and expecting him to thrive. Not many quarterbacks thrive this late in their careers at 38 or 39, if they even make it that far (see Marino, Dan). Favre is definitely the exception. You can't ever count him out. He still has zip on his passes and has always played with a passion unrivaled.

So what's my prediction? If he stays healthy (yeah, i know the consecutive games played streak...but he's not getting any younger!) and doesn't waver in his decision to play this year here's what i see:

• 3500 yards passing
• 23 touchdowns
• 20 interceptions
• 58% completion percentage
• 9-10 wins

I don't see this being a really good team, but i think they'll be way better than they were last year. They should be good, but i just think Favre makes too many mistakes at times. The fact that he will have to learn the system and gain a rapport with his teammates extremely quickly makes me question how well he's going to play this year. If he keeps his composure and doesn't feel the pressure to carry the team i seem him lowering those interception numbers. You have to remember that last year was a big change from the previous two years where his passer rating was just above 70 and he threw 47 interceptions compared to 38 touchdowns combined from the two years. Which Favre will we see? I'm looking forward to the season, i'll just say that!

Who cares about her income??

So there's this story about Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, and how she refuses to disclose her personal tax returns. And guess who is trying to make political gain from it? No, not Hillary, but the Dems in general. Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee Chairman, has decided to target presidential hopeful John McCain for his wife's decision not to release her tax returns. There are a lot of reasons why it shouldn't matter and why I question whether Dean has a happy marriage (an exaggeration, i know):

• First, there's a prenuptual agreement in place between John McCain and his wife, meaning that what's hers isn't necessarily his.
• The real issue Dean should worry about isn't in regards to her tax return but the fact that Senator McCain only released two years of his returns. Apparently that's not enough. (The Clintons now have all of their returns from 1977 to the present on public record) Plus John Kerry had to deal with this same issue with his wife during the 2004 election, but the pressure was coming from the Republicans.
• What is there to hide? I mean, if there were improprieties where the McCains were benefiting from his position as a senator, wouldn't we be hearing about it by now? People are paid lots of money to look into the finances and history of the candidates in order to find anything illegal, so i'm sure it'll come out eventually if that's the case, regardless of the lack of her tax returns.
• Back to the whole marriage thing, doesn't Dean know that the man doesn't dominate the woman and tell her what to do? I mean seriously, they're individuals and have their own mind to make decisions. If Cindy McCain doesn't want to release her tax information--she's filed separately every year for the 28 years they've been married--she shouldn't have to, especially since the prenuptual agreement is in place. What makes the Clintons and Obamas different is that they filed jointly so there aren't the same kinds of issues there.
• And finally, there is no legal obligation for the candidates to share! So focus on the stuff that really matters!

If Dean is upset that Kerry got so much criticism in the 2004 campaign from the Republicans, then i understand. But does he really need to stoop and criticize Senator McCain for his wife's decision? Does Dean tell his wife what to do and when to do it? I'm very much in support of individuality of a husband and a wife. I do believe that typically it's good to share finances, but every marriage is different. They had a prenuptual agreement, which shows a level of financial autonomy. Emotionally they may be united, but financially they aren't.

You know, people make a big deal out of money. Often way too big of a deal. The reality of the situation is that the majority of politicians that run for a position like US Senator or President of the US are pretty well off already. To me, this whole mess is just splitting hairs. Neither party is innocent of this kind of nitpicking. Let's just focus on what's important, like how these candidates are going to improve our nation.