It appears that the deal for Daisuke Matsuzaka is done. Time for the Berlitz courses to begin and the translation sites will prosper.But at Reality Check, we are also about 'giving back'. So here's some key hints for the Dice guy as he heads to Boston.
Hire a driver. Why let the one way streets and rotaries make you crazy when you can easily afford quality transportation?
Don't bother to learn much English. Whatever you do, DO NOT read Dan Shaughnessy or Gerry Callahan.
Don't listen to sports radio.
Listen to Jason Varitek. He's an honorable catcher. What about Mirabelli? Don't worry, you won't pitch to him much.
Don't carry a lot of cash. Let the riff-raff (everybody but you) pick up the tab.
Think about investing your 401-K with guys like Henry. He really does know something about money.
Do not spend too much time with "Baseball Annies." Ask around Fenway about a guy named Derek.
Don't forget about your Japanese baseball experience. In the American League, they can hit the stuffing out of the high hard one, and sneaky fast isn't as important as sneaky.
You probably should learn the two most important words in the English language first, "Dunkin' Donuts."
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
SCOTT BORAS - GREED IS ALWAYS NOT GOOD !!
When Scott Boras makes his pitch to represent players, they come away impressed with his knowledge, with how well-versed he is, with how well he speaks the baseball language. He is the Alistair Cooke of the agents.
For some, part of his pitch is a deal-breaker: If I represent you, he has told some players in so many words, only I do the negotiating. Their impression is that he wants 100 percent control.
"Why would I do that?" one player mused, looking back on the day that Boras tried to sign him as a high school senior. "It's my life."
When Boras negotiates, club executives sometimes wonder whether all the facts -- whether every piece of every offer -- gets through to the player. They never know, and it scares the hell out of them; Boras is the funnel through which all the information is channeled. This is why Theo Epstein and Larry Lucchino flew to California late, why they rode on John Henry's private plane, why they've become so open and outspoken about their negotiations.
They don't know for sure whether Daisuke Matsuzaka knows what they've offered; they don't have a sense of whether Matsuzaka understands that the clock is ticking, that this negotiation might all be playing out like a filibuster. They don't know whether Matsuzaka is on board with everything that is happening, or if this is a Scott Boras production, a possible Curt Flood-like challenge to the posting system between Major League Baseball and the teams in Japan.
They're hoping that Matsuzaka will read what they are saying on the Internet, or see them on television; they're hoping that friends start sending Matsuzaka text messages, or call him on the phone.
If Boras knows, deep down inside, that he ultimately will agree to a deal with the Red Sox, this is all about Boras playing the only negotiating card he possesses. The longer he waits, the more anxious the Red Sox become, because their entire offseason really is structured around this 26-year-old talent.
But it may be that Boras intends to get Matsuzaka the $100 million contract he's asking for, rather than the $40 million-to-$60 million deal Boston might be offering. It might be that Boras will take his client past Thursday's deadline without a deal, and lead him into the unknown.
And you'd have to wonder: For Scott Boras, when does this stop becoming a chase of dollars and start being about his clients doing what they love in their work and playing baseball?
The gist of what Boras has been saying about the inequity of the posting system is right. He could get more money for Matsuzaka if he plays this out. Matsuzaka could go back to Japan, back to Seibu, and hit the posting system again next year. Maybe the Mets and Yankees would offer $70 million the next time around, and maybe Matsuzaka would get offered another 10 percent, another 15 percent. Maybe the pitcher could wait until after the 2008 season, when he would become a pure free agent and -- if he stays healthy, if his performance doesn't decline -- he might get $120 million. Or more. There could always be another nickel to squeeze, more money to collect.
Here's another option for Matsuzaka: Accept Boston's solid offer, whatever that is, and just go out and realize his dream of pitching in the major leagues.
Boras is extraordinary at what he does, at extracting a volume of dollars from places that you never would've imagined. He is like a chess master, and every negotiation is a match to be won. But in this era, when players are now making more money than they can ever spend in their lifetimes, it's debatable whether the extra cash actually improves the quality of life of his players, and whether all this angst pays off, in the big picture.
Only the players would know that, for sure. Only they can tell you whether making that extra $1.5 million per year makes a huge difference in their lives when they're making $12 million already, and have $50 million in the bank.
A few months after Alex Rodriguez signed his $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers, a deal negotiated by Boras, A-Rod was quoted in a New York newspaper as saying that he had really hoped to sign with the Mets. That seemed utterly bizarre, and a little silly: A-Rod had more negotiating leverage than any player in the history of baseball and yet he wound up playing someplace other than where he wanted to play. He could've played for the Mets – maybe not for $252 million, but maybe for $200 million. The difference between his playing for the Mets or not playing for the Mets was a whole lot of numbers on bank statements.
Barry Zito could be facing the same kind of decision soon. Zito, who friends say is not someone who has a lot of material needs in his life so far, might take the highest offer to go play with the Rangers. Or maybe he'll take less money and go play for the Mets. We'll see. The history of the Boras clients is that they almost always take the highest offer. It's their choice. If A-Rod preferred to play for the Rangers and was willing to sacrifice his dream of playing for the Mets and make the extra money, more power to him.
But these are not the days of Curt Flood, who simply wanted to be able to decide where he could play, or the days of Jim Bunning, who fought for an increase in the pension fund. The players get the maximum pension allowed under law. The average salary will probably climb over $3 million annually this year. The minimum salary will be $380,000 in 2007.
This is what Roy Oswalt made in the first five seasons in his career: $300,000, $500,000, $3.25 million, $5.9 million, $11 million. For a young man from Weir, Miss., the son of a logger, that's pretty good. And, by the way, he just signed a $73 million contract.
Matsuzaka has never pitched a day in the major leagues, and it could be that when Boras is finished haggling, the pitcher could make $10 million in his first year in the majors, and more after that. Much more.
But with every passing day, with every delay, with every insistence upon more dollars, Boras is effectively placing more pressure on the shoulders of his client, who already is facing an enormous adjustment if he signs to play in Boston. And if Boras/Matsuzaka don't sign, if the agent's filibuster continues and they try to make the pitcher the Curt Flood of the Japanese posting system, you have to wonder whether it really will be worth it, in the end, for Matsuzaka.
The backbone of the peaceful labor negotiations that just concluded was the recognition, by the players and the owners, that the sport is flush, everybody is making money, and there's really no reason for fighting and threatening the health of the sport and there's much more incentive for working out an equitable deal.
We'll see whether Boras and Matsuzaka achieve that mind-set. I hope, at some point, Matsuzaka's desire to play baseball becomes a factor, because he's going to get paid a lot of money no matter what happens, and because he might have to sacrifice some of those days playing baseball to glean cash he may never spend
For some, part of his pitch is a deal-breaker: If I represent you, he has told some players in so many words, only I do the negotiating. Their impression is that he wants 100 percent control.
"Why would I do that?" one player mused, looking back on the day that Boras tried to sign him as a high school senior. "It's my life."
When Boras negotiates, club executives sometimes wonder whether all the facts -- whether every piece of every offer -- gets through to the player. They never know, and it scares the hell out of them; Boras is the funnel through which all the information is channeled. This is why Theo Epstein and Larry Lucchino flew to California late, why they rode on John Henry's private plane, why they've become so open and outspoken about their negotiations.
They don't know for sure whether Daisuke Matsuzaka knows what they've offered; they don't have a sense of whether Matsuzaka understands that the clock is ticking, that this negotiation might all be playing out like a filibuster. They don't know whether Matsuzaka is on board with everything that is happening, or if this is a Scott Boras production, a possible Curt Flood-like challenge to the posting system between Major League Baseball and the teams in Japan.
They're hoping that Matsuzaka will read what they are saying on the Internet, or see them on television; they're hoping that friends start sending Matsuzaka text messages, or call him on the phone.
If Boras knows, deep down inside, that he ultimately will agree to a deal with the Red Sox, this is all about Boras playing the only negotiating card he possesses. The longer he waits, the more anxious the Red Sox become, because their entire offseason really is structured around this 26-year-old talent.
But it may be that Boras intends to get Matsuzaka the $100 million contract he's asking for, rather than the $40 million-to-$60 million deal Boston might be offering. It might be that Boras will take his client past Thursday's deadline without a deal, and lead him into the unknown.
And you'd have to wonder: For Scott Boras, when does this stop becoming a chase of dollars and start being about his clients doing what they love in their work and playing baseball?
The gist of what Boras has been saying about the inequity of the posting system is right. He could get more money for Matsuzaka if he plays this out. Matsuzaka could go back to Japan, back to Seibu, and hit the posting system again next year. Maybe the Mets and Yankees would offer $70 million the next time around, and maybe Matsuzaka would get offered another 10 percent, another 15 percent. Maybe the pitcher could wait until after the 2008 season, when he would become a pure free agent and -- if he stays healthy, if his performance doesn't decline -- he might get $120 million. Or more. There could always be another nickel to squeeze, more money to collect.
Here's another option for Matsuzaka: Accept Boston's solid offer, whatever that is, and just go out and realize his dream of pitching in the major leagues.
Boras is extraordinary at what he does, at extracting a volume of dollars from places that you never would've imagined. He is like a chess master, and every negotiation is a match to be won. But in this era, when players are now making more money than they can ever spend in their lifetimes, it's debatable whether the extra cash actually improves the quality of life of his players, and whether all this angst pays off, in the big picture.
Only the players would know that, for sure. Only they can tell you whether making that extra $1.5 million per year makes a huge difference in their lives when they're making $12 million already, and have $50 million in the bank.
A few months after Alex Rodriguez signed his $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers, a deal negotiated by Boras, A-Rod was quoted in a New York newspaper as saying that he had really hoped to sign with the Mets. That seemed utterly bizarre, and a little silly: A-Rod had more negotiating leverage than any player in the history of baseball and yet he wound up playing someplace other than where he wanted to play. He could've played for the Mets – maybe not for $252 million, but maybe for $200 million. The difference between his playing for the Mets or not playing for the Mets was a whole lot of numbers on bank statements.
Barry Zito could be facing the same kind of decision soon. Zito, who friends say is not someone who has a lot of material needs in his life so far, might take the highest offer to go play with the Rangers. Or maybe he'll take less money and go play for the Mets. We'll see. The history of the Boras clients is that they almost always take the highest offer. It's their choice. If A-Rod preferred to play for the Rangers and was willing to sacrifice his dream of playing for the Mets and make the extra money, more power to him.
But these are not the days of Curt Flood, who simply wanted to be able to decide where he could play, or the days of Jim Bunning, who fought for an increase in the pension fund. The players get the maximum pension allowed under law. The average salary will probably climb over $3 million annually this year. The minimum salary will be $380,000 in 2007.
This is what Roy Oswalt made in the first five seasons in his career: $300,000, $500,000, $3.25 million, $5.9 million, $11 million. For a young man from Weir, Miss., the son of a logger, that's pretty good. And, by the way, he just signed a $73 million contract.
Matsuzaka has never pitched a day in the major leagues, and it could be that when Boras is finished haggling, the pitcher could make $10 million in his first year in the majors, and more after that. Much more.
But with every passing day, with every delay, with every insistence upon more dollars, Boras is effectively placing more pressure on the shoulders of his client, who already is facing an enormous adjustment if he signs to play in Boston. And if Boras/Matsuzaka don't sign, if the agent's filibuster continues and they try to make the pitcher the Curt Flood of the Japanese posting system, you have to wonder whether it really will be worth it, in the end, for Matsuzaka.
The backbone of the peaceful labor negotiations that just concluded was the recognition, by the players and the owners, that the sport is flush, everybody is making money, and there's really no reason for fighting and threatening the health of the sport and there's much more incentive for working out an equitable deal.
We'll see whether Boras and Matsuzaka achieve that mind-set. I hope, at some point, Matsuzaka's desire to play baseball becomes a factor, because he's going to get paid a lot of money no matter what happens, and because he might have to sacrifice some of those days playing baseball to glean cash he may never spend
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Manny or Drew..An Intersting conundrum
There aren't too many ballplayers who generate the emotional reaction produced by the two that the Boston Red Sox mulled over this week: Manny Ramirez and J.D. Drew.
For years, the push and pull of Ramirez's relationship with Boston has had all the magic dysfunction of Ralph and Alice Kramden. Meanwhile, the talented but phlegmatic Drew, whose contract with the Red Sox seemed a fait accompli by the time Thanksgiving weekend ended, confounds a number of baseball fans. Not since Musak's heyday has such blandness caused such aggravation.
More than three years after Michael Lewis' Moneyball became the centerpiece of debate over the values of baseball players, Ramirez and Drew present a fierce conundrum for anyone following the game, old school or new.
Often misunderstood, Moneyball principally suggested that franchises should analyze ballplayers dispassionately to find undervalued talent whose weaknesses were superficial, whose perceived flaws were just a reflection of long-established but irrational biases. But this offseason, the Red Sox are moving to rid themselves of one statistically brilliant, handle-with-care outfielder for a different-but-slightly-less extreme version of the same. What are we to make of this?
It's not definite, but Boston's move toward replacing Ramirez with Drew (although some wonder why the Sox don't just forget about expensive pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka and just go with both outfielders) could represent an ongoing merging of pre- and post-Moneyball thinking, showing that you don't have to be a hardliner in either category.
Though Ramirez is on a path to the Hall of Fame, there are statistical reasons for moving into the future with Drew. Despite his reputation as a player likely to disintegrate at the first strong gust of wind, the 31-year-old Drew racked up 645 plate appearances in 2004 and 594 in 2006; his 2005 season was curtailed with a hit-by-pitch, not a case of the vapors. Using the Wins Above Replacement Player stats (which include defensive contributions) calculated by Baseball Prospectus, in his last two full seasons, Drew was more valuable than Ramirez: 9.8 to 8.2 in '04, 8.6 to 7.7 in '06.
Given that Drew will make millions less than Ramirez, even with the frothy salaries that free agents are commanding, given that Drew is 2 1/2 years younger, given that Ramirez has battled health problems himself that found him playing fewer games than Drew last season, there's a worthy argument to be made that Drew, plus any savings in Ramirez's salary that Boston can invest in other players, plus the loot the Sox can reap in a Ramirez trade, is a sound step forward.
To be sure, there are numbers arguments in Ramirez's favor too: The guy, after all, has a track record like few others in the game today, had 379 total bases (including walks) last season and posted an Equivalent Average, according to Baseball Prospectus, of .352 -- significantly higher than Drew's .306. That statistic leaves defense out of the equation, but nevertheless, there's no guarantee that the loss of Ramirez will be made up on the field by Drew and the Ramirez trade bounty.
So while it would be foolish to ignore the statistics of both players -- and downright moronic to tunnel-vision on misleading traditional stats like RBI when there are more insightful choices to be found -- there is enough doubt about whether Drew or Ramirez has the better statistical future for Boston to glance carefully at the character and personality issues that seem to envelop them.
Ramirez has been a regular on the "he's doggin' it" circuit, while Drew's baggage wouldn't fit in an overhead compartment of a jumbo jet, if you believe the common perception. The rap is that Drew doesn't play through pain or give a full effort. He's joyless in the clubhouse. He's motivated by money rather than winning. And to top it all off, in exercising his option to end his five-year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers after two years, he reportedly betrayed assurances he had made that he would stick around.
There are counter arguments to the above. For example, up until the last minute, Drew retained every right to change his mind about opting out, and the Dodgers were responsible for understanding that. And playing through pain is often overrated. For all the images we have of Kirk Gibson-types gutting it out, you'll find plenty of players who make a nagging injury dimensionally worse, or who set the team back by keeping a spot in the lineup from a reserve who could do better until the starter has recuperated.
In a recent Boston Globe story, Gordon Edes wrote that "according to one major leaguer who has played against Drew for much of his career, one Dodger player greeted the news of Drew's departure by phoning friends in jubilation." Whether this anonymous story is apocryphal or not, it would seem to reflect badly on Drew ... until you question what wisdom and character conclusions we should draw from a Dodger who would be celebrating the departure of a player who was, except for Rafael Furcal, the team's most valuable.
A thoughtful general manager can and should weigh testimony like this without abandoning old-school values or turning tail from new-school ones. There's room to debate how much character and personality matter -- a lot or a little. But for those who give them any weight, there is also a way to take a Moneyball approach to character and personality, to do their best to find which character traits are overvalued and which are undervalued. It's entirely possible that the so-called character deficiencies of Drew -- or Ramirez -- are both relevant and misunderstood.
You'll go crazy with frustration if you can't accept the fact that Drew and Ramirez won't play 162 games like, say, Juan Pierre does. But those who can get past their biases about what every ballplayer should do in a perfect world, who can adjust their expectations and look at the overall pluses and minuses of Drew and Ramirez together, who can avoid letting preconceived notions distort the truth (Drew was notorious in Los Angeles for failing in the clutch despite posting statistics in 2006 showing that he excelled in every clutch situation, including close games in the late innings), will find their ability to make an intelligent assessment skyrocketing.
As for Boston, whose activities this offseason may well be discussed for years to come, it is possible that everything that the Red Sox think they'd be gaining from Manny no longer being Manny could be lost in J.D. being J.D. Or vice versa. If the Sox can't find clarity through statistics, they're stuck trying to decide which competing aphorism to buy into: "The grass is always greener" vs. "better the devil you know."
For years, the push and pull of Ramirez's relationship with Boston has had all the magic dysfunction of Ralph and Alice Kramden. Meanwhile, the talented but phlegmatic Drew, whose contract with the Red Sox seemed a fait accompli by the time Thanksgiving weekend ended, confounds a number of baseball fans. Not since Musak's heyday has such blandness caused such aggravation.
More than three years after Michael Lewis' Moneyball became the centerpiece of debate over the values of baseball players, Ramirez and Drew present a fierce conundrum for anyone following the game, old school or new.
Often misunderstood, Moneyball principally suggested that franchises should analyze ballplayers dispassionately to find undervalued talent whose weaknesses were superficial, whose perceived flaws were just a reflection of long-established but irrational biases. But this offseason, the Red Sox are moving to rid themselves of one statistically brilliant, handle-with-care outfielder for a different-but-slightly-less extreme version of the same. What are we to make of this?
It's not definite, but Boston's move toward replacing Ramirez with Drew (although some wonder why the Sox don't just forget about expensive pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka and just go with both outfielders) could represent an ongoing merging of pre- and post-Moneyball thinking, showing that you don't have to be a hardliner in either category.
Though Ramirez is on a path to the Hall of Fame, there are statistical reasons for moving into the future with Drew. Despite his reputation as a player likely to disintegrate at the first strong gust of wind, the 31-year-old Drew racked up 645 plate appearances in 2004 and 594 in 2006; his 2005 season was curtailed with a hit-by-pitch, not a case of the vapors. Using the Wins Above Replacement Player stats (which include defensive contributions) calculated by Baseball Prospectus, in his last two full seasons, Drew was more valuable than Ramirez: 9.8 to 8.2 in '04, 8.6 to 7.7 in '06.
Given that Drew will make millions less than Ramirez, even with the frothy salaries that free agents are commanding, given that Drew is 2 1/2 years younger, given that Ramirez has battled health problems himself that found him playing fewer games than Drew last season, there's a worthy argument to be made that Drew, plus any savings in Ramirez's salary that Boston can invest in other players, plus the loot the Sox can reap in a Ramirez trade, is a sound step forward.
To be sure, there are numbers arguments in Ramirez's favor too: The guy, after all, has a track record like few others in the game today, had 379 total bases (including walks) last season and posted an Equivalent Average, according to Baseball Prospectus, of .352 -- significantly higher than Drew's .306. That statistic leaves defense out of the equation, but nevertheless, there's no guarantee that the loss of Ramirez will be made up on the field by Drew and the Ramirez trade bounty.
So while it would be foolish to ignore the statistics of both players -- and downright moronic to tunnel-vision on misleading traditional stats like RBI when there are more insightful choices to be found -- there is enough doubt about whether Drew or Ramirez has the better statistical future for Boston to glance carefully at the character and personality issues that seem to envelop them.
Ramirez has been a regular on the "he's doggin' it" circuit, while Drew's baggage wouldn't fit in an overhead compartment of a jumbo jet, if you believe the common perception. The rap is that Drew doesn't play through pain or give a full effort. He's joyless in the clubhouse. He's motivated by money rather than winning. And to top it all off, in exercising his option to end his five-year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers after two years, he reportedly betrayed assurances he had made that he would stick around.
There are counter arguments to the above. For example, up until the last minute, Drew retained every right to change his mind about opting out, and the Dodgers were responsible for understanding that. And playing through pain is often overrated. For all the images we have of Kirk Gibson-types gutting it out, you'll find plenty of players who make a nagging injury dimensionally worse, or who set the team back by keeping a spot in the lineup from a reserve who could do better until the starter has recuperated.
In a recent Boston Globe story, Gordon Edes wrote that "according to one major leaguer who has played against Drew for much of his career, one Dodger player greeted the news of Drew's departure by phoning friends in jubilation." Whether this anonymous story is apocryphal or not, it would seem to reflect badly on Drew ... until you question what wisdom and character conclusions we should draw from a Dodger who would be celebrating the departure of a player who was, except for Rafael Furcal, the team's most valuable.
A thoughtful general manager can and should weigh testimony like this without abandoning old-school values or turning tail from new-school ones. There's room to debate how much character and personality matter -- a lot or a little. But for those who give them any weight, there is also a way to take a Moneyball approach to character and personality, to do their best to find which character traits are overvalued and which are undervalued. It's entirely possible that the so-called character deficiencies of Drew -- or Ramirez -- are both relevant and misunderstood.
You'll go crazy with frustration if you can't accept the fact that Drew and Ramirez won't play 162 games like, say, Juan Pierre does. But those who can get past their biases about what every ballplayer should do in a perfect world, who can adjust their expectations and look at the overall pluses and minuses of Drew and Ramirez together, who can avoid letting preconceived notions distort the truth (Drew was notorious in Los Angeles for failing in the clutch despite posting statistics in 2006 showing that he excelled in every clutch situation, including close games in the late innings), will find their ability to make an intelligent assessment skyrocketing.
As for Boston, whose activities this offseason may well be discussed for years to come, it is possible that everything that the Red Sox think they'd be gaining from Manny no longer being Manny could be lost in J.D. being J.D. Or vice versa. If the Sox can't find clarity through statistics, they're stuck trying to decide which competing aphorism to buy into: "The grass is always greener" vs. "better the devil you know."
Saturday, November 25, 2006
HOW CAN THE CONSERVATIVES BE SO STUPID ??
I have to get something of my chest...as I had it living in these conservative south
Let me tell you a funny story, I was alone in my apartment on Sunday morning when I was knock on the door by couple of well dressed guys. They asked me " if I had found Jesus" yet, man..I was about to shut the door on these MOFO's but I thought I would do something funny I said I found Jesus when I was 14 yr. old ..those guys were intrigued and asked me how.. and I said I found Jesus when i had sex for the first time..I mean nothing would beat that right ..LOl..u guys shld have seen the expression on those guys faces..
Then I said I found Jesus again on Oct 27th 2004 when red sox won the world series..I mean nothing wld beat that experience no matter if I become the CEO of fortune 100 company or get married or have 10 kids..Nothing and I repeat NOTHING would beat the pure Joy that I felt that night and that includes finding Jesus I guess..lol..
I mean does anyone of u understand the motivation when people stand in the abortion rallies.in 100 degrees weather.I mean common, I wldnt do that if someone handed me $ 500..for a gue of cells... no thank you...
what part of the word " unborn" u don't get America..its not a living thing until it sees the light of the day..we would have lot more funding for stem cell research if we had a president who ws smart enough to ignore the orthodox assholes,but he can't after all those are the only ones who have voted for him..
Anyway, I don't take anything on face value , so I just don't get all these well educated people who just believe in God because their parents told them or the minister told them or the teacher told them he existed or maybe they weren't thought the course on " Evolution" like the rest of the toothless losers from Kentucky and Kansas..
I mean the world was not created in thsnd. yrs back in 6 days when there are archeaological evidences that prove the existence of life miliions of yrs back..
I mean wake up u guys,,Haven't u heard of the big bang theory, be a little smart, get a little perspective in life..
And seriously I have nothing against going to Church, but common why would I give up reading up Sunday NY times with a cup of Joe and get all dressed up to listen to some BS..
Until Next time...
Let me tell you a funny story, I was alone in my apartment on Sunday morning when I was knock on the door by couple of well dressed guys. They asked me " if I had found Jesus" yet, man..I was about to shut the door on these MOFO's but I thought I would do something funny I said I found Jesus when I was 14 yr. old ..those guys were intrigued and asked me how.. and I said I found Jesus when i had sex for the first time..I mean nothing would beat that right ..LOl..u guys shld have seen the expression on those guys faces..
Then I said I found Jesus again on Oct 27th 2004 when red sox won the world series..I mean nothing wld beat that experience no matter if I become the CEO of fortune 100 company or get married or have 10 kids..Nothing and I repeat NOTHING would beat the pure Joy that I felt that night and that includes finding Jesus I guess..lol..
I mean does anyone of u understand the motivation when people stand in the abortion rallies.in 100 degrees weather.I mean common, I wldnt do that if someone handed me $ 500..for a gue of cells... no thank you...
what part of the word " unborn" u don't get America..its not a living thing until it sees the light of the day..we would have lot more funding for stem cell research if we had a president who ws smart enough to ignore the orthodox assholes,but he can't after all those are the only ones who have voted for him..
Anyway, I don't take anything on face value , so I just don't get all these well educated people who just believe in God because their parents told them or the minister told them or the teacher told them he existed or maybe they weren't thought the course on " Evolution" like the rest of the toothless losers from Kentucky and Kansas..
I mean the world was not created in thsnd. yrs back in 6 days when there are archeaological evidences that prove the existence of life miliions of yrs back..
I mean wake up u guys,,Haven't u heard of the big bang theory, be a little smart, get a little perspective in life..
And seriously I have nothing against going to Church, but common why would I give up reading up Sunday NY times with a cup of Joe and get all dressed up to listen to some BS..
Until Next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)