5 Years later...

What happens on the day you propose, will happen again on your fifth anniversary...

If It Ain't Scottish...It's Crap... (aka: damn those Hollywood bastards & their creative license turned another great book into a crappy movie)...

I don't know why I was supprised. Everyone always says that when a movie is made out of a novel, it is always dissappointing. I guess it is just the optimist in me...I literally could not put the book down (finishing it in only a week), & couldn't wait to see the movie...but alas...I could not have been more dissappointed...

Needless to say, I speak of The Da Vinci Code...

Utterly dissappointed in the movie. Which again, shouldn't really surprise me. Hollywood did the exact same thing to me in the film version of my absolute favorite novel, The Count of Monte Cristo. They butchered that one too, much to my dismay...

WARNING...the below contains "spoilers", which may ruin the movie for you, if you continue to read the following rants

The first scene in the movie, which they added, I didn't actually mind. Although it is not detailed in the novel, it is said tht he was the keynote speaker at a lecture. We are introduced to Harvard religious symbologist Robert Langdon, who is at a slide show/book signing in ParisThe slides set up one of the themes of the movie about looking closely at and understanding what you see. He shows a series of image fragments, asks the audience to describe their meaning, then shows the complete image to demonstrate how the eye and the brain can be fooled. The scene in the movie actually set the table nicely for the story. Great way to kick off the movie. However, that is where it stopped.

The movie rushed through the whole Louvre depiction much too quickly (see picture at right of The Louvre, with it's 2 famous pyramids - the first being more obvious than the second, which is inverted). They skipped over key plot points & made it seem that Langdon recognized the Vitruvian Man immediately, which he did not in the novel. It was actually Sophie that enlightened Langdon on the fact, after he had lamented over it for some time (nor did he discover the backwards writing of Da Vinci , either...another point discovered by the Sophie in the novel). The entire Louvre portion seemed careless, if you ask me.

There were also several other scenes which were altered in the film version:

• The film makes it seem that the Bishop of Opus Dei has an evil intent & is in collusion with a "Shadow Council" of the Vatican. It is the exact oposite in the novel. I now see why so many members of Opus Dei are up in arms over their portrayal. In the novel, Opus Dei was merely used as the unknowing pawn of "The Teacher" under the guise of the preservation of their religious sect. If I were a member of Opus Dei, I'd be pissed too...
• The film version comletely makes up Bezu Fache's ulterior motives in the story...
• The film version fabricated the scene where Langdon & Sophie descend to the secret room below Roslyn & fild the Sangreal Documents...never happened in the novel at all...
• The film said that Jacques Saunière was not Sophie's grandfather, but kept the part about her grandmother, & totally omitted her long lost brother, not to mentioned the way that they met...
• The scene where the entire Priory mysteriosly appears at Roslyn never happened in the novel...& for good reason...stupid...
• The film omitted the conversation between Sophie's grandmother & Langdon, where she shows him what the last clue meant (at one time), and explains about Sophie's family & the accident.......not to mention that the film states that Sophie's grandmother told her that Jacques Saunière dies taking the location of the tomb with him....lies, all lies...
• In the film version, they leave out the romance that blossoms between Langdon & Sophie, as well as the the plans they make to see each other in Italy the next month...
• ...and the hole stupid water to wine joke was another film fabrication....crap...
• In the novel, Langdon does not come to realize the true nature of the Holy Grail on his own...the grandmother enlightens him...

I have listed only a few...a few of many. It is just too bad. Although it may seem OK for those who have not read the novel, for those who did & were anxious to see the movie, it was a dissappointment. What makes it hard to accept, is that they did not need to change anythig. The book did an excellent job at telling the story that it's author laid out. It did not hide nay mjeanings, which the movie would have to change around in order to better explain. It was great the way it was written. But the screenplay turned it to crap.

I will say this, however...for those of you who haven't the time to read & will not take up the novel, I highly suggest seeing the film. It is a story of utter fascination for most everyone & can't help to put questions in your head about everything that you grew up believing in...although many historians & critics argue the factual content, you can't help but think "well...why not?"...

For myself, I would tend to believe this over what the historians say...what the hell do they know anyway...

Maybe they should have had a Scott write the screenplay...

Wine & Crackers...

Having long been a sceptic of of the Holy (& often hypocritical) Church of Rome, as well as a avid history buff, I am frequently intrigued by tales & accounts regarding it's origins & past. Whether it be the true history of Christmas, The "Holy" Crusades, The Holy Grail, or any other Catholic mythology, they all seem to peak my interest. Not for the meaning why the Church of Rome would intend, but mainly due to the fact that not only are most Catholic beliefs built on...let's say less than the full truth. In fact, I believe that the Catholic Church has, for almost 2,000 years, hidden truths & persecuted others in an attempt to further it propogate it's own power...& it has done so very successfully at that...

Now you must understand that I am not saying that I do not believe in the baby Jesus or his relationship to the Almighty. I do, as well as many of the other histories surrounding him & his equantances. However, with that being said, I also believe that the Catholic Church has committed an unthinkable amount of crimes against an even greater amount of people through-out history in order to enhance it's degree of power over the course of civilization following the death of Christ.

Please do not be deterred by the religous & historical rhetoric which follows shortly. Many of you may not be familiar with my fondness of the histories, but there is actually little else that peaks my interest & passion to the extent to which they do. Although I may ramble a bit, please humor me & read on...I'll try to get back to my usual humor towards the end...

But I digress...I will most likey delve into a few of the mysteries of the Church of Rome over the coming weeks, such as Christmas not really being the birthday of Christ, Papal Infaliablity, The Knights Templar, or man's single greatest edited work (& also the top selling book of all time)...The Bible...among other topics...Don't worry, they'll be spread out as not to bore...

But tonight, I would like to discuss what is the backbone of most Judeo-Christian ethics...The Ten Commandments.

Let me first say that I do, generally speaking, believe that the Commandments are how one should go about there lives. The famed Ten Commandments (also referred to as the "Decalogue"), as given unto Moses as told in the Book of Exodus (20: 2-17), are a list of religious and moral imperatives which, according to religious tradition, were written by God and given to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of two stone tablets. However, did you know that there were/are actually two different sets of Ten Commandments?

The Decalogue is actually comprised of two distinct lists given in the Torah (aka- Old Testament): The Ethical Decalogue (the conventional commandments we all know & love) & the Ritual Decalogue.

The Ritual Decalogue is the list of commandments in Exodus 34. As they concern points of ritual, rather than ethics, they are viewed as having minor significance compared to the Ethical Decalogue. Consequently, although the Ritual Decalogue appears in the text at the point where God inscribes the Ten Commandments into the two stone tablets, and it is they rather than the Ethical Decalogue which are identified as the Ten Commandments, it is the Ethical Decalogue which is commonly believed to be inscribed on the tablets.[1]

Due to the lack of religious importance placed on the Ritual Decalogue in modern times, the majority of discussion concerning it exists within academic circles. While a portion of the decalogue, discussing the position of other gods, idols, and a day of rest, is similar to the Ethical Decalogue, the majority of the commandments are quite different. To paraphrase,

1. Worship no other god than Yahweh: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship.

   Yahweh is Hebrew name for the God of Israel, or The Tetragrammaton. The Tetragrammaton (Greek: τετραγράμματον; "word with four letters") is the usual reference to the Hebrew name for God, which is spelt(in the Hebrew Alphabet): י י (yodh) ה (heh) ו (vav) ה (heh) or יהוה (YHWH). It is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. In Judaism, the Tetragrammaton is the ineffable name of God, and is therefore not to be read aloud. In the reading aloud of the scripture or in prayer, it is replaced with Adonai ("My Lords", commonly rendered as "the Lord"). Other written forms such as י (yod) ו (vav) (YW or Yaw); or י (yod) ה (heh) (YH or Yah) are read in the same way. Jehovah is an English transcription of the Biblical Hebrew name יְהוָֹה. Today the English transcription "Jehovah" is used by many English speaking Protestant Christians and also by Jehovah's Witnesses, however, most modern scholars believe that the English transcription "Jehovah" does not accurately represent God's name in the English language. Some, but not all modern scholars believe that the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton may have been lost somewhere in the first millennium, when the Jewish people stopped saying the Name, out of fear of violating the commandment "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7). Instead of YHWH or Jehovah, the expression "the LORD" (with the word "LORD" in all capital letters) has commonly been used in most English-language Bible translations.[1]

2. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
3. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons.
4. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death.
5. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before Yahweh three times each year.
6. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread.
7. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning.
8. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of Yahweh.
9. Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk.[1]

These Commandments just don't have the same ring to them, do they...

The more commonly known Ten Commandments, or Ethical Decalogue, are basically God's laws by which one should live one's life...or so the Church would teach. Each religion interperets the Ten Commandments with their own slight variation.

The following is the text of the commonly accepted (by Christian and Jewish authorities) commandments as found in the book of Exodus:

"God spoke all these words, saying: I am the Lord your God,who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slavery. Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for [their] descendants, to the third and fourth [generation]. But for those who love Me and keep My commandments, I show love for thousands [of generations]. Do not take the name of God your Lord in vain. God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates. It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and mother. You will then live long on the land that God your Lord is giving you. Do not commit murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not testify as a false witness against your neighbor. Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that is your neighbor's." (Exodus 20)[1]

• The first 3 commandments govern the relationship between God and humans
• The next group of commandments govern public relationships between people
• The last two commandments govern private thoughts

So in the spirit of understanding the proper interpritation...

1. "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me..." - That's right...Tiger Woods is NOT a god...
   
2. "Thou shalt not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." - yeah...I hate bobbleheads too...
   
3. "Thou shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..." - I hope he doesn't consider what my wife was moaning last night to be in vain...
   
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" - Golf is holy...right?
5. "Thou shall honour your father and your mother..." - Sorry...got nothin' for this one
   
6. "Thou shall not murder" - Unless you call if the Holy Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, or simply refuse to acknowledge that it occurred...regardless of the atrosities...point in case, the Vatican's stance during The Holocaust:
   

   • In October 1941 Harold Tittman, a U.S. delegate to the Vatican, asked Pope Pius XII to condemn the atrocities against Jews; Pius replied that the Vatican wished to remain "neutral,"
   • In May 1942, Kazimierz Papée, Polish ambassador to the Vatican, complained that Pius had failed to condemn the recent wave of atrocities in Poland; when Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione replied that the Vatican could not document individual atrocities.
   • In August 1942, by which time it has been estimated than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, in response to a letter from Andrej Septyckyj, Pius advised Septyckyj to "bear adversity with serene patience" .
     
   • On 18 September 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini (who would later become Pope Paul VI), wrote to Pius, "the massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms." The Cardinal Secretary of State of the Vatican replied that the "rumors" about crimes committed against Jews could not be verified.
     
   • In December 1942, when Tittman Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione was asked if the Pius would issue a proclamation simialar to the Allied declaration "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," Maglione replied that the Vatican was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities."
   • In late 1942, when it became clear that an allied victory over the Nazis was inevitable, Pius XII advised German and Hungarian bishops that speaking out against the massacre of the Jews would be politically advantageous.
     
   • On April 7, 1943, Cardinal Tardini, one of Pius’s closest advisors, told Pius that it would be politically advantageous after the war to take steps to help Slovakian Jews [1]

7. Thou should not commit adultery" - funny, it doesn't mention anything about young alter boys...
   
8. "Thou shall not steal." - My wife must not have heard this one...she stole my heart...
   
9. "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" - Unless they're a witch...
   
10. "Thou shall not covet..." - The fear of every spoiled little only-child...("I want one...")

Sorry if this was more of a serious rant than I am normally prone to. I've been on a kick like since since I started reading The Da Vinci Code...Props to Wikipedia...








[1]: Wikipedia

Maybe God's Warming up to me...

So...anyone that knows me well, realizes how awesome I am. However, sadly enough, those poor souls whom have not had the good fortune to get to know me beyond the occasional transaction, may be lacking the insight into my true being. A gaze into the stained-glass window that is my life, showing my inner most frailties...and how God hates me...

It is well documented. God has never really liked me. Just a few examples from my storied youth:

1. The time during High School baseball when I lost the game single handedly by throwing the ball away like a moron (I was always a much better hitter than a fielder)
2. I started working at the Thompson Country Club Golf Course in the fifth grade & managed to save enough money to buy my first car all on my own when I got my license...& then totalled it later that year...
3. I once qualified for the finals of the Massachusetts Junior Amateur Golf Championship...& then promtly shot a crowd pleasing 103 to take myself right out of it in the first round...
   
4. Somehow putting the thought in my head that I shouldn't dump Jen so I could have my shot with Jane Metzinger...
   
5. Worse yet...making me date Jen for 3+ years in the first place...& never letting me get past first base
   
6. Having Gloria Mayfield actually call home to ask why I wanted out of chorus (I had forged a letter from my mother to get myself out of it)
   
7. Or the time when I got my finger stuck in the grocery market conveyer belt (yeah....it hurt)

Yeah...God likes to f*ck with me. Takes some more recent events:

1. Every year, my "loving" wife leaves me, right around the time of my birthday, for 2 weeks to volunteer at a place where at least one of their un-paid volunteers cry every year...and can never understand why it bothers me to practically not see her for two weeks, as I come home every day from my miserable job to an empty house & another night of loneliness while she is off having fun in the city...
2. How he let's me have these great rounds of golf...when nobody's with me...I always play great when I am all alone on the golf course...(notice the "alone" theme)
3. We finally get a home equity loan in order to build an addition to the house (which we thought would be the hard part), but then we couldn't find a 10x10 room for less than $70,000
4. I finally picked up my new Titleist driver after 3+ weeks of waiting for the specially ordered shaft (when they told me it would take one), & they put the wrong shaft in it...
   

However, things may be picking up...

Sometimes God throws you a little bone here & there. The latest example beingng the other day, when I was attempting to put my new soft top onto my Wrangler. I was in a race against time to get the new top on before it started to rain. He did throw a few hurdles my way...first the dealership gave me the wrong screws for the brackets. Upon going back to the dealership, they only had two of the correct ones. So I took those to just get the top going. Now off to Sears to buy the #40 Torx head bit needed to install the screws. Got it. Now to work...Then the #40 Torx head bit that the manual said to use didn't fit. I then went back to Sears to buy a new (& correct) #30 Torx head, brought it home...& the bit didn't fit my wratchet. You guessed it...back to Sears to buy a wratchet to fit the bit.

After all of this, I finally managed to get the top on just as the first sprinkles were beginning to fall...

Who's better than me?!?

So that got me thinking...maybe things are looking up!?! Not only did the top that I had just installed only cost me $200 (retails @ $1500+), but God didn't smite me on this day as has been tradition. This is awesome...maybe I'm off of the universe's black-list. That would be awesome!

My life is pretty awesome! I have good friends, a decent job, a decent golf game, my kitchen is finally being renovated (taking out that damn wall between the two rooms), & I'm pretty damn good-looking to boot!

Plus...here's the mini-cherry, on top of the regular cherry, on top of the sundae of awesomeness that is my life...I get to go home every day to this...

Sometimes it takes something as simple as the rain holding off for a few minutes to make you remember how awesome your life is...

Tito pisses me off so damn much...

If you take a second & think about those fabled Major League Baseball teams which all fans can recall with fondness, you will find one thing in common with each of them. They all had core group of starters. All of the great teams had an every-day starter for every possition, and then a group of non-starting reserve players who would come in to play off of the bench or fill in for a start on occassion in order to give the actual starter a day off to releax & recooperate.

Take for example the '86 Red Sox. I guarantee any fan can ramble off the names of the starting line-up from that season without a second thought:

• 1B: Bill Buckner
• 2B: Marty Barett
• SS: Spike Owen
• 3B: Wade Boggs
• C: Rich Gedman
• LF: Jim Rice
• CF: Dave Henderson
• RF: Dwight Evans
  

The team normally has reserve players to cover every possition, but as the starters are better qualified or more accomplished players, the reserve players are just that...in reserve. There just in case they are needed. I mean, I was a big fan of Mike Greenwell. He may have played the wall better than most others that have graced the turf in front of the Green Monster , but Jim Rice was better. Therefore, Rice was the starter.

All throughout sports, from little league to college, kids strive to be the better player at whichever possition they play, in whatever sport they participate in, because of that one simple rule. The better players get to start the games & end-up getting more playing time.

But apparently Terry Francona (aka: "Tito")knows better than everyone else throughout history. Tito likes to platoon his players. So rather than having the core, stable defense behind the pitcher, Tito alternates players every game. He has done so for the entirty of his tenure as Red Sox Manager. It is a horrible magerial style. Regardless of the team's success over the past few years, he is a horrible manager. He has made some horrible managing decisions since taking the helm (with some more questionable than Grady Little's decision in the deciding game 7 of the 2003 ALCS to not remove Pedro Martínez after seven strong innings, when he began to show signs of tiring...costing us the game & the season)


Can someone please explain to me what Terry Francona is thinking about doing his platooning crap, again, with Youkilis & JT Snow? How can he justify not starting JT Snow, a 15 year (give or take) veteran with 6 gold glove awards & who has been a starting first baseman for his entire career? JT Snow is arguably the best defensive first baseman in the majors & he has played in less than half of the games this season! Didn't Theo Epstein state that he made these infield pick-ups to boost the defense that had been weak in previous years?

Tito did the same damn thing in 2004 after Theo traded for Doug Mientkiewicz, another gold glove winning first baseman who was (at the time) the best defensive first baseman in the American League. Even after his mid-season acquisition, both Kevin Millar & Dave McCarty played in more games than Mientkiewicz.

Sidenote: Thank God that Millar is not on the Red Sox anymore

I don't understand how someone how someone with Snow's resume, who has been starting day in & day out for teams that have been competitive more than the Red Sox have over the past decade (although it pains me to think of the Sox as not being competitive) is not good enough for Tito...and also make you question his managerial capabilities...at least in my eyes.

Tito's problem is that he plays favorites, his favorites, regardless of their abilities, short-comings, or amount of errors made. Take for example, the blundering Mark Belhorn. Quite possibly the worst defensive second baseman to ever dawn a professional uniform. Tito played Belhorn loyally for 128 games at second base. To the contrary, Pokey Reese, yet another gold glove winning player that the club had acquired to strengthen the defense at second base, played in only 34 games.

Maybe Francona just has something against Gold Glove winning players...

And now, some Red Sox trivia for my faithful readers:

Founded: 1899, as the Buffalo franchise in the minor Western League. Moved to Boston when that league became the major American League in 1901.

Team Name: Boston Red Sox (see "Nicknames before Red Sox"below)

Current ownership: John Henry and Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino, who paid $660 million and assumed $400 million in debt, in February 2002. The purchase includes Fenway Park and 82 percent of NESN. The purchase price set a record for a major league baseball franchise.

Current payroll: For 2005, payroll was about $123.5 million, over $80 million less than that of the New York Yankees. For 2004, payroll was about $127 million, $57 million shy of the New York Yankees. In both of these years, the Red Sox had the second-highest total payroll in MLB. (NOTE: The numbers cited are actually the payroll of the team at the start of the each seaons. Payrolls can change due to mid-season personnel changes, including trades, promotion of minor league players, waiver, etc.)

Home ballpark: Fenway Park (April 20, 1912 - Present), Braves Field (1929 - 1932 Sundays, 1915 - 1916 World Series), Huntington Avenue Grounds (1901-1911). Fenway is the oldest ballpark in baseball. The Red Sox ownership group has recently committed to keeping the team at Fenway for years to come; plans are already under way for the first ballpark centennial celebration in MLB history in 2012.

Logo design: Two hanging red socks with white heels and toes, over a white baseball surrounded by the words Boston and Red Sox. The word "Boston" is in navy blue outlined in red, the words "Red Sox" are in red outlined in navy blue, and the entire logo is surrounded by a thick red circle. Recently the team has begun phasing in a new logo that removes the outline, text and baseball, leaving only the pair of red socks.

Theme Song: None officially, but several "unofficial" theme songs exist:

• played after each victory at Fenway Park: "Dirty Water" by The Standells.
• played after "Dirty Water" and for rallies during a game: The Dropkick Murphys' 2004 rewrite of "Tessie." The original "Tessie" was a Broadway tune, which Boston fans adopted during the 1903 World Series and sang regularly until 1916.

Championships and Pennants:

Playoff appearances (18): 1903, 1904, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1946, 1967, 1975, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005