The End
- Of Summer: Now that I'm 2 years out of college, and pretty much everyone I know has graduated too, the only sign that "summer vacation" is coming to an end for me is when the interns here at work leave to go back to school. Technically, there's still a few weeks left of summer, but I'm already regretting that I didn't take advantage of the warm weather and sunny days enough this year. I think I will definitely have to take a vacation to someplace tropical when the Chicago winter arrives.
- Of the A-Rod era: Assuming the trade goes through, a deadline deal struck yesterday in Dudo League sent my precious Alex Rodriguez to Piya's team in exchange for Michael Young and Ben Sheets. After having A-Rod as a keeper for more than 3 years, it was definitely hard to part with him. I think it was about time for me to move on though. You can't argue with his production on the field, but during the past couple seasons I started to dislike him more for some reason. Maybe it was the whole "it's not about the money, but I'm going to Texas" thing, or the "now I'm at a point in my career where winning is the most important thing" when he went to the Yankees. Or maybe I just got spoiled with awesome fantasy players and I got sick of him. Anyways, hopefully Sheets and Young both turn out to be good the rest of this year, as well as in the next few seasons and thus cushion the blow. I don't want to become the "stupidest GM ever" by trading away one of the greatest players in the history of the game for a couple of scrubs that never went anywhere.
More Baseball
- White Sox: Good games this weekend. My favorite moment was Jose Valentin's leadoff single, steal 2nd, move to 3rd on flyout, and score on sac-fly yesterday. Home runs are nice, but that's the kind of thing a winning team needs to do. I like the decision to go to a 4-man rotation too. The one thing that worries me is Shingo, who doesn't look good. I don't necessarily think a closer needs to throw 100 mph, but if you're going to rely on off-speed stuff, you better be able to throw strikes and get ahead in the count. And Shingo hasn't been throwing strikes too consistently in his last few outings.
- Sox announcers: The TV guys have gotten pretty bad this year. First of all, Hawk needs to tone down his Hawk-ness. I don't remember him being like this back in the day, when it was Hawk and Wimpy. All the catchphrases are fine, but not if you use them so much that you sound like a cartoon character. "Stretch!! HE GONE!! Put it on the board... YEEE-SSS!!" And it's ok to root for your team, but not so much that you take it personally every time they lose or something bad happens. As far as DJ goes, he's not terrible, but not good either. Seems like all he does is drop names of players he played with. Seriously, every game, there's at least an inning or two where they don't even talk about what's going on in the field, but spend like 10 minutes trying to list as many names as they can.
On the other hand, the radio guys have been solid for many years and are still very good. I've been listening to John Rooney and Ed Farmer since the first days I was a White Sox fan, and they do a really good job. Nothing spectacular, just reliable broadcasting with a good mix of commentary and friendly banter.
- Cubs: I'm not sure why, but Dusty Baker irritates me. Other than that, I think the Cubs are fine. You would never know it with all the panic among Cubs fans, but the team is still favored to make the playoffs. I was looking at their record, and 9 games over .500 is pretty good considering all the negatives that have happened this season. What a difference a year makes. The expectations have gotten so high that even when the team is successful overall, nobody is enjoying the season.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Thoughts on Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore
A few days ago, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm sure as many of you are aware, the movie has been talked about a lot since before it was even released, with much of the discussion being about the bias of the movie and the credibility of its content.
Since there's plenty of articles and stories that cover the details of "what's true and what's not" in the movie, I'm gonna try to avoid repeating all those details here. Instead, I just want to write about my personal feelings and reaction after seeing the movie, and say how I feel about Michael Moore in a more general sense. If anyone is interested to read about the details, I'll try to list some links at the end for people to pursue on their own.
By the way, I don't think anything I'm about to say will "ruin" the movie for anyone, so go ahead and continue reading even if you haven't seen it. It might actually even benefit you whether or not you end up watching the movie.
As a whole, Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty similar to the other Michael Moore movies I've seen ("Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine"). He doesn't appear as much on screen as in the past, but still narrates throughout the movie. To support his points, he uses a combination of news clips, interviews with his chosen "experts", and of course, his own footage. Pretty standard, really.
As I watched the movie, the main problem I had was trying to figure out exactly what points he was making. A lot of the movie seemed to me like it was more about mudslinging and just trying to make people look bad than anything else. Actually, this was the main issue I had with Bowling for Columbine as well. A lot of information thrown around and discussed, but not much in the way of conclusive arguments.
Still, I think I was able to dig out a few main points regarding the movie:
1. George W. Bush stole the Presidency from Al Gore in the 2000 election.
2. Bush was such a terrible, negligent President during his first months in office, that he should be blamed for the September 11th attacks.
3. The Bush family knows the Bin Laden family well and protected them after 9/11.
4. The Bush family is also heavily influenced by the Saudi royals. This influence was the real reason behind both the campaign in Afghanistan as well as the war on Iraq.
5. The members of Congress who voted for going to war are mostly cowards, who don't have any of their own kids fighting, but are quick to exploit the lower-class in recruiting for military service.
Other than that, like I mentioned, it seemed like the rest of the movie had little purpose, other than making people look bad. For example, one of the intro segments was simply showing President Bush and some of his administration in off-camera scenes. Little or no dialogue, just random clips of them getting their makeup touched up, combing their hair, adjusting their collars, etc. This goes on for at least a few minutes straight, and I guess by showing these scenes, it's supposed to prove to all the viewers that our country's leaders are sloppy or something. Which is useful knowledge to us in what way, I have no clue. It also makes me wonder if Michael Moore has ever seen clips of himself, on camera.
As far as the points he makes in the movie, they would be valuable, if there was more truth or relevant basis to them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the ideas he discusses are either highly exaggerated, twisted, or simply false. Again, there are plenty of articles written elsewhere that describe in detail the ways that Michael Moore misleads or flat out lies to his viewers, so I won't go over all of them here. I do, however, highly encourage people to do their own searching and try to figure out for themselves what's true and what's not.
For me personally, after reading all the stuff I've read about the tricks and lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, I really was very disturbed about the whole thing. There are those who believe that it's important to watch this movie, just to see "both sides", and I had that opinion myself, before this week. But right now, I honestly think that the movie is such trash, actually worse than trash, that we would all be better off if it were never made. And I'm not telling people that they shouldn't see it, but I am saying that even if you do decide to see it, I believe you are highly unlikely to gain anything useful or worthwhile out of it. So be warned.
If you know anything about Michael Moore, you would know that he has an extremely liberal agenda. So liberal, that he considers many of the most liberal Democrats to be too conservative. Moore also does things like accuse the national media of pandering to Bush on the Iraq war in the movie, specifically naming guys like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. For those of us who don't have selective memories, we may recall that Peter Jennings and many in ABC News were quite outspoken about opposing the war, while Dan Rather did his suck-up piece in his interview with "President" Saddam Hussein. Not that either of those facts make those guys liberal, but to accuse them of pandering to our President is ridiculous by any standard.
To gain even more perspective on Michael Moore, consider that in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Moore's first comments posted on his web site were to the effect that the terrorists should have targeted states which voted for Bush, not the ones that voted against him like NY, DC, or California (since then, he has removed those comments). And with regard to the current situation in Iraq, he actually supports the cause of the extremists who are attacking our soldiers: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. The are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
I'm not listing these things because I neccessarily think it's wrong to have such extremely liberal views. But my point is that when someone who has such extreme beliefs makes a movie about President Bush, it's going to be exactly the one-sided presentation that Fahrenheit 9/11 is. A piece where only shots of civilians getting killed in war are shown, where the only "experts" that are interviewed are those who criticize the Bush administration. Where only the most unflattering images are put next to the President in a "guilt by association" kind of way.
Watching this movie, one would be led to believe that Iraq was such a happy place before the United States barged right in and ruined it all. That Saddam was a peaceful guy who just minded his own business and never wished any harm on Americans. Michael Moore would have you believe that during the war, we only killed civilians, and not enemy fighters. And the way he presented things, you'd think that George W. Bush was the one firing at and killing our soldiers, not the extremist insurgents or Saddam's militia. That only tiny, unknown countries participated in the coalition, as none of the major countries in the coalition like Italy, the UK, or Australia were mentioned.
With this in mind, if you want to get a truly balanced view of our government after watching this movie, you might actually have to watch a movie about Bush that was made by his mother or something, to see the other extreme. It would be a documentary filled with nothing but news clips of Bush at charity functions, interviews with Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. about how good his policies are, and then show plenty of scenes of him hugging his daughters or shaking hands with soldiers, all presented with triumphant music playing in the background. (I'm not saying this is what we all need, I'm saying that something that one-sided would be just as worthless as Fahrenheit 9/11).
And even then, I doubt that old Barbara would use any of the same kinds of shameless tactics that Moore employed. Some of the things Moore does, is comparable to those Conan O'Brien skits where he puts a face of a celebrity on the screen, cuts out the part with the mouth, and has someone else fill in the talking and moving lips. Or, when they do that thing on morning radio shows where they cut sound bites of people talking, and then pretend to interview them, using the sound bites as out of context as possible. Only in this case, it's not obvious as a joke, it's being passed off as the real thing.
So when I call this movie "worse than trash", I'm not really even joking. The movie is so one-sided, and has so little credibility, that it can really do a lot more harm than good to someone watching it. Let's say that someone offers you a drink, with the warning that if you drink it, it will fill your body with so many toxins that you will need to drink 10 cups of water just to flush it all out and get back to normal. Would you do it? Well, I think it's much the same situation with Michael Moore offering us Fahrenheit 9/11. Except, he provides absolutely no warning about the toxins contained within, and he's getting millions of people to pay for it, raking in the cash in the process.
Before I wrap up this discussion, I also want to talk a bit about Michael Moore the person. I once believed that he was a great citizen, out to help his fellow man in whatever way possible. But the more I see of him, and the more I learn about him, the more I start to despise him and what he stands for. When I watched him ambush Charlton Heston at his home in Bowling for Columbine, I was disgusted. There wasn't as much of that in Fahrenheit, but it's just irritating for me to see this guy who feels like the normal rules of common courtesy or human decency don't apply to him, and see how much he gets away with. And since he's the one editing the movie, he gets to make himself look good and make the other side look silly 100% of the time, even though he is always the instigator. Well, I guess the way I look at it is like the old saying goes: "When a dog bites a man, that's not news. When a man bites a dog, that's news." Since he seems to have no sense of self-respect, it's like a win-win situation. If by being a jackass he manages to incite a reaction, then he did his job. If he gets ignored, the other side looks like they're afraid of being held accountable. If they react in a completely civilized manner and make good arguments, all he has to do is edit it out of the movie and no one will be the wiser.
But what really disgusts me the most is how he manipulates and exploits normal people to suit his own needs in making his movies. Such as the way in he paraded around the sobbing, angry mother whose son was killed in Iraq. Does he truly care about the people themselves, about the tragedies and losses they experienced? If so, would he have used a clip of the soldier who lost both his arms, when the soldier himself strongly objected to being in the movie?
The sad thing is that just because a guy like Michael Moore has a camera and the capability to make a movie, we automatically give him credibility as if he were an expert or a trusted news reporter. In reality, he is a man who is concerned most about pushing his agenda on the rest of the country, and is not afraid to use whatever underhanded method he deems neccessary to achieve his objectives. He has not earned anybody's trust, that we should blindly subscribe to everything he has to say. In fact, by the dishonest ways in which he's presented the his material, he has done basically the opposite, such that we should be very careful and extra suspicious of anything he tries to feed us.
I don't think it's going too far for me to recommend that people avoid this movie, because of all the things I just talked about. However, I don't blame anyone out there who wants to see the movie. Just be very aware of the fact that this is far from a real "documentary". It is more of a 2 hour long negative political ad against George W. Bush than anything else. For that matter, I doubt that any real political ad would be able to get away with half the stuff that's in this movie, due to the lack of basis and truth behind the accusations.
In the end, if you really want to see "both sides", there are already plenty of sources available that have much higher credibility and don't distort the facts nearly as much as Michael Moore does. If you don't trust CNN or the NY Times, there's always C-Span, international news organizations, etc. There's really nothing in Fahrenheit 9/11 that is so "exclusive" that you can't find anywhere else, despite what he would like us to believe. Bottom line is, if you think you need Michael Moore in order to find out the whole story, then you are just not trying hard enough.
Furthermore, to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 while knowing that so much of its content is extremely questionable, without making an effort to follow up his claims and research their whole truth, is at best lazy, and what I would consider to be very, very irresponsible. I think it would be so sad for anyone in this country to simply watch this movie and use it as their sole basis to cast their vote. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is going to happen with a lot of people. And if you do that, you are effectively empowering Michael Moore to continue his dirty act elsewhere.
I hope anyone who read through this blog found it to be helpful in some way. As I said, I tried to avoid making it a point-by-point rebuttal to the movie, and provide more of a broader perspective, so it could make sense to both people who have and haven't seen the movie. Now, you may or may not agree with everything I said, which is fine. But if nothing else, I hope that reading this blog will at least encourage everyone out there to be more aware of what's going on in this country. And I really believe strongly that one would be better off not watching a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 at all, than to watch it and accept everything in it without checking on the facts for themselves.
Before I go, I promised earlier to list some links to sites about the movie. Actually, there's a lot of stuff out there, if you just do a search in Google. So I think I will just list one site that stood out to me the most, which I found to be the most complete and done with the most fair approach:
http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
It's written by a guy who is a "lifelong Democrat", who, like Moore, voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. He's not a Bush supporter and is critical of many of Bush's actions, but focuses this particular article on the "deceits" of Michael Moore's movie. This article is a good place to start, but I would also read other sources to get a better sense of the whole story.
A few days ago, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm sure as many of you are aware, the movie has been talked about a lot since before it was even released, with much of the discussion being about the bias of the movie and the credibility of its content.
Since there's plenty of articles and stories that cover the details of "what's true and what's not" in the movie, I'm gonna try to avoid repeating all those details here. Instead, I just want to write about my personal feelings and reaction after seeing the movie, and say how I feel about Michael Moore in a more general sense. If anyone is interested to read about the details, I'll try to list some links at the end for people to pursue on their own.
By the way, I don't think anything I'm about to say will "ruin" the movie for anyone, so go ahead and continue reading even if you haven't seen it. It might actually even benefit you whether or not you end up watching the movie.
As a whole, Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty similar to the other Michael Moore movies I've seen ("Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine"). He doesn't appear as much on screen as in the past, but still narrates throughout the movie. To support his points, he uses a combination of news clips, interviews with his chosen "experts", and of course, his own footage. Pretty standard, really.
As I watched the movie, the main problem I had was trying to figure out exactly what points he was making. A lot of the movie seemed to me like it was more about mudslinging and just trying to make people look bad than anything else. Actually, this was the main issue I had with Bowling for Columbine as well. A lot of information thrown around and discussed, but not much in the way of conclusive arguments.
Still, I think I was able to dig out a few main points regarding the movie:
1. George W. Bush stole the Presidency from Al Gore in the 2000 election.
2. Bush was such a terrible, negligent President during his first months in office, that he should be blamed for the September 11th attacks.
3. The Bush family knows the Bin Laden family well and protected them after 9/11.
4. The Bush family is also heavily influenced by the Saudi royals. This influence was the real reason behind both the campaign in Afghanistan as well as the war on Iraq.
5. The members of Congress who voted for going to war are mostly cowards, who don't have any of their own kids fighting, but are quick to exploit the lower-class in recruiting for military service.
Other than that, like I mentioned, it seemed like the rest of the movie had little purpose, other than making people look bad. For example, one of the intro segments was simply showing President Bush and some of his administration in off-camera scenes. Little or no dialogue, just random clips of them getting their makeup touched up, combing their hair, adjusting their collars, etc. This goes on for at least a few minutes straight, and I guess by showing these scenes, it's supposed to prove to all the viewers that our country's leaders are sloppy or something. Which is useful knowledge to us in what way, I have no clue. It also makes me wonder if Michael Moore has ever seen clips of himself, on camera.
As far as the points he makes in the movie, they would be valuable, if there was more truth or relevant basis to them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the ideas he discusses are either highly exaggerated, twisted, or simply false. Again, there are plenty of articles written elsewhere that describe in detail the ways that Michael Moore misleads or flat out lies to his viewers, so I won't go over all of them here. I do, however, highly encourage people to do their own searching and try to figure out for themselves what's true and what's not.
For me personally, after reading all the stuff I've read about the tricks and lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, I really was very disturbed about the whole thing. There are those who believe that it's important to watch this movie, just to see "both sides", and I had that opinion myself, before this week. But right now, I honestly think that the movie is such trash, actually worse than trash, that we would all be better off if it were never made. And I'm not telling people that they shouldn't see it, but I am saying that even if you do decide to see it, I believe you are highly unlikely to gain anything useful or worthwhile out of it. So be warned.
If you know anything about Michael Moore, you would know that he has an extremely liberal agenda. So liberal, that he considers many of the most liberal Democrats to be too conservative. Moore also does things like accuse the national media of pandering to Bush on the Iraq war in the movie, specifically naming guys like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. For those of us who don't have selective memories, we may recall that Peter Jennings and many in ABC News were quite outspoken about opposing the war, while Dan Rather did his suck-up piece in his interview with "President" Saddam Hussein. Not that either of those facts make those guys liberal, but to accuse them of pandering to our President is ridiculous by any standard.
To gain even more perspective on Michael Moore, consider that in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Moore's first comments posted on his web site were to the effect that the terrorists should have targeted states which voted for Bush, not the ones that voted against him like NY, DC, or California (since then, he has removed those comments). And with regard to the current situation in Iraq, he actually supports the cause of the extremists who are attacking our soldiers: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. The are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
I'm not listing these things because I neccessarily think it's wrong to have such extremely liberal views. But my point is that when someone who has such extreme beliefs makes a movie about President Bush, it's going to be exactly the one-sided presentation that Fahrenheit 9/11 is. A piece where only shots of civilians getting killed in war are shown, where the only "experts" that are interviewed are those who criticize the Bush administration. Where only the most unflattering images are put next to the President in a "guilt by association" kind of way.
Watching this movie, one would be led to believe that Iraq was such a happy place before the United States barged right in and ruined it all. That Saddam was a peaceful guy who just minded his own business and never wished any harm on Americans. Michael Moore would have you believe that during the war, we only killed civilians, and not enemy fighters. And the way he presented things, you'd think that George W. Bush was the one firing at and killing our soldiers, not the extremist insurgents or Saddam's militia. That only tiny, unknown countries participated in the coalition, as none of the major countries in the coalition like Italy, the UK, or Australia were mentioned.
With this in mind, if you want to get a truly balanced view of our government after watching this movie, you might actually have to watch a movie about Bush that was made by his mother or something, to see the other extreme. It would be a documentary filled with nothing but news clips of Bush at charity functions, interviews with Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. about how good his policies are, and then show plenty of scenes of him hugging his daughters or shaking hands with soldiers, all presented with triumphant music playing in the background. (I'm not saying this is what we all need, I'm saying that something that one-sided would be just as worthless as Fahrenheit 9/11).
And even then, I doubt that old Barbara would use any of the same kinds of shameless tactics that Moore employed. Some of the things Moore does, is comparable to those Conan O'Brien skits where he puts a face of a celebrity on the screen, cuts out the part with the mouth, and has someone else fill in the talking and moving lips. Or, when they do that thing on morning radio shows where they cut sound bites of people talking, and then pretend to interview them, using the sound bites as out of context as possible. Only in this case, it's not obvious as a joke, it's being passed off as the real thing.
So when I call this movie "worse than trash", I'm not really even joking. The movie is so one-sided, and has so little credibility, that it can really do a lot more harm than good to someone watching it. Let's say that someone offers you a drink, with the warning that if you drink it, it will fill your body with so many toxins that you will need to drink 10 cups of water just to flush it all out and get back to normal. Would you do it? Well, I think it's much the same situation with Michael Moore offering us Fahrenheit 9/11. Except, he provides absolutely no warning about the toxins contained within, and he's getting millions of people to pay for it, raking in the cash in the process.
Before I wrap up this discussion, I also want to talk a bit about Michael Moore the person. I once believed that he was a great citizen, out to help his fellow man in whatever way possible. But the more I see of him, and the more I learn about him, the more I start to despise him and what he stands for. When I watched him ambush Charlton Heston at his home in Bowling for Columbine, I was disgusted. There wasn't as much of that in Fahrenheit, but it's just irritating for me to see this guy who feels like the normal rules of common courtesy or human decency don't apply to him, and see how much he gets away with. And since he's the one editing the movie, he gets to make himself look good and make the other side look silly 100% of the time, even though he is always the instigator. Well, I guess the way I look at it is like the old saying goes: "When a dog bites a man, that's not news. When a man bites a dog, that's news." Since he seems to have no sense of self-respect, it's like a win-win situation. If by being a jackass he manages to incite a reaction, then he did his job. If he gets ignored, the other side looks like they're afraid of being held accountable. If they react in a completely civilized manner and make good arguments, all he has to do is edit it out of the movie and no one will be the wiser.
But what really disgusts me the most is how he manipulates and exploits normal people to suit his own needs in making his movies. Such as the way in he paraded around the sobbing, angry mother whose son was killed in Iraq. Does he truly care about the people themselves, about the tragedies and losses they experienced? If so, would he have used a clip of the soldier who lost both his arms, when the soldier himself strongly objected to being in the movie?
The sad thing is that just because a guy like Michael Moore has a camera and the capability to make a movie, we automatically give him credibility as if he were an expert or a trusted news reporter. In reality, he is a man who is concerned most about pushing his agenda on the rest of the country, and is not afraid to use whatever underhanded method he deems neccessary to achieve his objectives. He has not earned anybody's trust, that we should blindly subscribe to everything he has to say. In fact, by the dishonest ways in which he's presented the his material, he has done basically the opposite, such that we should be very careful and extra suspicious of anything he tries to feed us.
I don't think it's going too far for me to recommend that people avoid this movie, because of all the things I just talked about. However, I don't blame anyone out there who wants to see the movie. Just be very aware of the fact that this is far from a real "documentary". It is more of a 2 hour long negative political ad against George W. Bush than anything else. For that matter, I doubt that any real political ad would be able to get away with half the stuff that's in this movie, due to the lack of basis and truth behind the accusations.
In the end, if you really want to see "both sides", there are already plenty of sources available that have much higher credibility and don't distort the facts nearly as much as Michael Moore does. If you don't trust CNN or the NY Times, there's always C-Span, international news organizations, etc. There's really nothing in Fahrenheit 9/11 that is so "exclusive" that you can't find anywhere else, despite what he would like us to believe. Bottom line is, if you think you need Michael Moore in order to find out the whole story, then you are just not trying hard enough.
Furthermore, to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 while knowing that so much of its content is extremely questionable, without making an effort to follow up his claims and research their whole truth, is at best lazy, and what I would consider to be very, very irresponsible. I think it would be so sad for anyone in this country to simply watch this movie and use it as their sole basis to cast their vote. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what is going to happen with a lot of people. And if you do that, you are effectively empowering Michael Moore to continue his dirty act elsewhere.
I hope anyone who read through this blog found it to be helpful in some way. As I said, I tried to avoid making it a point-by-point rebuttal to the movie, and provide more of a broader perspective, so it could make sense to both people who have and haven't seen the movie. Now, you may or may not agree with everything I said, which is fine. But if nothing else, I hope that reading this blog will at least encourage everyone out there to be more aware of what's going on in this country. And I really believe strongly that one would be better off not watching a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 at all, than to watch it and accept everything in it without checking on the facts for themselves.
Before I go, I promised earlier to list some links to sites about the movie. Actually, there's a lot of stuff out there, if you just do a search in Google. So I think I will just list one site that stood out to me the most, which I found to be the most complete and done with the most fair approach:
http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
It's written by a guy who is a "lifelong Democrat", who, like Moore, voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. He's not a Bush supporter and is critical of many of Bush's actions, but focuses this particular article on the "deceits" of Michael Moore's movie. This article is a good place to start, but I would also read other sources to get a better sense of the whole story.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
White Sox 2004
I haven't written much about the Sox this year, despite it being one of the most exciting and enjoyable seasons I can remember in recent times. Even though our season has taken a sharp turn for the worse, I thought I should still record my thoughts on 2004. Notice, by the way, that I'm not one of those sports fans who only talks about his team when it's doing great.
I have to say, coming into the season, I really wasn't feeling all that upbeat as a White Sox fan. The team itself didn't change much since last year, in fact, after missing the 2003 playoffs, we actually lost a bunch of players to free agency. Among them, Bartolo Colon, Robbie Alomar, and Carl Everett. The one thing we did gain was firing Jerry Manuel and hiring Ozzie Guillen as the manager. As far as that went, I was definitely skeptical at the time of whether or not it was a good move - picking a guy who had a below average career as a player, and zero experience as a head manager, was not too promising.
Well, now that I have seen what Ozzie has done for the better part of a season, I no longer question his hiring. A real pleasant surprise, to say the least. It's really amazing how big of a difference one guy as a leader can make on a team and its fans.
Which is pretty much what we were lacking with Manuel, a real leader. Not to hate on him too much, because he did give us the one good year after the Terry Bevington disaster. But as a fan, you can totally feel a major change in attitude with this year's team, as compared to 2003. This has been most noticeable in the fact that we actually come back in games now. Yeah, you'd rather not fall behind teams to begin with, but it's so nice to know that when the Sox are trailing after the 6th or 7th inning, that they aren't going to just fold 100% of the time. It gives the fans that much more reason to follow the team, when the players actually show some heart and battle to the end of every game.
As far as baseball decisions go, I don't know if he has been all that great. I still don't know exactly what "Ozzie ball" means. We've been a lot more aggressive as far as baserunning goes, which can be exciting, but also stupid. I'm interested to know what the stats are, on whether or not the aggressiveness has helped or hurt the team in the wins column. I know I've seen more than a few rallies killed this year, because of runners picked off or caught stealing.
Also, if "Ozzie ball" is supposed to be like "small ball", then we definitely don't have the players to pull it off. Not enough guys in the lineup can lay down a bunt if needed, or just move runners over when they make outs. I've always thought that any major league player should at the very least be able to do those things. It's like being able to shoot free throws in basketball. Even if you don't have the God-given talent to hit monster home runs, anybody should be able to do the little stuff, if they just take it seriously enough and put effort into practicing it. I mean, little league players and National League pitchers can do it, there's no excuse for a position player at the top level to not have that ability.
Anyways, back to the positives of Ozzie Guillen. I think my favorite part about his hiring is listening to him speak English. Much more entertaining than Sammy Sosa. He's a funny guy to begin with, and then hearing it come out in that thick accent just makes it that much more hilarious. I don't know whether it's true that a Spanish-speaking manager connects to Latino-players better and gets more out of them, but listening to Ozzie talk this year has convinced me that every team should have a manager with an accent like his.
Other than the manager, I believe the next biggest improvement from last season has been Aaron Rowand. This guy has really developed into a respectable hitter, and a very above average center-fielder. Fast enough to steal some bases too. The one thing that bothers me is his batting stance, very ugly. When we went to the game on Saturday, Olivia observed that "he looks like he's trying to dookie", which is actually not that far off. I guess as long as he keeps hitting, though, I can live with dookie-man.
Uribe has also been a major positive, even with his streakiness. You can't argue with his overall production though, and he's still pretty young with some good tools to develop.
The biggest disappointment, in my mind, is Joe Crede. He might still turn it around, but I think it's now or never for this kid. The guy has been given plenty of opportunity to prove himself, but he hasn't done nearly enough to earn a spot in the lineup. Also disappointing has been Jon Garland, who just can't seem to figure it out. He'll pitch so well for 4 innings, and then blow up and give up 5 runs at once. Doesn't strike out anyone either. Perhaps not coincidentally, I drafted both guys in fantasy this year, which maybe made me expect more out of them. That's another story though. Anyways, however you look at it, those 2 players have been underachieving for too long and they need to either start producing, or go away.
As far as trades go, I'm not sold on Freddy Garcia yet, but I'd be happy to see him prove me wrong. Maybe you dump a prospect or two for him, but I don't know why you would trade away a guy like Olivo, your most consistent catcher this year who's been steadily improving and is only going to get better. Ben Davis has been a lot better than anyone expected though (except maybe Kenny Williams saw this coming?). I just don't know if we'll someday regret giving up too much in this trade.
The Contreras for Loaiza deal, on the other hand, I was all for. Loiaza was even more frustrating for me to watch this year than Garland, which is saying a lot. Everytime the offense got him a lead, he coughed it up in the bottom half. Contreras might not end up being much better, but we needed a change and I'm happy with this one. Even though he's inconsistent, I believe Contreras at his best is better than Loaiza at his best. Also, there's 2 more years on his contract, whereas Loaiza would've probably been gone after this year.
Then, there is the past 3 weeks when the team just completely collapsed. Make no mistake about it, I'm not happy at all about the Sox getting dominated by Minnesota, then Detroit, then KC, and now Cleveland. Losing your 2 best hitters is rough, but even without Frank Thomas and Magglio, we should be able to do better than this. A lot better than this.
Still, it doesn't take away from the rest of this season and the fact that the White Sox have been infinitely more exciting to watch than they were last year. I'm not giving up on the playoffs yet either. Yeah, it doesn't look good now, but I really don't think the Twins are as good as they've looked recently. And the Sox aren't as bad as they've looked, without Frank and Magglio. Either way, there's still a month or two left of season to play, and I haven't lost hope.
On a side note, it is absolutely amazing that the Braves are again leading their division. I don't know how they do it, year after year. Each of the last few years, they've been losing big chunks of their team in the offseason, but in the end, they still find a way to win somehow. Something special about that organization, either the coaches, trainers, owners, or all of the above are doing everything right. Meanwhile, the Phillies and Mets should be ashamed of themselves for being so pathetic, while spending so much money on the big names.
I haven't written much about the Sox this year, despite it being one of the most exciting and enjoyable seasons I can remember in recent times. Even though our season has taken a sharp turn for the worse, I thought I should still record my thoughts on 2004. Notice, by the way, that I'm not one of those sports fans who only talks about his team when it's doing great.
I have to say, coming into the season, I really wasn't feeling all that upbeat as a White Sox fan. The team itself didn't change much since last year, in fact, after missing the 2003 playoffs, we actually lost a bunch of players to free agency. Among them, Bartolo Colon, Robbie Alomar, and Carl Everett. The one thing we did gain was firing Jerry Manuel and hiring Ozzie Guillen as the manager. As far as that went, I was definitely skeptical at the time of whether or not it was a good move - picking a guy who had a below average career as a player, and zero experience as a head manager, was not too promising.
Well, now that I have seen what Ozzie has done for the better part of a season, I no longer question his hiring. A real pleasant surprise, to say the least. It's really amazing how big of a difference one guy as a leader can make on a team and its fans.
Which is pretty much what we were lacking with Manuel, a real leader. Not to hate on him too much, because he did give us the one good year after the Terry Bevington disaster. But as a fan, you can totally feel a major change in attitude with this year's team, as compared to 2003. This has been most noticeable in the fact that we actually come back in games now. Yeah, you'd rather not fall behind teams to begin with, but it's so nice to know that when the Sox are trailing after the 6th or 7th inning, that they aren't going to just fold 100% of the time. It gives the fans that much more reason to follow the team, when the players actually show some heart and battle to the end of every game.
As far as baseball decisions go, I don't know if he has been all that great. I still don't know exactly what "Ozzie ball" means. We've been a lot more aggressive as far as baserunning goes, which can be exciting, but also stupid. I'm interested to know what the stats are, on whether or not the aggressiveness has helped or hurt the team in the wins column. I know I've seen more than a few rallies killed this year, because of runners picked off or caught stealing.
Also, if "Ozzie ball" is supposed to be like "small ball", then we definitely don't have the players to pull it off. Not enough guys in the lineup can lay down a bunt if needed, or just move runners over when they make outs. I've always thought that any major league player should at the very least be able to do those things. It's like being able to shoot free throws in basketball. Even if you don't have the God-given talent to hit monster home runs, anybody should be able to do the little stuff, if they just take it seriously enough and put effort into practicing it. I mean, little league players and National League pitchers can do it, there's no excuse for a position player at the top level to not have that ability.
Anyways, back to the positives of Ozzie Guillen. I think my favorite part about his hiring is listening to him speak English. Much more entertaining than Sammy Sosa. He's a funny guy to begin with, and then hearing it come out in that thick accent just makes it that much more hilarious. I don't know whether it's true that a Spanish-speaking manager connects to Latino-players better and gets more out of them, but listening to Ozzie talk this year has convinced me that every team should have a manager with an accent like his.
Other than the manager, I believe the next biggest improvement from last season has been Aaron Rowand. This guy has really developed into a respectable hitter, and a very above average center-fielder. Fast enough to steal some bases too. The one thing that bothers me is his batting stance, very ugly. When we went to the game on Saturday, Olivia observed that "he looks like he's trying to dookie", which is actually not that far off. I guess as long as he keeps hitting, though, I can live with dookie-man.
Uribe has also been a major positive, even with his streakiness. You can't argue with his overall production though, and he's still pretty young with some good tools to develop.
The biggest disappointment, in my mind, is Joe Crede. He might still turn it around, but I think it's now or never for this kid. The guy has been given plenty of opportunity to prove himself, but he hasn't done nearly enough to earn a spot in the lineup. Also disappointing has been Jon Garland, who just can't seem to figure it out. He'll pitch so well for 4 innings, and then blow up and give up 5 runs at once. Doesn't strike out anyone either. Perhaps not coincidentally, I drafted both guys in fantasy this year, which maybe made me expect more out of them. That's another story though. Anyways, however you look at it, those 2 players have been underachieving for too long and they need to either start producing, or go away.
As far as trades go, I'm not sold on Freddy Garcia yet, but I'd be happy to see him prove me wrong. Maybe you dump a prospect or two for him, but I don't know why you would trade away a guy like Olivo, your most consistent catcher this year who's been steadily improving and is only going to get better. Ben Davis has been a lot better than anyone expected though (except maybe Kenny Williams saw this coming?). I just don't know if we'll someday regret giving up too much in this trade.
The Contreras for Loaiza deal, on the other hand, I was all for. Loiaza was even more frustrating for me to watch this year than Garland, which is saying a lot. Everytime the offense got him a lead, he coughed it up in the bottom half. Contreras might not end up being much better, but we needed a change and I'm happy with this one. Even though he's inconsistent, I believe Contreras at his best is better than Loaiza at his best. Also, there's 2 more years on his contract, whereas Loaiza would've probably been gone after this year.
Then, there is the past 3 weeks when the team just completely collapsed. Make no mistake about it, I'm not happy at all about the Sox getting dominated by Minnesota, then Detroit, then KC, and now Cleveland. Losing your 2 best hitters is rough, but even without Frank Thomas and Magglio, we should be able to do better than this. A lot better than this.
Still, it doesn't take away from the rest of this season and the fact that the White Sox have been infinitely more exciting to watch than they were last year. I'm not giving up on the playoffs yet either. Yeah, it doesn't look good now, but I really don't think the Twins are as good as they've looked recently. And the Sox aren't as bad as they've looked, without Frank and Magglio. Either way, there's still a month or two left of season to play, and I haven't lost hope.
On a side note, it is absolutely amazing that the Braves are again leading their division. I don't know how they do it, year after year. Each of the last few years, they've been losing big chunks of their team in the offseason, but in the end, they still find a way to win somehow. Something special about that organization, either the coaches, trainers, owners, or all of the above are doing everything right. Meanwhile, the Phillies and Mets should be ashamed of themselves for being so pathetic, while spending so much money on the big names.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Saturday Fun
My day started innocently enough, waking up around 9, watching some infomercials for Bowflex and some steam cleaner device. I think actually my dad bought that steamer thing and it's sitting at home in the basement somewhere, unused right now.
Next, played a couple games of craft with Dan and Dennis. We got raped both times. I felt like the biggest joke on Battlenet, it was that bad.
The afternoon involved giving my car a thorough wash and polish treatment, interspersed with watching Shawshank Redemption on TV. The process included:
- Vacuum interior
- Watch Andy Dufresne's first days in prison
- Wash with Z-7
- Towel Dry
- Watch Andy get forked by the Sistas
- Layer of Z-6
- Mix Z-2 and ZFX
- Andy plays opera music on the loudspeakers, gets sent to the hole
(by the way if you haven't seen Shawshank before, now would be a good time to stop reading.)
- Layer Z-2
- Layer of Meguiar's Tire Gloss.
- Noticed a metal screw in one of the tires. Decide to get it looked at sometime soon instead of trying to fix it myself.
- Warden shoots guy who could've testified to set Andy free
- Remove Z-2
- Layer of Z-6
- Andy escapes, screws over guards and Warden, meets Red in Mexico. YAY
- Layer of Meguiar's Tire Gloss
For those who might be interested in my advice on car wash products, I recommend the Zaino system for wash and polish, and Meguiar's stuff for tires and leather. Also, California duster products are pretty useful too. Contact me if you have any other questions.
Shawshank Redemption, goes without saying, one of the best movies ever. Possibly the best ending to any movie I have ever seen, up there with Usual Suspects and Return of the Jedi.
Anyways, I spent the evening at the Sox-Indians game with Olivia. Sox have been in a terrible slide for a couple weeks now, but I'm still more happy about this year's team than last year's. Didn't have a chance to write much about the Sox when they were doing well, unfortunately now it's all turned sour. I guess it does suck to lose your 2 best all around hitters all of a sudden, but it's no excuse to be doing this bad. Getting swept at home by the Twins was one thing, but then losing the series to KC (without Sweeney) was just not right.
In tonight's game, there were a few moments of excitement, basically all in the one inning when Cliff Lee got tired and we got 2 home runs (one 3-run shot by Robbie Alomar, and a 2-run shot by Uribe).
Towards the end of the game, I got to experience for myself the "Shingo Entrance Theme" as he came in to save the 2 run lead. It was exactly as I imagined it, except even gayer. Gong noises, Japanese words flashing on the big screen with the same 3 Shingo highlight clips being repeated over and over. Also, the words "Mr. Zero" scrolling across the screen. Surprisingly, the crowd was pretty into it, and everyone seemed to be a big Shingo fan. He then proceeded to blow the lead and get a loss by allowing 2 singles and a 3-run jack to Matt Lawton. Not good.
But the most fun of the night was when I was driving home from Olivia's condo, and my front left tire decided to go down in the Express Lanes on the Kennedy. You may have noticed there was foreshadowing of this event from earlier in this entry. Anyways, I was lucky it was in a place where there was some shoulder, otherwise I don't know what would've happened.
Even so, trying to fix a flat tire on the shoulder of the Express lanes around midnight is not my favorite situation to be in. Some cars driving by felt like they were a lot closer than I would consider a safe distance, but oh well. I'm still alive and typing a blog now, so it's all good. I thought about calling up Infiniti Roadside Assistance, but decided it would take too long. Also, I didn't want to be a pussy. A real man fixes his own flat tires, I say. A few minutes later, a cop finally pulled up behind me with his lights on, to offer me some protection and safety. For once, I got to deal with a cop who wasn't looking to write me a ticket. Kind of nice, really.
As far as the tire goes, I wouldn't so much call it a "flat" tire as I would a "exploded" tire. When I got out to look at it, the ground around the tire was splattered with all these bits of tire rubber. Not cool at all. When I got home, I decided to take some pictures to commemorate and remember this fine experience. And now I will share them with my readers:
I guess my car has a full-size spare, which is nice. I'd rather not have to use it though. Looks like tomorrow will involve me trying to get a new tire. Hope NTB is open on Sundays.
I really need to go to sleep now.
My day started innocently enough, waking up around 9, watching some infomercials for Bowflex and some steam cleaner device. I think actually my dad bought that steamer thing and it's sitting at home in the basement somewhere, unused right now.
Next, played a couple games of craft with Dan and Dennis. We got raped both times. I felt like the biggest joke on Battlenet, it was that bad.
The afternoon involved giving my car a thorough wash and polish treatment, interspersed with watching Shawshank Redemption on TV. The process included:
- Vacuum interior
- Watch Andy Dufresne's first days in prison
- Wash with Z-7
- Towel Dry
- Watch Andy get forked by the Sistas
- Layer of Z-6
- Mix Z-2 and ZFX
- Andy plays opera music on the loudspeakers, gets sent to the hole
(by the way if you haven't seen Shawshank before, now would be a good time to stop reading.)
- Layer Z-2
- Layer of Meguiar's Tire Gloss.
- Noticed a metal screw in one of the tires. Decide to get it looked at sometime soon instead of trying to fix it myself.
- Warden shoots guy who could've testified to set Andy free
- Remove Z-2
- Layer of Z-6
- Andy escapes, screws over guards and Warden, meets Red in Mexico. YAY
- Layer of Meguiar's Tire Gloss
For those who might be interested in my advice on car wash products, I recommend the Zaino system for wash and polish, and Meguiar's stuff for tires and leather. Also, California duster products are pretty useful too. Contact me if you have any other questions.
Shawshank Redemption, goes without saying, one of the best movies ever. Possibly the best ending to any movie I have ever seen, up there with Usual Suspects and Return of the Jedi.
Anyways, I spent the evening at the Sox-Indians game with Olivia. Sox have been in a terrible slide for a couple weeks now, but I'm still more happy about this year's team than last year's. Didn't have a chance to write much about the Sox when they were doing well, unfortunately now it's all turned sour. I guess it does suck to lose your 2 best all around hitters all of a sudden, but it's no excuse to be doing this bad. Getting swept at home by the Twins was one thing, but then losing the series to KC (without Sweeney) was just not right.
In tonight's game, there were a few moments of excitement, basically all in the one inning when Cliff Lee got tired and we got 2 home runs (one 3-run shot by Robbie Alomar, and a 2-run shot by Uribe).
Towards the end of the game, I got to experience for myself the "Shingo Entrance Theme" as he came in to save the 2 run lead. It was exactly as I imagined it, except even gayer. Gong noises, Japanese words flashing on the big screen with the same 3 Shingo highlight clips being repeated over and over. Also, the words "Mr. Zero" scrolling across the screen. Surprisingly, the crowd was pretty into it, and everyone seemed to be a big Shingo fan. He then proceeded to blow the lead and get a loss by allowing 2 singles and a 3-run jack to Matt Lawton. Not good.
But the most fun of the night was when I was driving home from Olivia's condo, and my front left tire decided to go down in the Express Lanes on the Kennedy. You may have noticed there was foreshadowing of this event from earlier in this entry. Anyways, I was lucky it was in a place where there was some shoulder, otherwise I don't know what would've happened.
Even so, trying to fix a flat tire on the shoulder of the Express lanes around midnight is not my favorite situation to be in. Some cars driving by felt like they were a lot closer than I would consider a safe distance, but oh well. I'm still alive and typing a blog now, so it's all good. I thought about calling up Infiniti Roadside Assistance, but decided it would take too long. Also, I didn't want to be a pussy. A real man fixes his own flat tires, I say. A few minutes later, a cop finally pulled up behind me with his lights on, to offer me some protection and safety. For once, I got to deal with a cop who wasn't looking to write me a ticket. Kind of nice, really.
As far as the tire goes, I wouldn't so much call it a "flat" tire as I would a "exploded" tire. When I got out to look at it, the ground around the tire was splattered with all these bits of tire rubber. Not cool at all. When I got home, I decided to take some pictures to commemorate and remember this fine experience. And now I will share them with my readers:
I guess my car has a full-size spare, which is nice. I'd rather not have to use it though. Looks like tomorrow will involve me trying to get a new tire. Hope NTB is open on Sundays.
I really need to go to sleep now.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Darien
This entry is dedicated to the small town of Darien, IL.
When I say "small town", I mean relatively small. Not like one of those rural hick towns where everyone knows everyone else and you marry your cousins. But compared to most other suburbs in Chicago, it's pretty small any way you look at it. It has a population of about 20,000, less than 10 square miles of jurisdiction, and does not have its own high school. If those numbers don't mean much to you, consider that neighboring Downers Grove (where I grew up) has about 50,000 people, and Naperville (just down the road) has well over 100,000 now. Each of those suburbs is large enough to need 2 of its own high schools (I think Naperville actually has 3, if Neuqua Valley counts).
As far as my personal relationship to Darien goes, it's not the place I was born (Hinsdale), and not the place I grew up (Downers Grove). Not the place I live now, either (Palatine). In fact, out of my 24+ years of life, I think I have only spent about 3 years really living in the town of Darien itself. If you include the time I was at college, then I count Darien as my place of residence for no more than 7-8 years.
So, some of you may be wondering why I'm writing a blog about a place that few people outside of the area have even heard of, and carries little significance in my own life, in terms of traditionally important milestones.
Well, despite those things, I have to say here that the Village of Darien is actually a very cool and special place in my mind, for a number of reasons. And now I will try to explain why it is so special and cool.
First of all, whenever you enter Darien at any major intersection, you are greeted by the welcome sign: Darien - "A Nice Place To Live". Written with quotes and everything like that. Now, most people don't pay much attention to the mottos on those signs as they're driving, and I have to admit, I never noticed it myself for a long time. It wasn't until my 2nd year of college, when I was dorming at ISR 3-South and a bunch of us on the floor were all talking about where we were from. When I said I was from Darien, one of the guys was like "Hey, I know that place, isn't that 'A Nice Place to Live'?". From then on, every time any of us from Darien introduced ourselves to new people, we would have to explain that we were from "A Nice Place to Live".
Anyways, I gotta say, I really like that motto. I mean, it's not like I know a lot of mottos. Maybe the only one I can think of (other than Darien) is "Worth - The Friendly Village", because it's written in huge letters on their water tower and it, too, is a good motto. But yeah, I don't know if anything can top "A Nice Place to Live" when it comes to quality of motto. Short, simple, to the point. Yeah, it sounds like a 2nd grader came up with the idea, but hey, who wouldn't want to be in "A Nice Place to Live"?
The town itself, while small in area, has a lot of good stuff around. 2 places I always took for granted, until I moved to a place without either one nearby, were Wal-Mart and White Castle. Having the Castle, in particular, automatically puts Darien among the most elite suburbs of Chicago as far as I'm concerned. (Actually, I think our White Castle is technically in DG territory, but that's ok, it's all the same.) Wendys, KFC, Pizza Hut, Barnes & Noble, Kohls, Gap, Bath & Body Works, XSport, Burger King, Best Buy, Old Navy, and more stores are all at that same intersection too.
Of course, the most important factor in determining any town's coolness would be the people it has. As we already know, Darien had me gracing its land with my presence for a few years, which is a huge plus for any town or city. The magnitude of this fact alone must not be overlooked or underestimated.
But what really set this town apart was 5 of my best friends who went to U of I with me representing D-town. Not that we were the only ones from Darien who went to U of I that year, but we were more or less the ones that mattered. Eventually, we crossed paths and came to intermingle with the thugs from other places like Glenview, Cedarville, Princeton, Wheaton, Gurnee, and more. But the "original 6" of Darien was, and still is, a legendary group.
And I guess what brings me to write about Darien now, is the realization that almost none of us are in Darien any more. Thankfully, most of us are still in the general Chicagoland area, but the fact is that our addresses no longer all end in 60561, and our phone numbers don't all start with (630) now. A rundown of where we are:
Me - Palatine
P - Waukesha, Wisconsin
Vas - Paris, Texas/Czech Republic (?)
Rod - Downtown Chicago
Chras - Soon to be Downtown Chicago
Anuj - Only remnant keepin it real in Darien. Assuming he comes back from India.
So with everyone moving on to other places these days, I figured I better record our history in Darien before our legacy is forgotten and it all gets lost in the waves of time. After all, I feel a certain attachment to the town, as if it's almost a part of my identity. I don't know about the other boys, but I feel a certain sense of pride to say that I hail from the great village of Darien and that I'm a part of the "Darien crowd", because there's not a lot of people who can say that and thus it sets me apart in a way. Yeah, I understand that makes me a real loser, but oh well.
Sadly, it looks like the end of our era is here. But I hope the Darien spirit will live on in all of us, and through those who wasted their time reading this blog.
If anyone feels like reading more about Darien, go to this URL:
http://www.darien.il.us/
You'll have to cut and paste it into a new browser, cause I don't want the webmasters to notice their traffic tripling today from 2 hits to 6, with my page as the referral for the extra 4 visitors. But it has some history of the town and also some of the demographic statistics I listed above. I didn't know that Darien was only incorporated in 1969 and was named after Darien, Connecticut.
Okay, enough talk about Darien for one day.
This entry is dedicated to the small town of Darien, IL.
When I say "small town", I mean relatively small. Not like one of those rural hick towns where everyone knows everyone else and you marry your cousins. But compared to most other suburbs in Chicago, it's pretty small any way you look at it. It has a population of about 20,000, less than 10 square miles of jurisdiction, and does not have its own high school. If those numbers don't mean much to you, consider that neighboring Downers Grove (where I grew up) has about 50,000 people, and Naperville (just down the road) has well over 100,000 now. Each of those suburbs is large enough to need 2 of its own high schools (I think Naperville actually has 3, if Neuqua Valley counts).
As far as my personal relationship to Darien goes, it's not the place I was born (Hinsdale), and not the place I grew up (Downers Grove). Not the place I live now, either (Palatine). In fact, out of my 24+ years of life, I think I have only spent about 3 years really living in the town of Darien itself. If you include the time I was at college, then I count Darien as my place of residence for no more than 7-8 years.
So, some of you may be wondering why I'm writing a blog about a place that few people outside of the area have even heard of, and carries little significance in my own life, in terms of traditionally important milestones.
Well, despite those things, I have to say here that the Village of Darien is actually a very cool and special place in my mind, for a number of reasons. And now I will try to explain why it is so special and cool.
First of all, whenever you enter Darien at any major intersection, you are greeted by the welcome sign: Darien - "A Nice Place To Live". Written with quotes and everything like that. Now, most people don't pay much attention to the mottos on those signs as they're driving, and I have to admit, I never noticed it myself for a long time. It wasn't until my 2nd year of college, when I was dorming at ISR 3-South and a bunch of us on the floor were all talking about where we were from. When I said I was from Darien, one of the guys was like "Hey, I know that place, isn't that 'A Nice Place to Live'?". From then on, every time any of us from Darien introduced ourselves to new people, we would have to explain that we were from "A Nice Place to Live".
Anyways, I gotta say, I really like that motto. I mean, it's not like I know a lot of mottos. Maybe the only one I can think of (other than Darien) is "Worth - The Friendly Village", because it's written in huge letters on their water tower and it, too, is a good motto. But yeah, I don't know if anything can top "A Nice Place to Live" when it comes to quality of motto. Short, simple, to the point. Yeah, it sounds like a 2nd grader came up with the idea, but hey, who wouldn't want to be in "A Nice Place to Live"?
The town itself, while small in area, has a lot of good stuff around. 2 places I always took for granted, until I moved to a place without either one nearby, were Wal-Mart and White Castle. Having the Castle, in particular, automatically puts Darien among the most elite suburbs of Chicago as far as I'm concerned. (Actually, I think our White Castle is technically in DG territory, but that's ok, it's all the same.) Wendys, KFC, Pizza Hut, Barnes & Noble, Kohls, Gap, Bath & Body Works, XSport, Burger King, Best Buy, Old Navy, and more stores are all at that same intersection too.
Of course, the most important factor in determining any town's coolness would be the people it has. As we already know, Darien had me gracing its land with my presence for a few years, which is a huge plus for any town or city. The magnitude of this fact alone must not be overlooked or underestimated.
But what really set this town apart was 5 of my best friends who went to U of I with me representing D-town. Not that we were the only ones from Darien who went to U of I that year, but we were more or less the ones that mattered. Eventually, we crossed paths and came to intermingle with the thugs from other places like Glenview, Cedarville, Princeton, Wheaton, Gurnee, and more. But the "original 6" of Darien was, and still is, a legendary group.
And I guess what brings me to write about Darien now, is the realization that almost none of us are in Darien any more. Thankfully, most of us are still in the general Chicagoland area, but the fact is that our addresses no longer all end in 60561, and our phone numbers don't all start with (630) now. A rundown of where we are:
Me - Palatine
P - Waukesha, Wisconsin
Vas - Paris, Texas/Czech Republic (?)
Rod - Downtown Chicago
Chras - Soon to be Downtown Chicago
Anuj - Only remnant keepin it real in Darien. Assuming he comes back from India.
So with everyone moving on to other places these days, I figured I better record our history in Darien before our legacy is forgotten and it all gets lost in the waves of time. After all, I feel a certain attachment to the town, as if it's almost a part of my identity. I don't know about the other boys, but I feel a certain sense of pride to say that I hail from the great village of Darien and that I'm a part of the "Darien crowd", because there's not a lot of people who can say that and thus it sets me apart in a way. Yeah, I understand that makes me a real loser, but oh well.
Sadly, it looks like the end of our era is here. But I hope the Darien spirit will live on in all of us, and through those who wasted their time reading this blog.
If anyone feels like reading more about Darien, go to this URL:
http://www.darien.il.us/
You'll have to cut and paste it into a new browser, cause I don't want the webmasters to notice their traffic tripling today from 2 hits to 6, with my page as the referral for the extra 4 visitors. But it has some history of the town and also some of the demographic statistics I listed above. I didn't know that Darien was only incorporated in 1969 and was named after Darien, Connecticut.
Okay, enough talk about Darien for one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)