Sox & Bruins musings..........

Gordon Edes (last paragraph) was nice enough to remind us that Perdo Martinez hasn't won in 7 starts (since April 28th) and has a W-0, L-2 record in that span..... I supported Theo from the beginning on dismissing Pedro, he is no Roger Clemens and Theo is no Dan Duquette. 2 Years from now he'll be nursing his right arm and the Mets will be still signing his (fat) paychecks. 2 maybe 3 years for another stint in Boston would have been worth it but not 4. You also knew that there was no way Pedro and "Top Step" Curt would have shared the limelight politely.

On a Bruins note.... With all of the talk of an eminent Andrew Raycroft trade, I think it would be wise sign Raycroft and hold on to all three goalies until maybe December when a few teams will no doubt be looking for net help and be more willing to part with more for a Cup run in April. The Oilers have proven this year what a good goalie can do for you and also that you can never be too deep in net!

On a side note, I need to register my truck this week and need to decide what to do about the plates. I still haven't sold the mustang yet and it is still registered with SC plates BRUINS. The conundrum lies in whether I transfer the plates to the truck and leave the mustang unregistered, leave everything as is and register the truck normally, or pay beaucoup cabbage to the state to transfer the Bruins tag to the truck and reregister the mustang with new plates so I still drive it around until it sells. Maybe all of this thought will be pointless because someone will decide that $1500 is a bargain for a fuel sipping commuter vehicle, and buy it before the 14th.

While it's on my mind

One more quick rant before I go to bed this morning (I'm working night shift). All of the hubbub about Congress voting on an amendment to the Constitution to state what exactly a marriage is. It gets me so frustrated when I see this on the news. No, not for the usually reasons; but when I got married, I hear "by the power invested in me by the sovereign state of South Carolina..." (yes he did say sovereign!) Nothing in any wedding ceremony I have ever heard mentioned anything about Congress, the President or the Constitution. This is a state issue, always has been and always will be! States will define marriage as they and their inhabitants see fit. Just like Massachusetts did and just like South Carolina will do this November. There will be an issue I think about recognizing another state's marriage in another state, but that's nothing the Supreme Court can't handle. That's how our great Constitution works folks. Some of the most important aspects about our government is what was left out of the Constitution and left to the states.



My good friend Dave wrote a great bit on his blog a few weeks back here. It really is true, you really never can go home again. I tried it a few years back and found out for myself.

I know a few people are actually reading this, many more than show up in the comments. So please take a few minutes and let me know what you think of the new Pickles & Beer or just say hi and let me know how you are doing. Thanks for tuning in.

I hate what the news has become.....

No, this isn't a diatribe about how the news is always full of bad things and never any uplifting stories. As much as dislike Katie Couric's move to the CBS Evening news, she hit the problem right on the head. The news, especially the 6:30PM TV news is just becoming less & less news and more & more just the two spins each political party has of the same issue. In fact the gory liquor store hold up that leaves two dead (that everyone hates to hear on the news) is more news than this. At least you don't have to figure out what each side of the issues wants you to hear.

The final straw was earlier this week when I was driving home from work listening to Morning Edition on the local NPR. It was an interview with the new Interior Secretary nominee Dirk Kempthorne. The interview started off as usual but the interviewer (Elizabeth Shogren) started asking the nominee about his soon to be predecessor's picks for department heads and how some used to be lobbyists for companies their new departments oversee. Now I can see her point that it looked a little bad for one example she stated but when Mr. Kempthorne gave a high road answer and didn't want to get into what previous department officials had done, she kept on asking the same question 4 different times and was almost answering for him (the answer she wanted to hear) by the end! In the end what I remember most about the interview isn't the plans the new director will have or issues facing the Department of Interior (what I thought the interview was supposed to be about) but the attitude the reporter had. She may have had issues with the previous director and how things were done in the past but taking the issues out on the new nominee was petty and Mr. Kempthorne and the listeners didn't deserve it. (In the interest of full disclosure I will say that I have been a loyal NPR listener for over a decade and will continue to be so. I also don't feel guilty at pledge drives because I actually do give!) Also, my 2 cents on the reporters point... maybe getting a major lobbyist to run a department might be over the top but as I see it, you do have to tap industry to get qualified people who know what they're doing. To insinuate you need someone entirely outside a departments scope to run the show is just plain stupid.