What a Week!

I don't normally like to use exclamation points in my titles, but for this post it just feels necessary, because.....What a week!

In sports, that is.

First we had the excitement of Team USA as an unlikely victor in a tough match. Yes, they lost in the next round, but for at least a day there, it felt awesome.

Then there was the Wimbledon match to end all matches.

Played over three days for an incredible 11 hours and 5 minutes, American John Isner and Nicolas Mahut of France served up a surely never to be seen again 183 games, with the win coming in the final set with a score of 70-68.

Sadly, Isner lost in the very next round in a very quick match. But, he will long be remembered for his amazing marathon win on the grass at the All England Club.

Add in some interleague baseball, and you get a week that we'll be talking about for quite some time.

Mixed emotions about interleague play

This week, most Major League Baseball games will be interleague match ups.

Since interleague play was introduced back in 1997, there has been discussion about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.

To be truthful, I have mixed emotions for all the same reasons that some people love it and others hate it.

I like that you get to see teams and players that you haven't seen before. For example, this year the Cardinals fans got to see Ichiro last week when they faced the Mariners. The St. Louis fans haven't seen this amazing hitter play live before, and they may never see him again in their city.

Interleague play also creates opportunities for players who switch leagues to face their former team, like Manny Rodriquez did this year, now playing for the Dodgers but he was back in Fenway for the first time since he left the Red Sox in 2008.

Some of the match ups are competitive and fun for fans, like the Subway series between the Yankees and the Mets and the Freeway series between the Dodgers and the Angels. There is also the potential for the most recent World Series teams to meet in a re-match.

But, on the negative side, some match ups that might seem intriguing for fans, are really not. Like the Cardinals playing the Royals. In my opinion, this is not the exciting series that MLB schedulers think it is. Yes, these teams met in the 1985 World Series that many believe was decided on a controversial call in the Royals favor, but that was 25 years go. If there really was a rivalry, it's long over. And, unfortunately, mostly due to their payroll, the Royals are rarely in contention for a play-off spot, while the Cardinals are usually at or near the top of their division. So, these series doesn't usually yield high drama. 

Other purists have argued that teams from each league should not face each other in the regular season at any time before the World Series. It should be the best in the National League facing the best in the American League at only one time of the year, during the World Series.

Then there is the matter of the designated hitter. Ok, that's a whole discussion unto itself if you ask me, but for the purpose of debating interleague play, let's just say that the American league players dislike interleague play because their pitchers might get hurt swinging a bat, when they haven't done it before. The National league players could care less about their opponents pitcher getting hurt and simply see an easy out when an American league pitchers comes to bat.

If you look at other sports, like the NBA and the NFL, they have interconference play and no one seems to debate it. In the NBA, the teams that meet in the Championship series will have faced each other earlier in the season as all teams play opponents in their own conference as well as all of the teams in the other conference. In the NFL, AFC teams play NFC teams during the regular season.

So if I had to make a decision, I guess I am in favor of interleague play, IF it's done right, with a good interleague schedule that allows a sensible rotation of teams and IF it doesn't detract from the key match-ups within each division.

Discuss.

Ron Artest is real "MVP"

In case you missed it, after the Lakers won game 7 of the NBA finals, Ron Artest gave a courtside interview to end all interviews.

In a matter of seconds, with what can only be called fits of jubilation, Artest gave a shout out to his psychiatrist and managed to slip in a promotion for his next single.

Kobe may have won game time honors for his invaluable play, but in my opinion, love him or hate him, Artest earned his own "MVP" award.

And by that I mean, "Most Valuable Promoter".

You can watch the video and judge for yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRkLp3ixrzQ

Shocking! Lakers/Celtics series goes seven! Ok, maybe not so shocking.

Did anyone really think this series wouldn't go seven games?

I'm not saying there's anything fishy going on, but really, the television ratings for each game  are through the roof. There's a lot of money at stake here.

I was talking with my friend, a huge Lakers fan, at the start of the series and I mentioned that I believed it would go seven games with at least one game being a blow-out.

At the time, he argued that the Lakers would win in four, maybe five, games. It was possibly his bravado about his team that led him to this statement. But, he did call me after last nights game to concede that I was right.

It should be noted that the 2008 championship series between these two teams went six games and the championship series last year, in 2009, went five games with the Lakers beating the Orlando Magic.

Again, not saying there is any cheating or 'game-throwing' going on here, but it does seem a bit coincidental that a series between two large market television cities, and one that is a huge rivalry, somehow goes to seven games with a game late in the series being a total blow-out.

For more specific information and ratings figures, check out this article from Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020703.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&nid=4749

NBC nabs another exclusive interview, but should it have really been on at all?

NBC has done it again. They've nabbed what they think is a catch of an interview, but when viewed, it seems like anything but a catch.

It seems like only a reminder of the constant threat of violence, and the growing trend of apathy about this kind of violence, that has run rampant among some the youngest members of our society.

If you don't know about the story of Josie Rately, here's a quick summary.

Josie Ratley and Wayne Treacy, both 15, exchanged text messages that led to a confrontation in which Treacy severely beat Ratley, kicking her head with his steel-toed boots and causing her brain damage.

On Wednesday, June 10th Meredith Viera interviewed Kayla Manson who is being charged for her role in the vicious beating of Josie Ratley.     

As explained in the video piece that ran before the interview,  Manson knew both Ratley and Treacy, who did not know each other. Somehow she was the link that got them to start exchanging messages.

When Treacy showed up at Ratley's school, not knowing who she was, she asked Manson to point Ratley out to him. She did. And then left.

There were a few things about the interview that seemed very strange to me.

In the interview with Viera, Manson seemed devoid of any emotion about the whole thing.

She called Josie her friend, but said that she pointed Josie out to the attacker and then just left.

If this girl was really Josie's friend wouldn't she have gone to be by her friend's side to stand up for her?

It was clear that the Manson family was trying to illicit sympathy for Kayla by talking about how she takes care of her disabled cousin.

And, by 'family', I am referring to Manson's aunt who was the only family with her. Where were the girls mother and father? Why did only her aunt appear?


Anytime a 13 year old has to appear with her attorneys --  yes, two attorneys -- I really don't think she should be appearing anywhere other than in her home or in court.


This story takes more than 3 minutes to tell and if you ask me, this is one of the problems with morning television. There just seems to be too many unanswered questions in this piece, mainly due to lack of time to adequately tell the whole story.

Morning television is about getting the interview, not telling the whole story.

You can watch the video of the interview here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37612570/ns/today-today_people/

Be forewarned that Manson uses the "C" word twice in this interview. Viera apologizes for it, but it seems a little too late. Once the word is out, it's out.

I was a little shocked by the word, but again, I think I was more shocked by the fact that this interview was taking place at all. 

And, I have to say; no one involved in this whole matter is completely without fault in some way.  Yes, I feel very sorry for Josie Ratley and she should never been attacked by Wayne Treacy, but she did send him text messages taunting him about the suicide death of his brother a year earlier. He claims this is what set him off.

So, here you have three people who are all seemingly at fault for something in this situation. There is no excuse for the violent acts of Treacy, nor for the seemingly apathetic inaction of Manson, nor for the bullying of Rately. All three will be paying for this for the rest of their lives.

If you have the time, check out the video. What impression of this girl and the whole incident did you get from this interview? Discuss.

A good laugh, a great read, and the way to go

WATCH THIS: "Upright Citizens Brigade live "30 Rock" performance"

When the Writer's Guild of America was on strike a few years ago, the talent behnd the hit show "30 Rock" decided to stage a live show on the improv stage at New York's famed Upright Citizens Brigade. This presentation was to raise money for those affected by the strike, which included not just the writers, but the production crew as well.

You may have missed the live performance of this, but you can see it on the Season 2 DVD. And, it's well worth it. In the live preformance, all of the series regulars appear, complete with Alec Baldwin in a classic Jack Donaghy suit. A live band provides excellent background music to complete the show.


READ THIS: "The Glass Castle" by Jeanette Walls

In the opening chapter of this book, as the author rides in the back of a limo to a black tie event, she sees her mother eating out of a garbage can.

What follows is a often harrowing tale of growing up in a family that has no money and is led by an irresponsible, and most likely, mentally ill mother.

The author nevers seeks pity. She tells the story of her triumph over such adversity with no fanfare either. Achieving this mixture is no easy task, but yet it is accomplished.


CHECK THIS OUT: www.costtodrive.com

Can't decide whether to fly or drive to your destination? This website will do exactly what it says and help you calculate the cost to drive. You simply put in your starting and stopping points and the make and model of your car. It's very simple. For those eco types out there, it will also determne  your carbon footrprint for the trip.

For example, I'm looking at going to Phoenix from Los Angeles. Costtodrive.com tells me that it will cost me $43.33 based on $2.83 per gallon of gas. So roundtrip would be approxiamtely $86.66. The lowest cost to fly, as listed by this same site, is $123. But, I couldn't find that fare at the time I needed to travel. It was more like $156 before taxes. There is also the time factor to consider. Driving will take 6+ hours, while flying time is just over an hour (that's in the air and does not include driving to and time spent at the airport). Is the cost calculator accurate? This I can't tell you. If I decide to make the trip, I'll let you know.

Proposed new National Sales Tax pros and cons

In an effort to trim down the country's $1.4 trillion deficit, some economists have proposed that the United States begin using a national sales tax system.

Under this system, income tax, as we currently know it, would be eliminated and all taxes would come from the purchase of goods and services.

Here are some pros and cons to this system:

Pro #1: This system would eliminate all income taxes. All taxes would be collected at the retail level by busnesses. 

Pro #2: There would no larger be a need for income tax reporting, so no tax forms to fill out and no IRS to contend with.

Pro #3: Taxes would be imposed on everyone in the country, regardless of immigration status. This includes aliens, illegal aliens, and tourists as well. This alone could add billions to the nation's treasury.

Con #1: Since this is a consumption tax and low income families spend almost every dollar they earn on essentials, they would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Higher wage earners could put more into savings and investments, which are not taxed under the new system.

Con #2: The benefits versus drawbacks of home ownership as opposed to renting becomes more complicated. For those who are able to buy a home, if they purchase a 'used' home they won't pay taxes. But, those who buy a 'new' home will. Renters will pay tax forever. And, since most states currently tax rental properties at a higher rate, this new tax plus the current tax may make it impossible for most renters to save enough money for a downpayment for a house, thus keeping them trapped in the undesirable position of renting.

These are just a few of the major issues with this idea. Just looking at these leads to more discussion about this system.

This system, while it seems to benefit homeowners, also seems to discourage new construction and purchase. And while it seems to encourage savings, as investments are not taxed, doesn't that in turn discourage spending? The very thing that, under this system, is supposed to generate income to offset the deficit?

It's seems that presently there are way too many contradictory issues to make this work here in the United States.

Currently, about 150 countries use a national sales tax system. Before moving forward with the idea here, let's evaluate how this system is working, or maybe not working, in these countries.

While we should applaud those in charge for looking for solutions to the current debt problem, there are many more faucets to this idea that need to be evaluated and discussed before there is any action taken.

Your thoughts on a national tax system?