Things I Believe That Might Someday Land Me In The Nuthouse, And A Few That Won't

  • I Believe...

  • That peanut butter(yes primarily the processed skippy/jif type) is the closest thing to a cure all there is... I have fixed these symptoms with a spoonful of peanut butter... headaches/heartburn/upset stomach/diarreah/sore throat/dry mouth/strepp throat/congested sinus'/toothache/I even dodged a breathalizer test once(it was purely a test, one of my parents friends is a cop and let us try it out)
  • That there must be something in the peanut butter
  • That if god existed, he'd drink moxie
  • That the dead could someday walk the earth, and might even eat our flesh
  • That the only enemy I would go to war to defeat is the insurance companies
  • That by far the two worst days of my life were the only two days I spent in Canada
  • That those who call themsleves christians are for the most part farthest from practicing the teachings of christ and should shut up
  • That God is most likely Santa Claus for grownups
  • That everything poor people are thrown in jail for is legal for rich people because they make the laws
  • That life is a pastime(and nothing else)
  • That using the law as a moral system of values is the only crime worthy of execution
  • That nothing is sacred, except hard work
  • That if I had the ability to rip people off, in most cases I would, guilt-free
  • That most people worth ripping off, deserve it
  • That no one is entitled to anything, except death
  • That the only thing anyone can make you do is die
  • That feminists want to be the man
  • That blacks want to be the race in power
  • That children want to be the grownups
  • That the poor want to be the rich ones
  • That I can't blame feminists, blacks, children, or the poor for wanting that, but wish they would cut the shit and just admit they don't really want equality, but they'll settle for it.
  • That hitmen don't do anything wrong, they simply do the dirty work that is inevitable, not in the way that death itself is inevitable, but simply because anyone who would pay large amounts of money to have someone killed will one way or another get the deed done and not give up simply because a hitman turns him down for moral reasons. Basically what I'm saying(and I may be a hypocrit here because I'm not sure I believe it to be true in any other cases) is that no matter the outcome of the transaction or the what action it caused, if you are at the bottom of the business ladder you're not morally responsible for the action, cause it'd happen with or without you.
  • That sports is the only thing keeping the majority of us from killing each other
  • That right and wrong, good and evil, are 100% and completely arbitrary
  • That Pete Rose should not only be in the hall of fame, but respected for being the greatest baseball player of all time(as I believe), or at least considered ONE of the best, despite what people will tell you other 'sports greats' have done alot worse and *gasp* actually hurt people in the process, something Pete Rose didn't do.
  • That Dan Marino should be considered the best football player of all time even though he never won the big one, if not for his astonishing ability than at least for breaking records and almost winning super bowls without ever having a half-decent offensive line, running back, nor wide reciever and doing it all while wearing number 13... what else do you people need?!
  • That(from my post below) no matter how you personally practice it, saying christianity isn't about rules or legalism is like saying sex isn't about reproduction... you may not look at it that way, but at it's core, thats it's purpose.
  • That if God exists,(to quote Steiner from Cross Of Iron and whatever book it was based on) he's got to be "a sadist, and he probably doesn't even know it"
Author Comments: 

pointless ranting, coupled with crazy prophesizing, paranoia, and very little useful information.

What happened in Canada?

God is most likely Santa Claus for grown ups - I wish you could be more explicit on that...didn't get your point...

Oh btw I have my belief of right/wrong - There's nothing wrong or right. It's the conseqences you have to pay that makes it seem right or wrong. And nothings wrong or right, if you have power .
(The most cliched line...the last one)

P.S. - Why do I get a feeling you weren't exactly in the best of your mood when you wrote this :)? (Sorry if I sound offensive..)

I agree on most of it :)

haha... i'm never in a good mood when i talk about my beliefs, as far as my beliefs go i'm a pretty big pessimist... and your spot on with the right and wrong thing... as for santa claus, think about it, replace kids with grown ups and replace parents with whoever control the grown ups and replace santa claus with god...

if your a good kid we promise a present at the end of the year... as long as you believe and have faith in santa everything is ok... all those movies that say you don't have to see santa to believe that he exists... grown ups always say when a kid is acting up "your not gonna get any presents from santa"...

god just seems most likely a made up santa clause-type figure made to control grown ups as opposed to kids, no matter how stupid the rules are the rule makers will get them followed because if you don't follow them you might not get your 'present'(go to hell)


My thoughts: God doesn't control us; He gave us free will. And Christianity isn't about rules or legalism. It's about a relationship with the one who made us. I guess I should make my own list instead of posting on yours. ;)

no matter how you personally practice it, saying christianity isn't about rules or legalism is like saying sex isn't about reproduction... you may not look at it that way, but at it's core, thats it's purpose.

I think I like that analogy (and the cynic within me would like to agree.) But the optimist in me would say that sex is an expression of love. Or it should be in an ideal world. Reproduction is a natural consequence, result or byproduct (that doesn't sound so nice) of sex.

To try and put it in a better way, if reproduction was the only purpose to sex then there would be a lot less of it going on. There is quite a bit of sex happening without any intention of creating children. There must be some value to sex even beyond it's core purpose. Even if you think that religion is about "rules or legalism" there must be some value to it beyond that or it wouldn't be such a central part of so many peoples' lives. Ideally it is part of an inner life and not an outer, rule-driven existence.

We don't have sex to reproduce; we have it because we love someone, we desire someone, we get excited by someone... Many people practice (find? follow? experience?) religion for those very same reasons. Regardless of the rules. (Then again, some people do practice a religion strictly for the rules, the right to dictate to and dominate othes, the sense of superiority and the twisted leather whips. Some people engage in sex for those very same reasons... hey! wait a minute.)

We don't love our children because it makes us better parents. We are better parents because we love our children. We're not religious because we have "rules." We have rules because we are religious. We don't have sex because of reproduction. We have reproduction because of sex. Twisted leather whips are just a bonus.

thank you about the analogy, i like it too, even though I thought it up on the spot, must have heard it somewhere, it's too good to be a unique creation of my own.

yeah, I agree with just about all of that in the previous post. I didn't mean that people who are religious are in it for the rules, and I do believe for many people religion can be a great thing. Religion can be used as simply an optimistic way to live your life or any of that jazz, but I believe religion is here because of a need for "rules and legalism", whether they be self inflicted or otherwise, good or bad; in the same way that no one would argue the reason sex is around is because of the need to reproduce, whether or not that need is ever fulfilled. Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely free of religion because I despise it(even though it may seem that way) or because I hate people who need or want to live religiously(although I often hate their actions)... just think of me as a man who is so afraid to have an unwanted pregnancy that he never has sex, in the world of religion that is, these daily conversations about religion and my apparent obsession with criticizing religion is just the occasional risk-free blowjob... harmless.

I can't believe I can sum up a whole paragraph by saying 'religion is a lot like sex'.

I like the analogy too, and I think another way of saying what Odysseus is getting at is that the relationship is the most important thing. If we treated our lovers the way rules-bound religious people treat God ("well, I'll act like I love you because the rules say I have to" or "I'll come visit you once a week and on holidays, but no more"), we'd all be sleeping alone a lot more often. Or maybe just sleeping more boring.

The scary thing about religion based on a real relationship, of course, is that you can get hurt. You often aren't sure what to do. There are long absences. Missed anniversaries. Bad phone connections. "The rules" are so much easier, but magic.

And if you believe in heaven, all that bad stuff is over some day, anyway.

Charlie Hustle... Hall of Fame, yes. But the greatest is il bambino. Even if he had just stayed a pitcher he would have been worthy of the Hall of Fame. As a hitter with both a great average and great power, who could touch him? Hammerin' Hank needed around 4,000 more at bats to break his home run record. Bonds is close but that's the steroids swinging the bat.

well my next entry may burst your bubble then... because I don't see steroids as an argument for shit... I like what gumble said, about how it's all about succeeding against your peers... pitchers are better now, they've made parks smaller, the pitching mound is lower, everyone is lifting weights, there are so many variables and forms of cheating, now or then, that it just isn't reasonable to either compare numbers then and now nor is it reasonable to say players who used steroids are some how less legitimate than others... but you are right, there are plenty of picks for most talented player of all time, my pick would probably be Ted Williams with the bambino in at a close second, but Pete Rose was the ultimate baseball player, he played every position, if they would have let him pitch and catch I'm sure he could have done those with relative ease, he got to every ball, he made every base, he broke the record for hits and singles by pure hustle. I guess I admire his overall ballplaying superiority more than his specific skill in one area.

I wonder how much more Williams and DiMaggio would have done if they hadn't lost so many seasons to war.
"Bonds is close..." meant that he's close to breaking Ruth's 714 home run total, not that he's close to Ruth's greatness.
I didn't say one way or the other what I felt about steroid use... just made an observation. But now that you got into it... the principles of physical fitness, power lifting, good nutrition have been around since the original olympics and if an athletic sweated through them and it gave him an edge over his peers, more power to him. But steroids is a lazy mans way to achieve what others achieved through hard work. Support of steroid use would seem to be at odds with your belief "that nothing is sacred, except hard work."
Do you know how Pete Rose got the nickname Charlie Hustle? Charlie Tuna, from the tuna commercials, was a popular cartoon character back then and there was a lot of Charlie this and Charlie that. Anyway, Mickey Mantle saw Rose's hard work attitude and called him Charlie Hustle and the name stuck.

I didn't mean to imply that I support steriods, I just don't think it's a lot like anything else in sports, certain things affect performance in different eras and right or wrong nothing makes one time periods ways any better than another... but it also makes their numbers incomparable, I mean what williams and dimaggio could have done and did is a lot better given the times than hitting .280 with 70 homers, I mean they were up against a higher pitching mound and monsterously huge stadiums and they went out and crushed the ball anyway. If I were putting together a team I'd much rather have the old-timers, but I just think stats wise it's incomparable and the different variables, like steroids, higher pitching mounds, negro leagues, and things like that are irrelevant, no matter how wrong they may be. Again I don't support the use of steroids in sports, but I don't really see why it's singled out when it comes to the issue of fairness... it seems to me the only reason it's considered cheating is because it's against the rules... and as reasonable as that sounds it's a little ridiculous when there are many things that are legal in sports that could be considered unfair, but it seems like the issue of whether using steroids is actually unfair or not is ended at 'well its in the rulebook', I guess i just don't see why it's any different than any legal enhancement drug, it's just the one the works best, not that any of them are fair, just why is steroids the only one against the rules and therefore the only one deemed unfair... thats all I meant when I downplayed the effect of steroids on sports.

I wonder how much less Ruth (and Cobb et al) would have done if so many African-American ball players hadn't lost so many seasons to racism. Ruth never had to face Rube Foster, Smoky Joe Williams, Bullet Rogan or Satchel Paige. He never had to pitch against John Henry Lloyd or Spotswood Poles. Ruth also never had to deal with night games, air travel, large gloves and relief pitchers. One of the things that speaks best about Ted Williams (aside from his two tours of duty in two different wars) was his Hall of Fame speech advocating for the induction of players from the Negro Leagues.

Pete Rose gambled. He gambled on baseball. He gambled on his own team. Pete Rose lied about gambling. He lied about betting on baseball. He's still lying about betting on his own team. Pete Rose agreed to his banishment. He has been in prison. He loves gambling more than he loves baseball. Until he not only tells the truth but admits to the error of his ways and asks for forgiveness Pete Rose shouldn't be allowed near the Hall of Fame. Once he does all of that he should go in two years after Shoeless Joe Jackson is inducted.

If virtue was an entrance requirement for the hall of Fame then Ty Cobb's plaque would be ripped from the wall and buried beneath a slag heap. But it isn't. The fundamental rule in baseball is written above the door to every club house. No gambling. Pete Rose squeezed every bit accomplishment out of his potential (and then some once he started managing himself.) His single-minded, fearless, stubborn belief in himself is what allowed him to do that. It is also what is keeping him out of the hall of Fame.

Did you know that the apocryphal claim that the Baby Ruth candy bar was named after the daughter of U.S. President Grover Cleveland comes from the court case the candy company waged to keep a competitor out of the market? The "Babe Ruth Home Run Bar" was found to infringe on the supposedly indepently arrived at "Baby Ruth" name. It remains the official company explanation to this day. Grover Cleveland Alexander was, in fact, named after the 22nd and 24th President of the United States of America.

Watch Eight Men Out , The Babe , Ken Burns: Baseball, Field of Dreams , Cobb , Don't Look Back: The Story of Leroy 'Satchel' Paige, Pete Rose on Trial1 The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings , A League of Their Own , Laverne & Shirley and American Splendor .
1 In spite of the fact that it comes to the wrong conclusion.

To assume Ruth or Cobb or any other player would have done less if the league was integrated is racist itself, isn't it? Why wouldn't they? Is one race superior to the other? If Ruth could hit the best white pitchers, why not the best black pitchers?
Averages tended to be lower in the Major Leagues. The fact that this just proved it to be a different brand of baseball is shown in the statistics of Negro Leaguers who came to the majors. The average of the drop in averages for the first 15 players from the Negro Leagues was approximately 50 points... from .319 to .271. Jackie Robinson in his only season in the Negro Leagues was a .387 hitter. In his first two seasons in the majors he batted in the .290s. He finished with a career average of .311.
What does Laverne & Shirley have to do with anything?

To correct myself... It should read... "Why would they?" (do less) and not "Why wouldn't they?"

the point is you CAN'T COMPARE! THEY had no negros(among other things), WE have steroids, there have always been things to make it unfair and warp stats leaving them uncomparable and every one of them just as legitimate as the next.

Saying Pete Rose should be kept out of the hall of fame for ANYTHING he did after retirement is absolutely ridiculous. And virtue isn't and shouldn't be an entrance requirement but neither should not gambling as a manager, I say shoeless joe should be in too, but he did throw a game, as much as baseball loves to hate Pete Rose they've never so much as suggested that Rose ever bet against his own team, and he never would. Not having Pete Rose in the hall of fame makes the hall of fame and baseball look silly, they are just a bunch of idiots and it's made me relize how futile and pointless the hall of fame is in the first place... I say keep selling your books, embarrass yourself as much as you want, and f***k the hall of fame.

Pete Rose is not being punished for something that he did after retirement. He managed until 1989 when he accepted his ban. The Dowd Report presented evidence that he bet on baseball (at least) 52 times from 1985 to 1987. Rose retired as a player after the 1986 season. I actually think that gambling as a manager is worse than gambling as a player. A manager can affect the entire roster and game management. A player can only control his own performance and often has no knowledge of the condition of his teammates.

Shoeless Joe Jackson batted .375 in the 1919 World Series (against the Reds) with no errors. He did not "throw a game." As part of the deal Rose made with Major League Baseball all further investigation(s) was dropped. If an investigation(s) found that Rose bet against his team he would be subject to criminal prosecution. It has been suggested that Rose agreed to his ban in order to avoid further revelations about the nature of his gambling.

Baseball does not hate Pete Rose. They allowed him to participate in in the All-Century Team ceremony where he received a lengthy ovation from the fans. Baseball and the Hall of Fame have rules, written and unwritten. Over every clubhouse door is Rule 21 "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." That is not silly.

Over a dozen years after he was banned (during which he denied ever betting on baseball) Pete Rose confessed that he bet on baseball. He still claims that he never bet against his own team but what kind of credibility can he claim to have? Rose's admission came in his book My Prison Without Bars for which he received a million dollar advance. The book was released two days after the annual Hall of Fame inductions and news was leaked several days earlier as Rose overshadowed the ceremonies with his drive for publicity. "f***k the hall of fame" indeed. (I appreciate not using the usual cr***y, sh***y language... it is embarassing.)

well if they can prove he bet on baseball enough that he was automatically called a lier when he denied it then I'm sure they could prove that he bet against his own team... which has never even been brought up by baseball as far as I know... and if he didn't bet against his own team than him 'affecting the entire roster and game management' is no different than any other manager doing so, because he would always be trying to win, obviously you can't have people betting on the sport they are playing/managing, but if he never bet against his own team what is the big deal? it didn't change ANYTHING. He'd still be trying to win... but my original point is still true, his gambling, as a player of manager, does not change the fact that Major League Baseball looks like a bunch of bafoons for not having the record holder for most hits and singles in the hall of fame... it's ridiculous and quite arbitrary to not let him in... period.

I think that Pete Rose's acceptance of a lifetime ban speaks to his guilt. He took the plea bargain because baseball had the evidence and/or he didn't want the investigation to go any further. In either case it seems to indicate guilt. If you're a manager who has bet on his own team to win it is possible to rush players back from the disabled list, risk injury and future wins in the season to win one game. That is a very big deal. Even bigger is the potential for Rose to become indebted to bookies and start throwing games. (It is much easier to guarantee a loss than it is to guarantee a win.) The biggest deal is Rule 21 (see above.)

The buffoonery comes from a man who blatantly lies for thirteen years and then tells "the truth" for the sole purpose of getting in to the Hall of Fame. He doesn't apologize (even for the lying), he doesn't admit that he has a problem and he doesn't say that he knew what he was doing was wrong. It was not and is not arbitrary. Even if you are willing to discount the rules (and I can see a case being made for that) you still cannot ignore the fact that Pete Rose's actions struck at the very heart of the game. This is something that he did. No one else. No one held a gun to his head when he was gambling. No one held a gun to his head when he agreed to be declared "permanently ineligible." He did this and, while he can't undo it, (I think that) he can get into the Hall of Fame by showing contrition... whether he feels it or not. It is ridiculous that he can't do that.

Pete Rose's very nature is what drove him to become the player that he was. It is also what keeps him out of the Hall of Fame. The Greeks would call this a tragedy... but they still wouldn't let him in.

I can't really contest anything you've said, but none of that, in my opinion, no matter how true, should keep him out of the hall of fame, and it doesn't make baseball and the hall of fame look any less stupid and stubborn for not letting him in... I don't care if he killed an average of 3 umpires a game from 1985 to 1987 and made a million bucks everytime his team lost, he deserves to be in the hall of fame, and not letting him in makes them look like a bunch of old senile hypocrits.

Fair enough.

I can certainly understand your advocacy for Pete Rose. I might even agree with it. But you lose me when you disparage the opponents to his induction (and I guess you'd have to include me in their number.) Even discounting your talent (and habit) for invective I find it surprising especially when "right and wrong, good and evil, are 100% and completely arbitrary."

Having said that, I think that it is a shame that the Big Red Machine won't have 80% of their infield in the Hall of Fame... and my mom would tell you that, when it comes to most valuable players on the Reds, Pete Rose wasn't even in the top three. I think she'd also say that Willie Mays was the greatest player ever.

that might be the best compliment I've ever recieved... talent for invective... thank you... honestly... anyway it might be arbitrary but I still have my views about what right and wrong are to me, but I have no illusions that my opinion of the matter is any more legitimate than anyone else's, as odd as that may be because of the whole invective thing... all I can say is you make you good case, in fact if I weren't so stubborn about my love of Pete Rose as a baseball player I might have changed my mind.

Now that is something that I can understand (even admire.) I'm often conflicted about Pete Rose... well, as often as I think of him. I'm sure that were we ever to meet I'd personally despise him. He basically ended Ray Fosse's promising career in the All-Star Game when he ran him over. But that was (is) the great thing about Rose; he had (has) only one speed-which is overdrive. He's the only player I know who would've been there to catch the pop-up that Bob Boone muffed. Nobody else would've said "This is some kind of game, isn't it." to Fisk in Game Six.

Willie Mays... some simple words out of his mouth speak volumes about unbiasedness in baseball.
Mays played three years in the Negro League, 1948-1950, before beginning his Hall of Fame career.
It goes without saying that he was familiar with the greats of the Negro League.
When asked through the years who the greatest ballplayer was, he would answer as he did in 1999...
"He was my hero. Joe was the best all-around player. Joe was the best."
He was talking about Italian-American Joe DiMaggio.

Well it may say something about unbiasedness but I fear it says a lot more than that because Joe D was in no way the best baseball player of all time. That would be the man making the statement much like Odyseuss Mom contend's (Aren't Mom's always right?) Willie Mays was the best baseball player of all time. Pete Rose does not even come close to the top ten and does not belong in the Hall of Fame. The man is a disgrace to baseball and a disgrace to the human race.

I know that my mom contends that she's always right.

I think Rose is an all too tragic, all too human figure. A fatally flawed American hero.

Wonderful anecdote. (Mays himself lost almost two seasons in the major leagues to serve in the military.)

...and Joe DiMaggio. While serving in World War II DiMaggio's father, a fisherman, was prohibited as an enemy alien from fishing. He wasn't even allowed to visit his son's restaurant in San Francisco. Which speaks volumes about the bias in America.

After playing an exhibition [probably against the Pittsburgh Crawfords] Joe DiMaggio said: "After I got that hit off Paige, I knew I was ready for the big leagues."

Satchel Paige and Louis Armstrong were both sent (sentenced, incarcerated) to colored reform schools for commiting "crimes"... both at the age of twelve. Paige picked up a baseball while Armstrong picked up a cornet.

I truly believe that to understand the United States of America you have to understand its Civil War, baseball and jazz. [Say what you will about Ken Burns, he knows what's important.]