I didn't expect Purdue to win the anticipated football game against #4 Ohio State, but after watching the game from the student section on Saturday night, I'm convinced we definitely could have won the game, if at the very least given Ohio State a better game. I know, I know, we got killed 23-7 and at no point did we threaten Ohio State's lead, but with the Big Ten's highest powered offense; an offense that averages 495 yards and 45 points per game, we only managed to score 7 points?
Almost as surprising was the play of our defense which forced three huge turnovers and managed to hold back the Buckeyes offense to only 23 points. If before the game you told me that we would hold Ohio State to 23 points I would have been ecstatic, because I expected our offense to put up at least 23. I think what the game boiled down to was that our two biggest stars, Dorien Bryant and Curtis Painter, just didn't show up to play. Throughout the game, Dorien Bryan had "alligator arms" and was afraid to get hit. One pass even went straight through his arms. He ended the night with two catches for -4 yards. Painter was just as bad. Painter completed only 31 of 60 passes, most of them easy, short-yard passes. However, what killed us was on the numerous third down plays where he completely missed our receievers. One third down play that sticks out in my mind was a pass he made with no pressure on him to a wide open reciever near the first down marker on the sideline. Painter's pass landed about 10 yards short. If we could have kept some of these crucial drives going, we could have gotten some points on the board and kept ourselves in the game.
The last thing I'm ticked about was Tiller's coaching. In the fourth quarter we are down 23 points and on fourth down Tiller decides we should punt the ball. You can't score when you don't have the football. We are already losing so it doesn't matter if we give the ball away in bad field position. Going for those fourth down plays would at least give us a chance to keep our drives going and score some points. Punting on fourth down is like saying we know we are going to lose, we just don't want to lose too bad. Anyway, I'm done ranting. The rest of the football season looks promising and hopefully we can leave the Big House next week with a win.
Monday, October 8, 2007
ESPN consumes my life.
Screw ESPN. I hate it. I love it, it's great, I watch it all the time, and therefore I hate it.
Instead of watching something informative or intriguing I find myself constantly hanging on every word that spews from the lips of ESPN pundits and sportswriters. This amazing cable network is entirely devoted to sports. How awesome is that? There are so many better things I could do with my time than watch ESPN or visit ESPN.com, but instead, I watch ESPN. Even cartoon network can attain the level of thought-provoking television that ESPN reaches.
This entire past week I was utterly devoted to this network in anticipation of the Purdue-OSU game. All of that time devoted, and we lose. No matter how much time I may take to read and watch, none of it makes any difference in what I care about. The games will be played, and teams will win and lose. ESPN's analysis and coverage makes no difference in the outcome, so why should I bother watching?
All of that emotion invested in a game, and we get dominated. Screw it, I am not going to put that much into a Purdue sport ever again. Most of the time, I'm going to be disappointed. Fortunately, we lost this week, so I doubt I'll be watching so much ESPN this week. Okay, so maybe I don't hate ESPN so much as I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of this weekend's game. I stayed at school for two extra days for this game! I could have gone home on Friday!
At least the Colts are still undefeated, for as long as that lasts. Of course, the longer it lasts, the more I'll be watching freaking ESPN.
Instead of watching something informative or intriguing I find myself constantly hanging on every word that spews from the lips of ESPN pundits and sportswriters. This amazing cable network is entirely devoted to sports. How awesome is that? There are so many better things I could do with my time than watch ESPN or visit ESPN.com, but instead, I watch ESPN. Even cartoon network can attain the level of thought-provoking television that ESPN reaches.
This entire past week I was utterly devoted to this network in anticipation of the Purdue-OSU game. All of that time devoted, and we lose. No matter how much time I may take to read and watch, none of it makes any difference in what I care about. The games will be played, and teams will win and lose. ESPN's analysis and coverage makes no difference in the outcome, so why should I bother watching?
All of that emotion invested in a game, and we get dominated. Screw it, I am not going to put that much into a Purdue sport ever again. Most of the time, I'm going to be disappointed. Fortunately, we lost this week, so I doubt I'll be watching so much ESPN this week. Okay, so maybe I don't hate ESPN so much as I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of this weekend's game. I stayed at school for two extra days for this game! I could have gone home on Friday!
At least the Colts are still undefeated, for as long as that lasts. Of course, the longer it lasts, the more I'll be watching freaking ESPN.
The "Lovely" Prescription for Any Type of Relationship
When I first heard of Gary Chapman’s book, The Five Love Languages for Singles, I was not particularly interested in reading it because, honestly, it sounded boring. I knew that it would be good for me to read, and that it most likely would prove useful in my future, however, it has far exceeded my expectations. Surprisingly, I found myself extremely interested and absorbed by the topics discussed, and I have found that this topic is of interest to any audience. Though I currently am not dating anyone, this book has still proven useful in my life, as it deals with all types of relationships and friendships: dating relationships, parent to child relationships, peer-to-peer friendships, and relationships with co-workers, teammates, and siblings.
Chapman begins by explaining that when a friendship or dating relationship is unsatisfactory, one typically looks at the other person and begins thinking of how they can get them to change. However, he reprimands this method, saying that, instead, we should look to change ourselves and how we communicate and interact in the relationship. Chapman speaks of five ways of effectively communicating love in any relationship. He calls them the “five love languages.” These love languages include the following: quality time, words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts, and physical touch. It is expressed how important it is in any relationship that both persons feel appreciated and liked. He believes that every individual feels loved by all five of these love languages, but that each individual person has one primary love language that most effectively communicates love to them. Chapman claims that seventy-five percent of all individuals most effectively speak to others the same love language that most effectively communicates love to them.
In the book, Chapman speaks of a “love tank” that must not run empty. He explains how in a dating relationship there is a state of “in love euphoria” that typically lasts a year or two and then slowly wears off, leaving the couple frustrated and confused. It is his belief that if the two persons learn each other’s primary love languages and learn to effectively communicate them, the relationship will not be left flat, but instead it will grow deeper and stronger. Throughout the book, Chapman effectively helps the reader to identify his or her primary love language and how to identify other’s primary love language. He gives countless, real-life examples of how communicating a person’s love language has healed, restored, or deepened all types of relationships. I now look forward to putting these principles into practice.
Chapman begins by explaining that when a friendship or dating relationship is unsatisfactory, one typically looks at the other person and begins thinking of how they can get them to change. However, he reprimands this method, saying that, instead, we should look to change ourselves and how we communicate and interact in the relationship. Chapman speaks of five ways of effectively communicating love in any relationship. He calls them the “five love languages.” These love languages include the following: quality time, words of affirmation, acts of service, gifts, and physical touch. It is expressed how important it is in any relationship that both persons feel appreciated and liked. He believes that every individual feels loved by all five of these love languages, but that each individual person has one primary love language that most effectively communicates love to them. Chapman claims that seventy-five percent of all individuals most effectively speak to others the same love language that most effectively communicates love to them.
In the book, Chapman speaks of a “love tank” that must not run empty. He explains how in a dating relationship there is a state of “in love euphoria” that typically lasts a year or two and then slowly wears off, leaving the couple frustrated and confused. It is his belief that if the two persons learn each other’s primary love languages and learn to effectively communicate them, the relationship will not be left flat, but instead it will grow deeper and stronger. Throughout the book, Chapman effectively helps the reader to identify his or her primary love language and how to identify other’s primary love language. He gives countless, real-life examples of how communicating a person’s love language has healed, restored, or deepened all types of relationships. I now look forward to putting these principles into practice.
Flood heads!
As I sit in my dorm, I flip through channels on the television and realize just how much junk is on all the time. During the day, there is nothing on except for constant talk shows, unrealistic court shows, and childish cartoons. Talk shows like: Jerry Springer, Maury, and Oprah are unarguably the most worthless forms of entertainment. Talk shows amount to nothing more than a pathetic display of general, well-known problems. All of the shows seem to be the same episode everyday, except for Oprah’s show. I cannot fathom to understand why people clinch on to Oprah’s every word like she is some chief scientist or some religious leader. Oprah has no credibility to make some of the claims she makes. I don’t even think she has a real education. People listen to her faithfully and do not even know what she does. Oprah has the power to influence presidential elections by just publicly choosing a side. It should be illegal for someone like Oprah to be so influential.
Whether we like it or not, the media has become the form of communication between people and the rest of the world for the most part. Television is easy and plausible, but it is brain washing our society. Brain washed is not a sufficient enough title for the point I want to get across. We should call people who embrace television as their sole means of information flood heads. People just jump around from issue to issue with no factual background of them and cause problems based on how television made them feel. Protests and riots can be attributed by the messages people get from the media. Like monkey see, monkey do; television shows something and flocks of people herd to it to either praise it or denounce it. The goal of education has been replaced with entertainment. Those of us with an education and common sense can decipher the two, but others fall victim to living a life blinded by the media shroud.
Whether we like it or not, the media has become the form of communication between people and the rest of the world for the most part. Television is easy and plausible, but it is brain washing our society. Brain washed is not a sufficient enough title for the point I want to get across. We should call people who embrace television as their sole means of information flood heads. People just jump around from issue to issue with no factual background of them and cause problems based on how television made them feel. Protests and riots can be attributed by the messages people get from the media. Like monkey see, monkey do; television shows something and flocks of people herd to it to either praise it or denounce it. The goal of education has been replaced with entertainment. Those of us with an education and common sense can decipher the two, but others fall victim to living a life blinded by the media shroud.
"Home is Where the Heart is"
"Home is where the heart is. "I never understood that phrase until now. When I first came to Purdue it was the first time I had been away from home for a long period of time. I was excited, apprehensive and hopeful. Most of all I was ready to spread my wings and see how well I could handle it. Never being away from home I couldn't wait to get away! I just knew that anywhere had to be better than staying in my home town. Also, I was ready to meet new people and see new things. However, once I got to Purdue I realized that I could never call it home. I began to miss my family and firends from home. I also began to realize how important they were in my life.
When I came home after a month of being away I never thought that my hometown could look so beautiful. I realized that as much as I wanted to move away, going back home doesn't seem so bad when you've been gone for a while. Not only do I appreciate my my home more, but I have alsor ealized that being away has even improved my relationship with my parents. Like most teenagers, in high school my parents and I fought frequently. However, I feel closer to them now than ever before. I depend on them to give me the support and love I need to make it through school.
Although it is always wonderful to come home on holiday weekends, I absolutley love being in college way to much to ever consider moving back home. Also, being away has made me appreciate my family even more. I 've relaized that no matter where I go or how long Im gone, home will always be where my heart is.
When I came home after a month of being away I never thought that my hometown could look so beautiful. I realized that as much as I wanted to move away, going back home doesn't seem so bad when you've been gone for a while. Not only do I appreciate my my home more, but I have alsor ealized that being away has even improved my relationship with my parents. Like most teenagers, in high school my parents and I fought frequently. However, I feel closer to them now than ever before. I depend on them to give me the support and love I need to make it through school.
Although it is always wonderful to come home on holiday weekends, I absolutley love being in college way to much to ever consider moving back home. Also, being away has made me appreciate my family even more. I 've relaized that no matter where I go or how long Im gone, home will always be where my heart is.
The Seeker
Recently, I went to the theatre and saw a movie called The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. Now, this movie is (loosely) based on my favorite series of books as a child, The Dark is Rising. Now, to say this movie was not exactly the same as the books would be an understatement; the movie covers what happens in two of the books, but wraps up nicely without any hope of a sequel. There are, however, five or six books.
Many would think that I should hate this movie. On the contrary, though; I love it, and I hope it succeeds in theaters, because the company that make it, Walden Media, has a reputation for adapting my favorite childhood books into great movies with positive moral values. Well, not that values has anything to do with how good a movie is, but it's nice to see a movie and feel like you've progressed as a human.
Take, for instance, the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. The Narnia books have been read to and by children for years, for their whimsical tales and, lets face it, mega-overt Christian undertones. Walden Media took the basics of the book and made it something most anyone would enjoy. The first movie was so successful that they decided to do another of the books, Prince Caspian.
Another example would be Bridge to Terebithia. I'm not going to tell you anything about the book, because if you haven't read it at this point, you're probably never going to. I will say that it has a fantastically different ending from anything else I ever read as a kid, and the movie really brings that across.
Really, I'm just trying to say that Walden Media is a great company. They're doing things for films that really needed to be done, and they're doing it in a way that makes kids want to watch movies that are full of moral fiber. Like sneaking them vitimins. Or shoving carrots in their mouth while they sleep. y'know, whatever.
Many would think that I should hate this movie. On the contrary, though; I love it, and I hope it succeeds in theaters, because the company that make it, Walden Media, has a reputation for adapting my favorite childhood books into great movies with positive moral values. Well, not that values has anything to do with how good a movie is, but it's nice to see a movie and feel like you've progressed as a human.
Take, for instance, the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. The Narnia books have been read to and by children for years, for their whimsical tales and, lets face it, mega-overt Christian undertones. Walden Media took the basics of the book and made it something most anyone would enjoy. The first movie was so successful that they decided to do another of the books, Prince Caspian.
Another example would be Bridge to Terebithia. I'm not going to tell you anything about the book, because if you haven't read it at this point, you're probably never going to. I will say that it has a fantastically different ending from anything else I ever read as a kid, and the movie really brings that across.
Really, I'm just trying to say that Walden Media is a great company. They're doing things for films that really needed to be done, and they're doing it in a way that makes kids want to watch movies that are full of moral fiber. Like sneaking them vitimins. Or shoving carrots in their mouth while they sleep. y'know, whatever.
Liberal vs. Conservative News
The two news sources I looked over were counterpunch.org, a liberal website, and townhall.com, a conservative website. After noting, with some amusement, the paid advertisements on each website – a book titled “Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq” on counterpunch and a t-shirt sporting Hillary Clinton and the phrase “RE-DEFEAT COMMUNISM” on townhall – I proceeded to examine articles on the war in Iraq. I came across two that were similar in their theme – how should we view the war? – but, of course, infinitely different in their content and their tone.
On counterpunch, the main article was, “Our Imperial Leader Has Spoken. Can We Doubt Him? Let Me Count the Ways,” and on townhall, there was an article titled, “How Goes the War?” The titles foreshadow the articles that follow them. The article on the liberal website is openly derisive of the war, while that of the conservative website is mellow and mildly hopeful about it. In its first sentence, the article on counterpunch (liberal) mentions the death toll in Iraq and the ironic theory of a supporter – Paul Wolfowitz, a former Pentagon official, to be exact - on how it is a success. The first sentence of townhall’s article (conservative), however, emphasizes that the status of the war depends on the person who is talking/writing.
Counterpunch focuses on the Bush administration’s stand on the war, including their initial lack of evidence for it and their lies and deception in continuing to support it. It derides a certain speech by Bush, notes his whining tone and observes his awkward use of grammar. Overall, it is critical of the president, and clearly states that the war is wrong. Townhall, on the other hand, focuses on an instance of success in Iraq: Anbar, a region that was previously very dangerous, but isn’t any more. It suggests that war is uncertain, but that we must persevere. Rather than picking on Bush, it references Hillary Clinton, her husband, and a few other democrats. These references are not made in the best light: the wavering views of these democrats are brought forth. The final message is that the war exists, sometimes in success, other times in failure, but, either way, it must be seen through to the end.
The writing styles of the two articles are very much unalike. The liberal website’s article is mocking and sarcastic. It mentions Britney Spears’ air headed support of the president. At one point, the writer even asks for a “sick bag” in response to what Bush said. The conservative website’s article is much more serious, but the way in which it mentions Hillary Clinton’s views is similar to the way in which the other website mentions Britney Spears’ views. I suppose the goal is the same, only the method is different.
On counterpunch, the main article was, “Our Imperial Leader Has Spoken. Can We Doubt Him? Let Me Count the Ways,” and on townhall, there was an article titled, “How Goes the War?” The titles foreshadow the articles that follow them. The article on the liberal website is openly derisive of the war, while that of the conservative website is mellow and mildly hopeful about it. In its first sentence, the article on counterpunch (liberal) mentions the death toll in Iraq and the ironic theory of a supporter – Paul Wolfowitz, a former Pentagon official, to be exact - on how it is a success. The first sentence of townhall’s article (conservative), however, emphasizes that the status of the war depends on the person who is talking/writing.
Counterpunch focuses on the Bush administration’s stand on the war, including their initial lack of evidence for it and their lies and deception in continuing to support it. It derides a certain speech by Bush, notes his whining tone and observes his awkward use of grammar. Overall, it is critical of the president, and clearly states that the war is wrong. Townhall, on the other hand, focuses on an instance of success in Iraq: Anbar, a region that was previously very dangerous, but isn’t any more. It suggests that war is uncertain, but that we must persevere. Rather than picking on Bush, it references Hillary Clinton, her husband, and a few other democrats. These references are not made in the best light: the wavering views of these democrats are brought forth. The final message is that the war exists, sometimes in success, other times in failure, but, either way, it must be seen through to the end.
The writing styles of the two articles are very much unalike. The liberal website’s article is mocking and sarcastic. It mentions Britney Spears’ air headed support of the president. At one point, the writer even asks for a “sick bag” in response to what Bush said. The conservative website’s article is much more serious, but the way in which it mentions Hillary Clinton’s views is similar to the way in which the other website mentions Britney Spears’ views. I suppose the goal is the same, only the method is different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)