5/26

Some lesser known 5/26 birthdays:

John Wayne

Stevie Nicks

Miles Davis

Helena Bonham Carter

Pam Grier

nittany ram wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>PA Ram wrote:</div>
Zooey, you’re right about the emotional aspect. It is weird. The Patriot hate is strong.

Otherwise, I really don’t care about the Seahawks. I just really hate the Pats.

I didn’t care who won. I just knew a team I hated was going to lose and clung to that.

One thing I never like regardless of who is playing is when the perception is that a game was lost because of one person or one event. For example, I don’t like it when a team loses because a kicker misses a FG because the kicker will get all the blame for the loss. Now, we all know that a game is never really lost due to one person. A game is won or lost due to the sum total of performances of everyone on the team, players and coaches alike. So in reality a game is never lost because a kicker missed a FG, because the FG would not have been necessary if previous mistakes had not been made…(ie, missed block leading to tackle that prevented a first down, bad throw that misses wide open receiver, etc.) So the missed FG is just one contributing factor to the loss, not the reason for the loss.

Same is true for this “bad call”. The Seahawks didn’t lose because of it. They lost for a number of reasons, the bad call (if it truly was a bad call) being just one reason. How about the fact that the vaunted “legion of boom” got lit up to the tune of 356 yds and 4 TD’s even with Brady’s two gift INT’s? Think that might have played a part in the loss?

Anyway, this loss being attributed to this one call smacks more of emotion than reason.

I see what’s going on here, Nittany.

If you love Tom Brady so much why don’t you marry him?

Anyway, they may not have LOST because of that one play. But the play did cost them the WIN.

That’s my logic and I’m sticking to it.

Besides, we all know that one way or another the Pats cheated.

Much better than last year.

Good game.

Actually enjoyed the halftime show and the dancing sharks.

Not big on the commercials(except for The Brady Bunch and Viagra car).

Did not stay to see Kurt hand the trophy to the Pats.

No controversial calls that decided things–that was good.

I hope the Rams get back again in my lifetime.

Good call.

Terrible finish to the game.

I can’t believe–with one timeout they didn’t run Lynch.

Why?

Made no sense.

Anyway–Pats get another trophy. They still suck.

Sherman and Lynch press conference: (okay–Key and Peele):

This is the least interested I’ve been in a Super Bowl since maybe…ever.

I hope it ends something like this:

Seahawks: 24

Patriots: 23

My problem with the whole “everybody does it”(except Kurt Warner apparently), is if that is the case, why does it just come out now?

With the Pats?

There were all sorts of chances for this to come out–in all the other games where apparently everybody does it but it didn’t.

The problem with the Pats is that cheating is a way of life for them. I feel no pity for them. They deserve every bit of grief they get. It should be overblown, if that’s the case, because this team should be carefully watched.

While everyone is watching Deflategate right now, they probably have some other scheme hatched right now for the Superbowl–something no one is expecting. They can’t help themselves.

I’ll throw out some wild speculation for the heck of it.

That’s all it is.

But maybe this is part of the plan. I mean, maybe it’s already set in stone that the Rams are moving, but it also may be true that getting a stadium built is easier if you have an NFL team that you’re trying to keep than having no NFL team on hand and you’re building to lure one. Making it a competition may give Peacock some leverage to help push through some public financing.

So the Rams do their lame duck year, keep quiet and allow St. Louis to get their stadium approved and financing available.

Now when the Rams leave anyway, perhaps the Raiders have a plan in place as an alternative–a solid non-fantasy deal which would allow them to move to St. Louis.

There’s my conspiracy theory of the morning.

You’d be surprised how little I follow Philly sports.

I listen to some Phillies games on the radio, I don’t watch hockey at all, I barely know what the Sixers are doing and the Eagles?

When they’re playing I’m usually watching the Rams. I pay little attention to the local news about them.

I do go to a forum they have from time to time and the fans aren’t exactly sure what Foles is. They don’t really look at him as a superstar but the word I’ve heard at least one guy use is “serviceable”. I’m not sure what Foles is, talent wise. I’m not sure what sort of fit he is for the Rams offense. I know that Eagles fans speculation range from them getting the Rams #10 pick to a 2nd rounder.

The big speculation in Philly is that Chip Kelly wants Mariota and he would have to move up to get him.

Having the #10 pick is better than the #20 pick but I’m sure they’d have to give the Rams more than Foles for the #10 pick.

I’d be surprised if it happened. If the Eagles do it they’ll need enough picks to move up high enough for Mariota. A lot of things would have to play out right. Maybe they wait until the draft and see how far mariota falls.

Sorry I don’t have better info.

Of the Eagles fans I know, it’s not big news on their radar. They talk more about deflategate.

We got basically nothing.

I’m not upset about that. But the weather guys kinda missed on this swing.

I’m sure it’s bad in Boston and further along the coast.

The models for our area were way off.

zn wrote:

Whatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept).

The film makes it a tragic story that a man who contributed so much is prosecuted for being gay. You and I take that story in stride. If people are anti-gay, which many still are, they don’t take that part of the story in stride.

So yes that’s part of the film.

You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.

HE as a character doesn’t have to get that it’s a lie (ie. he never has to get that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected). But there are many ways for the film to not SIDE WITH the lie…if it wanted to do it that way, it could. (For example, just have someone say about him, in a scene that he’s not in, that he buys this whole 9/11 thing.) But I think it DOES go along because it takes seriously his whole sheepdog thing. It doesn’t want that to get punctured. Ironically, it doing it that way, it invited controversy.

And, while controversial, yes, taken in its own terms, it’s a good film, just in terms of aesthetic quality.

Well, zn–I hope you know, in terms of the Iraq war–or any war really, I’m on your side in that I’d love the truth to be out there more than it is. Did this film miss that opportunity? Maybe it did. And hopefully some film will come along that hammers the point home. However, I’m thinking that at this stage people already believe what they believe. I don’t know that anything will change it. Still, it doesn’t mean it should not be said anyway.

zn wrote:

I mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It

Well in terms of this discussion, I didn’t ask that the film be anti-war. Just that it not uphold that one particular lie.

That’s the one and only thing I’ve been saying. It doesn’t have to support THAT particular lie. And it was not necessary to support that lie. After all, you could make a film where the central character has that illusion even if it is made clear it’s not true.

But then…all that aside…on another level, the questions you ask can lead to a very specific question. Given everything you say, why make the film at all…unless you support all the things you say the film “has to be?” There are a million different films that could be made about Iraq. Why that one?

The answer can’t be “because people want to see that story.” Because all that means is that you can only imagine films that support dominant ideological fantasies. Well actually not only is art always political in one way shape or form, it doesn’t always have to support dominant ideological fantasies. The fact that movies often do do that is not a defense of doing so, it’s just a description of how dominant ideological fantasies get reinforced.

Maybe I phrased that poorly. It isn’t so much anti war as “Did Kyle believe this lie?” Did he NEED to believe this lie to do the things he did? Did he just choose to believe it? You criticize the film for not making it plain that the Iraq war was based on a lie(although one character does have doubts–he’s just so different from Kyle’s certain attitude about this)but the point I’m trying to make is that the film was not interested in that question–it was interested in what Chris Kyle thought. Now maybe that doesn’t interest you but as a film it could have made the point that this was all based on a lie if it wanted to–but the film was attempting to show the motivation for Kyle–the things HE used and there is no room for self-doubt in that world.

Placing the truth in there would have been fine–but now Kyle has to deal with that somehow in the film.

He didn’t do that in real life.

You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.

The film does not have narrator with the voice of God who declares these historical events accurate. It simply shows Kyle watching the towers fall before he heads off to Iraq. Now the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the towers does nothing to take away that event being used for his own motivation. To me, that was clear.

Chris Kyle is not someone who is easily read. He doesn’t wear emotions and feelings on his sleeve. So if you are going to get into the psychology of this man, you have to look at the obvious things and motivations.

Why make this film at all?

Well, why make any film that twists truths in any way?

It isn’t a documentary.

I have been very clear of where I stand on the whole Iraq war on the boards and I am far from being a right wing war hawk. I opposed the war from the start. I called them on every lie. But I’m very different from Chris Kyle and yet–I also have a perspective where I get just a little bit of him.

When I went to Desert Storm I had to convince myself on some level that what I was doing was right and important. I left my wife and my son who was not yet a year old, and I flew to a distant place not knowing when or IF I’d ever come home. There I was, in that situation. Should I have been in the military? Should I have refused to go? Well, that’s up to opinion, but the fact is that once I was there it had to make sense to me. We were kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. That’s what I told myself. I didn’t think about oil or geopolitics in any way. I didn’t think about things that were made up to draw us into that conflict.

I mostly thought about getting it done so I could go home. The sooner the better.

Would my son even know me when I got back?

How difficult would this be on my marriage? How was my wife coping with things? If there were problems she had to deal with it.

I was helpless to do anything.

I hated Saddam. I didn’t want to be there. I wanted it over.

When “American Sniper” begins there is the sound of a loudspeaker calling Muslims to prayer. The first time I heard that I was in the dark, under blackout conditions holding an M-16 and 90 rounds of ammo. I had no idea what it was. No one told me anything about it. It was loud. It was in another language. For all I knew it was an attack call. I didn’t know to expect it. Nothing. I had no night vision goggles. It was just blackness.

There were times of chaos.

It’s not an easy situation to be in because you don’t really know what to expect. Bomb scares would send us back to our tents. Keep your chem gear ready in case a scud alarm sounds. And when you put it on–do it right. Just in case.

It’s incredibly difficult on you and your family.

The one thing you don’t have time for is politics.

So as I watch the film I see a guy who has created the narrative that allows him to do what he apparently LIKES to do. Not every soldier is Chris Kyle. But this is his movie. That’s really how I look at it.

I just disagree with this film having to drive home the historically accurate point that this was was based on lies. It shows Chris Kyle’s motivation. You can make a different film that doesn’t. And you can think whatever you want about Chris Kyle. I wouldn’t describe myself a particular fan. But I was interested in the effects of war on the people in it and their family. I lived through that and politics aside, I still feel for the men and women who are living it to this day. I do not support any of these wars. But I support them.

I like that the film addressed some of this. I think that’s an important subject. I can’t account for what other people bring to the film or get out of it. I doubt that this film will convince anyone who knows the truth that Iraq didn’t attack us differently, and I doubt it will convince the believers any different. Nothing would.

History has its truth.

This is a film about one guy. It’s his truth.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by PA Ram.

It’s in everything. People can’t help it.

It is a lie that the USA went to war in iraq because of 9/11. It’s one of the lies that helped drive the war effort.

That means the movie took sides.

It’s going to be this sort of polarizing film. I can see that.

I can see the “rah-rah” film.

But I’m not sure how this film would have been made otherwise.

I mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It may have been the more proper politically correct film but it would have moved away from his view and his story. Kyle BELIEVED all of this. He just did. This film is based on HIS book.

While the criticism of the politics of the film may be accurate, I think there are other aspects to the film and story and I found those interesting and actually more of the reason I went to see the film in the first place.