I hated Redtails

Movies are supposed to be entertainment. So I hate when prior to a movies release the buzz is about racial support for the movie. This seems to only happen in the African-American community. You know where a person is considered not BLACK if he or she doesn’t support a movie on opening weekend. No one really informs you that there are NO black studios, and although a movie may be made for a black audience the monies that are derived from its success rarely make it to the pockets of black people.

The budget for “Redtails” was 58M. That’s a sizable investment for a black history story, with a relatively all black cast. And when the movie didn’t test well, the propaganda machine was revved up to introduce racial black-male in an attempt to guilt black people into supporting the film.

There is a reason why the movie didn’t test well. It was an awful movie! George Lucas, who financed the film, got in on some of the racial sparring. Instead of helping the movie with his wallet, he should have donated his considerable movie making abilities. Don’t get me wrong this is an excellent story but all great stories don’t make great movies (see… “Tortuous and the Hair”, “Humpty Dumpty”. Etc.) These are fantastic stories that would never have a movie script written for them. Plus this same story was told in 1995 when the “Tuskegee Airmen” was made. “Airmen” was 100 times better than “Redtails.”

This movie was bad because;

There was no dynamic character. No character changed. There was no growth or expansion of any personality.

The acting was bad. No one convinced me they cared about their character. Who did the casting of this movie? Tuskegee Airmen had Laurence Fishburne, Andre Braugher, John Lithgow, Mekhi Phifer, Courtney B. Vance; this movie had Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr, and a bunch of nobodies.

It was a sausage fest. The only woman in the movie didn’t speak English.

Hollywood please start making movies that are entertaining. This movie could have been good if you cared more about entertaining us, and less about telling a story, and then extracting money for it from us.

I hate Valentine's Day

Saint Valentine's Day, often simply Valentine's Day, is a holiday observed on February 14 honoring one or more early Christian martyrs named Valentinus. It was first established by Pope Gelasius I in 496 AD. The day first became associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. By the 15th century, it had evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards known as "valentines".

In 2012 Valentine’s Day is still going strong. Its commercial appeal is at an all time high. An estimated $252 per couple is being spent this year to celebrate the gift of love. The buy-in is overwhelming. Women love it. Their relationship esteem is tied to it. God forbid nothing shows up for them at the office today. You’ll have a vagina revault on your hands that will make the Arab Spring look like two children arguing over who gets the last Capri-sun in the fridge.

Men wish they could opt-out of this ridiculous social arrangement, but at the end of the day, they know it’s not worth the hassle. Resistance is futile, so many just go along with the program. Or they find ways to create made-up fights around the turn of the year that suddenly get resolved right around St. Patty’s Day. Bad guys hate the "holiday." Men think (essentially) they are paying for sex with some kind of currency already. Valentine's Day makes the transaction overt and it pisses them off. Good guys hate the “holiday” because we are showing love all year round, and find it insulting that women choose to elevate this day over all other 24 hour periods in the year. Mike Wilbon said it best “Valentine’s Day is simply a chance for losers to get back in the game.” Winners know this.

When I was younger I tried to opt-out of Valentine’s Day. I approached it logically, but women still hated me for it. So I compromised, and would specifically plan awesome dates on February 13. They couldn’t get mad at that right? Wrong! So I finally broke down and performed my dumb manly duty, however I’d drop in a little sarcasm with it. This worked but I still felt hints of resentment.

In a perfect world this “holiday” would be abolished. It actually does more harm than good. Valentine’s Day does more to disrupt the due north register on more relationship compasses than anything I can think of. Insecure women get destroyed when their man doesn’t come through. Resentful men are vindictive and will always find a way to exact revenge in some small unseen way. Finally if everything goes well and Valentine’s Day is handled flawlessly by both parties, it raises the bar so high that February 15 can be no less than a major let down.

Let’s stop the madness now. We need to start a campaign to abolish this horrible creation. I suggest we have Karl Rove and his republican henchmen to wage war on Valentine’s Day. If anyone can take something that is seeming good and make it bad they can. These are the guys that re-branded the Estate Tax and turned it into the “Death Tax.” They turned increased taxes into “Class Warfare.” They turned democratic capitalism into “Chrony Capitalism.” We need Valentine’s Day defeated before it does irreputable harm. Rise up Republicans!

I hate that people don’t know what GORGEOUS means

Ladies, if a man calls u gorgeous he either A. doesn’t know what the word means, or B is trying to fuck u. Okay. Back to work.

The above was a tweet I broadcast about 2 months ago right after I said it to a female friend of mine. We were chopping up her single moments, and she was telling me how a guy at the grocery store was kind of stalking her (in the store), followed her outside and then dropped the “Ms. You are gorgeous! I had to follow you, and introduce myself.” She was glowing as she retold the story. I could tell that it had boosted her confidence through the roof.

Now she’s attractive don’t get me wrong. But gorgeous… Gorgeous is rare. Super-rare. I can guarantee you; you’re not going to run up into gorgeous in the grocery store. I’d say my friend is pretty. So every time she said gorgeous my face twitched a little. She noticed it and said “Oh so you don’t think I’m gorgeous?” and then I hit her with the tag line.

She didn’t agree with me. So I had to break it down. Like I said gorgeous is rare. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but to be gorgeous you must have a timeless aura, a glow, a certain magnetism, and above all radiance. Gorgeous takes beautiful out to the alley and beats the hell out of it.

The hierarchy of physical attractiveness for females greatest to least is;

Gorgeous
Beautiful
Fine
Pretty
Good Looking
Cute

The hierarchy for males is;

Fine
Handsome
Good Looking
Cute

Handsome is the male equivalent to pretty. But if you notice there is no male equivalent for beautiful or gorgeous. Look women are special creatures and should have one additional level on the hierarchy but two seems like overkill right? Well, that’s because it is. Beautiful should be at the top of the hierarchy but then what do we do with gorgeous?

Gorgeous is basically the Mount Rushmore of beautiful. There are only 5 women that are gorgeous.

Josephine Baker
Liz Taylor
Sophia Loren
Lena Horne
Raquel Welch

THAT’S IT !!!


These women transcend time, and like I said you’re not going to run into them at the Publix in Decatur. These women have beauty that is legendary, mythical, absolute, and undeniable.

So ladies if a guy calls you gorgeous understand it’s to get you high so he can bring you low.

Sidebar:

These women have the potential to be gorgeous but that will be up to the next generation to decide.

Monica Belluci
Halle Berry
Liz Hurley
Megan Fox

I hate that I was late to the game on the “Cuddle Buddy” phenomenon

I use to think the term “cuddle buddy” was a euphemism for sex. I’d hear girls throw the term around and I’d think “these are good girls that want to do bad things, but desire to put a PG-13 label on it.”

As I matured and met new people I’ve learned that the term has nuance. It can mean anything from actually cuddling (clothes-on continual embrace) to full blown “circus sex.”

There are some women who actually crave the contact and closeness of cuddling without having their cavity searched. Go figure! At the end of a long day they really just want to be held.

So I have a very good female friend. I met her a few years back when I was in a committed monogamous long-distance relationship. I was instantly attracted but at the time I was being a good boy. She’s a real cool girl so we hung out sometimes, and eventually our relationship landed in the “friend zone.” We’ve stayed friends for years now, and have for the most part avoided those awkward moments that are endemic of a close male/female relationship.

So fast forward a few years later, we’re both single and she’s going through a “renaissance.” Renaissance is my word for when a girl is trying to find herself so she swears off relationships and sex for a little while to clear her head. We’re at lunch one day, and she floats the cuddle buddy gig past me.

In my mind I’m fairly certain I’m going to decline. Reason being, we really do have a solid friendship, one of the purist friendships I’ve ever had and it wouldn’t be worth muddying the waters. But because I’m the intellectually curious sort, I did want to know what the job would entail, so I shot her a few queries.

Question:
What type of guys would you be looking for?

Answer:
An attractive guy, with a good personality, fun to be around

Question:
So a gay guy couldn't do this?

Answer:
Hell No!

Question:
Does the guy have to be attracted to you physically?

Answer:
Yes, it would be good if he were into me. Ideally he likes me a little more than I like him. Somebody that's not overly aggressive

Question:
Can he have a girlfriend?

Answer:
No! I don’t know…. Maybe? It depends.

Question:
Can he be banging out chicks while he’s working for you as a cuddle buddy?
Would that disqualify him?

Answer:
Well, I’d rather he not be, but if he is, I don’t want to hear about it!

Question:
What can he touch?

Answer:
Huh?

Question:
What body parts can he touch?

Answer:
While we’re cuddling he can touch me. It would be great if he had really good hands.

Question:
What about kissing?

Answer:
I’m sure it would be some of that. You know sweet kisses.

Question:
Would you eventually have sex with this guy?

Answer:
No! I don’t know…. Maybe? It depends.

Question:
So you’re telling me you can be hugged up with a dude you’re attracted to, that is attracted to you for months on end; a dude with a good personality, good hands, patience, and apparently no girlfriend and not have sex with him?

Answer:
Okay, Okay. Yeah we’d probably do it.


So the end result of bad girl definition of cuddle buddies ends in sex, and the good girl definition of cuddle buddies also end in the same place. Obviously this is a Jedi mind trick that women play on themselves for piece of mind. But is there some good in this for men?

I dropped all the new data into the logical mind and arrived at the following.

A man that exercises patience and prudence reaps the benefits of: detached buns, which is regular sex without the responsibility of being the boyfriend. The economics are favorable too. You’re on call but you aren’t expected to plan dates and spend large sums of money. Most nights you can pick up some take out, hit Red Box for a movie, and you are GOLD!

The woman has the benefit of being in control, and getting her oil changed on a regular basis without all the relationship expectations. This is good for when woman are "in between" relationships, and is a decent substitute for an actual relationship.

And the societal benefit is that men, and women are getting their “stank-on” which promotes stress free living and overall wellness.

That is a Win/Win/Win. (3W)

A one time detractor of the cuddle buddy phenomenon has been converted into one of its staunchest supporters.

I hate the phrase "It is what IT is"

How would you feel if you were having a conversation with a friend, and you were discussing your job, or your family, you know, something that really matters? Your job is frustrating and your supervisor is demanding. A family member is placing an extraordinary burden on you. You share this with your friend in an attempt to gain some type of understanding or just some common relief if you will. And once you finish bitching to your friend he or she says “well you know blue is blue.”

Blue is blue? Really? Wouldn’t your first response to your friend be “ are you high?” It’s a ridiculous response right? So why is it acceptable at that very same moment to say, “It is what it is?”

I remember when I first heard that statement. I didn’t like the comment but it was a throw away. I didn’t allow it to bother me. I did some research then and found out that it was attributed to a NASCAR driver. Since then I’ve heard that Rodney Dangerfield would say it back in the 80’s. So that’s a redneck, and a comedian. I could live with it as long as the phrase stayed in those circles.

However, the phrase slowly started to seep into our daily lexicon. I started hearing it everywhere. It was starting to get absurd. USA Today proclaimed “It” the #1 cliché of 2004.

One day I’m watching an interview of the President of the United States. He was being questioned vigorously about the gridlock in Washington politics. He gave a very elegant, thoughtful, informative answer and then punctuated it with “it is what it is.”

I was crestfallen. This dumb, ignorant, hillbilly phrase fell from the lips of the leader of the free world. I couldn’t believe it. I knew then we’d never get rid of this phrase. It could not be murdered nor would it commit suicide. Like stupidity it would be with us forever!

Sidebar

I’m watching “Heat” a couple of weeks ago. Great movie; one of my favorites. There is a fantastic 5-minute scene towards the end where Pacino (cop) and Dinero (criminal) are having coffee at a diner. They are discussing what makes them tick, and they are foreshadowing their inevitable conflict. They start to discover that although they are diametrically opposing figures, they are essentially flip sides of the same coin. They seem to be embracing their kinship and then they go bottom line on each other. Pacino vows to take Dinero down no matter the fondness he developed over their conversation, and Dinero says. “It is what it is.” I guess I still hate the phrase, but I hate it now slightly less than I did before.

I hate that people really don't get this Tebow thing

A pier 6 brawl almost broke out at my weekly poker game last week. Friends who gather together weekly to escape their wives and families for a few hours of male bonding, were about to come to blows over this thing called TEBOW.

You know how people say don't talk politics or religion unless you're ready to go to war. Now TEBOW has become the third entry into the war cocktail. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone takes a side. No bystanders. It’s visceral.

Tebow is a lightning rod because of his faith. Angels love him. Devils hate him. But is it that simple?

The Broncos didn’t do Tebow any favors taking him in the 1st round of the 2010 draft. Pretty much everybody thought the Broncos over-reached to select him. They gave up numerous picks to get back into the 1st round to grab him.

Then Josh McDaniels, the coach that had faith in him, was fired last season. In 2011 Kyle Orton won the starting job but sucked so bad at the start of the season, that the Broncos had to give the job to Tebow. And all Tebow has done is WIN.

He wins, epically, ugly, atrociously, mind bogglingly, bafflingly, electrically, religiously.

The scientists love him, and the artists hate him.

After arguing the Tebow thing all during the poker game, we then took the argument to the Internet. We found articles supporting our arguments and sent them to each other. And when the Tebows miraculously beat the Bears last Sunday all hell broke loose. We got no work done on Monday. It was Tebow emails all day. Which led me to send this email.


“My 2 cents. He's like a handicapped, retarded, underdog, Rudy. He is "excelling" at something he has no business excelling at. And it’s entertaining as hell to watch. No coincidence that they are winning with him. Change of style, limiting turnovers, and Miller/Dumervil mixed with Tebow will win you a lot of games.
When they get to the playoffs they will lose by 20. Better teams in a lose-and-go- home format will sell out to beat them!"

The Football Science

The Broncos will make the playoffs because the above formula they are using is solid for the regular season. The formula will pretty much get you a 9-7 record every season.

Play action passes are a QB’s best friend; ask any QB. They slow down the pass rush, and gives the QB more time to scan the field. So can you imagine an offense where there is a threat to run the ball on every play. The defense always has to look for the run even on normal passing downs and distances. Defenses can’t use specialized personnel so they end up having to over use their starters. The game is more physical. The offensive line gets to attack, instead of being attacked. Defense linemen love to attack passing offenses because they can be the hammer. But when they play a running team like the Broncos they end up being the nail. This takes a toll, and in the fourth quarter they are exhausted.

Tebow knows this. He is playing the rope-a-dope and it’s working to perfection. Plus Defense Coordinators don’t want to wreck their schemes for one game against Denver during the regular season. They put in a few wrinkles and hope for the best. But in the playoff when a Super Bowl is at stake a team will button up and go to work on the Broncos.

So from a football sense there is an explanation for what’s going on in the mile high city.

The Football Divinity

But I will acknowledge this…

The Broncos are getting every break in these close games, and Tebow takes full advantage of each of them. I can’t watch the start of Broncos games, but you can better believe I’m tuned into the fourth quarter. These fourth quarters have been unreal. Chicago had Tebow dead to rights last Sunday, but we didn’t account for the resurrection.

There are intagibles that can't be taught or measured. There is a certain synergy when there is a true leader in place that can drain every ounce of potential from himself and his followers. Belief can make strange things happen.

Tebow Time is real. It's sofaking fun. Let's just enjoy it while it lasts. It's a moment in time that we can all share.

Now lets see if the anti-Christ Belichick can drive a stake through this guys heart this week.

I hate that JRB is a stand up dude

A few months back I posted a blog entry about my hatred for Jean-Robert Bellande. He read it and emailed me the following unedited response.




Wow. You put so much thought into your blog I figured you deserved a response from me. Let me start by saying I too hate the way I played that hand...however it was not brainless play or self-loathing that caused me to get my money in so poorly.

1stly, I was not a dog in that line-up as you suggest. Peter Jetten and Brandon Adams are the 2 players that are better than me. Tom Dwan, Huck Seed and Joe Cassidy are 3 people that do not ever put there money in charitable or neg ev situations and they each had 10% pieces of me.
Ferguson normally a non-factor from playing too tight. Matusow, grinder and ph are often down right juicy.

From my vantage point it looked like CF was using a new game plan in this session... It seemed like he was high roll squeezing us with all that FTP $...taking down pot after pot without ever a show down. My gut told me that he had keen full of shit... I see now that he actually had the goods everytime!

Normally passing AQ in this spot to a solid tight like CF would have been optimal but in poker you have to trust your gut and my gut told me that he was bullying the scared money. Flagging would've been ok too (and such an easy flop to fold too in hindsight)

When I opted to 4-bet, I wanted take away his 5 bet bluff-shove option by letting him know that I was pot-committed. I absolutely hate this part of my play but that was the reason for my huge over-bet. I believe that you are mistaken about 50k being left...I think I was left w about 40k and I was indeed pot committed( unless I could put him on aces or kings which he clearly did not have based on his deliberation...). Btw, everyone at that tbl knew that I'm quite capable of being a 3rd or 4th smooth caller w aces. They've seen me do it. However, as CF pointed out, I prolly wouldn't over-bet aces like that. Huck said I played such a beautiful trap except that I was missing the aa or kk lol.
As far as not running it twice... I was in a bit of shock at the moment w my life br in the pot and hadn't even thought of the option until afterwards. But that's not a significant error.

So brutal because I played the best of anyone at that tbl until that fkn hand.

Again I hate the way I played this hand. Just letting you know why I made these decisions...

It also sucks that I lost you as a fan.

gg wp

Ambassador of Poker
Aria Casino
JRB@JRBpoker.com