A Game for the Ages - the Century-Old Rivalry at its Best

Things were certainly bleak.  2 time Cy-Young award winner Tim Lincecum was nothing of his old self; he gave up 5 earned runs in under 5 innings, racking up a measly 2 strikeouts against 3 walks.  He gave up 3 runs before getting an out in the first and even uncorked this humorous (but concerning) pitch.  Lincecum also hit Kemp with a fastball that ran inside after narrowly missing the pitch before, prompting the umpires to issue warnings to both sides.  The Giants had just one hit (and a run, thanks to a walk that preceded the hit and a sacrifice fly) through 5 innings against the Dodgers' young left-handed ace, Clayton Kershaw.  Kershaw was cruising, having retired 11 straight Giants until Freddy Sanchez's one-out single in the 6th, and the Dodgers held what seemed to be a comfortable 5-1 lead.

Paul drops the ball.

Then, things got interesting.  In the sixth inning, after Posey and Sanchez both reached base, outfielder Xavier Paul dropped a crucial fly ball that allowed the Giants to score 2 additional unearned runs.  Burrell had hit a fly ball that looked to be nothing more than sacrifice fly (which was still good considering the Giants' offensive woes); instead, Paul's error would put runners at 2nd and 3rd with just one out.  Sandoval made sure the Dodgers would pay for the mistake, ripping a 2-run double down the left field line on a high fastball from Kershaw to cut the deficit to one.  (A positive note: Pablo seems to have figured out how to hit that high fastball.)

In the bottom half of the frame, Giants reliever Denny Bautista threw another controversial pitch, running up and in toward Russell Martin's head and forcing him to jump back to get out of the way.  Surprisingly, it was neither Bautista nor Bochy that would be ejected in this scenario - Dodgers bench coach (and backup manager) Bob Schaefer got into a heated argument with the umpires from a distance, as he furiously called for the ejection of Bautista, and was ejected as a result.  Kershaw, despite struggling the previous frame and running his pitch count to over 100, stayed in the game to bat in the 6th.  This set up the 7th inning, in which Kershaw promptly hit Rowand, the first batter he faced, prompting the automatic ejections of both he and Dodgers manager Joe Torre and leaving the Dodgers with batting coach Don Mattingly as their temporary manager.  (All three ejections here.)

(Joe Torre argues with the umpire after bench
coach Bob Schaefer is ejected.)

This would prove crucial in the 9th inning.  After two perfect innings by All-Star reliever Hong-Chih Kuo, the Giants were left to face with Broxton.  Though widely considered to be an elite closer, Broxton had not been himself lately, blowing important saves recently to both the Yankees and the Cardinals, and would not get the job done tonight either.  A leadoff single by Uribe, a walk by Renteria, a perfect bunt by Rowand, and an intentional walk to pinch-hitter Aubrey Huff would load the bases with just one out.  Andres Torres began walking toward the plate in an apparent matchup with Jonathan Broxton - emphasis on the apparent.  Acting manager Don Mattingly went out to the mound to talk to Broxton and, as he began to walk away, first baseman James Loney asked him a question, leading to the gaffe of the night, as Mattingly naively returned to the mound after stepping off in order to add a few final words.  He completely forgot about a strict MLB rule regarding mound visits, which dictates that a manager cannot pay two consecutive visits to the mound without making a pitching change.  Giants manager Bruce Bochy, who played an important role in facilitating the Giants victory tonight, argued that Mattingly's additional action constituted a second mound visit, thus necessitating a pitching change, and won his case.  Broxton left the game and in came George Sherrill with his 7+ ERA.  The rest, as you know, is in the books.  Torres promptly put the Giants on top with a dramatic, crowd-silencing 2-run double on the second pitch from Sherrill and Posey added an RBI single for insurance.  Affeldt, filling in for closer Brian Wilson, who had pitched 4 straight days, closed out the game despite a 1-out double from Furcal by striking out Andre Ethier, and that was that.  Casilla, who pitched two scoreless innings, escaping yet another self-created jam in the 7th by coaxing a double play ball, got the victory.  With this, the Giants have won 11 of their last 13 games and handed the Dodgers their sixth consecutive loss.  They remain three games out of the NL West and half a game out of the Wildcard.

(Andres Torres celebrates after hitting the go-ahead 2-run double and scoring on Buster Posey's base hit.)

(Images taken from MLB.com)

Random Topic 2: Gay Marriage

Marriage - the ultimate symbol of love between two (or more, depending on what you believe in) people.  But should it be restricted to the union between a man and a woman?  Should two men or two women have the legal right to marry?  Who defines marriage?  Who has the ultimate say in the definition of marriage?  These questions - this debate - have been a central conflict in today's world, especially in California.  But I'm here to present a new opinion - that both sides feature complete idiots wasting their times on a meaningless issue.  Yep, that's right.  This whole debate has no significance whatsoever; it's equivalent to two sides arguing over the name of a street - nothing but a waste of time in an era where there exist so many other problems that need our attention.

For those of you who argue that gay men and women deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, I completely and wholeheartedly agree.  Any two people - heck, it can even be between a person and a robot for all I care - that love each other deeply deserve protection and benefits from the state; gay couples deserve to be recognized as equals to heterosexual couples.  This isn't the issue I want to focus on; gay rights are already a given - it's the right thing to do.  If they aren't equal under the law right now, then something should be done to make them equal under the law.  End of debate.

The real issue that I would like to discuss is the issue of "marriage."  Let's take a hypothetical situation: there are two couples, each in deep, loving relationships.  Both share the same benefits - both file their taxes together, both enjoy tax credits to help raise their children.  The only difference?  The state recognizes one as a "marriage" and the other as a "domestic partnership."  But is this really a difference?  Honestly, why do people care about what it's called?  First of all, if you love someone, why do you need the government to tell you that you love him/her/it/whatever?  Love transcends the law; a piece of paper cannot tell you what to love or not love.  The word "marriage" is nothing but overhyped legal jargon.  Who says you can't love someone fully if you're not married to them?  Heck, what difference would it make if they changed the word "marriage" to something ridiculous like "asdkfuweiortuaiodjfaklsdjfkasd"?  Would people stop loving each other?  I certainly hope not.

My point is - why are we bitterly bickering and fighting over terminology?  We're wasting everybody's time, we're wasting campaign money, and we're not getting anywhere.  It's as if we're spending millions of dollars and hours just to figure out a correct definition for a useless word in a dictionary.  This whole idea is pointless - and the blame for this ridiculous debate doesn't fall on one side either.  Both sides deserve equal blame. (How's that for equality?)  On the one hand, you have the gay marriage supporters, the Prop. 8 opposition, the liberals, whatever the hell you want to call them.  I agree that if gay couples do not have equal rights as heterosexual couples, then they should definitely lobby for equal rights.  But, why the whole hissy-fit over the recognition of "marriage" by the government of all things?  Who cares what the government labels you as, so long as you have equal rights?  It's not like the government is your mom or something - do you really need the government's approval to love someone?  If you guys want equal rights, fine.  But please stop wasting our time about the whole "marriage" thing.  On the other hand, you have the gay marriage opponents, the Prop. 8 backers, the conservatives, whatever you want to call them.  These people are just as, if not more stupid than the gay marriage supporters.  These heterosexual couples are happily married. (Or well, you're supposed to be happily married...)  The government says they're married.  They get legal benefits, tax cuts, wills written out to each other - the whole package.  Why in the world must they care if two other men or two other women, that they've never seen before and probably will get to never know in their entire lives, get married?  What can two random strangers getting married as a homosexual couple possibly do to damage the lives of a heterosexual couple?  There is absolutely no logical reason for them to stop people from giving themselves a silly label - honestly, who cares what the government labels people as?  If two men get married, will you stop loving your wife/husband?  I really hope that's not the case.  And for those of you planning on making some ridiculous argument with the bible (<--I'm leaving this uncapitalized on purpose to offend people who care about labels) - please don't.  I mean, these gay couples - many of them are devout Christians, faithful to God, church attenders - you know, decent people who are probably going to heaven.  Why fight so hard to deprive them of this little "sin" when there are devil-praising heretics out there spreading violence and hate?  Why not spend some time and money going after those guys?  Get your priorities straight, people.

So that's about all I have to say - it's a little less formal this time because I'm a bit lazy.. but yeah.  Please feel free to leave comments.

One last note, though: to those of you who think that equality will only be guaranteed if the couples are placed under the same label - take a look at race.  Do we need to call all black people "white" in order to guarantee their equality?  No, and the same should apply to couples.  We shouldn't need to label something to guarantee equal rights.  It might be a bit easier, but it certainly isn't necessary.




Last last note: I actually had no idea about the Argentina thing when I wrote this..

Random Topic 1: Confidence

A man walks up to a pretty girl and asks her out on a date.  Nearby spectators remark and compliment his "confidence."  We've all seen something like this before, whether through the movies or in real life - a "confident" man getting a date.  This idea of "confidence" persists throughout society: interviewees are often taught to exude "confidence" in order to get a job, lawyers must appear "confident" in order to win a case, and an athlete's success if often attributed to his "confidence."  Our society places a high value on society; a "confident" personality or demeanor is often viewed as positive.

What exactly is "confidence"?  According to Dictionary.com, it is the "belief in oneself and one's powers or abilities." But really, it is a useless word.  It's a word that is unnecessary, misused, and falsely praised.  It's nothing but a illusory euphemism for arrogance.  In nearly every case, a simple substitution of the word "confidence" with "arrogance" can be made.  Arrogance provides a justification for all the scenarios mentioned above.  An arrogant man views himself so highly that he believes himself to be worthy of the reward in each scenario listed above; he believes himself worthy of a girl's affection, of being hired, of his argument in a trial being undeniably correct, of being recognized as the world's best athlete.  He cannot possibly fathom the possibility of failure and he will never admit inadequacy.  This is the real driving force of confidence with its euphemistic shield deprived. Confidence is nothing but arrogance, though it may come in smaller and more subtle doses at times, and arrogance derives from ignorance, from the inability to foresee or accept potential failure.  Our ignorance causes us to see this as a good trait; we hail the "confident" person as the epitome of success and we ignore the fact that confidence is nothing more than a sugar-coated form of arrogance, an evil figure covered by a cloak of unjust praise.  And for this reason, we must open our eyes.  Confidence does not, and should not, exist as a separate entity from arrogance.  They are completely intertwined - they are one and the same.  

But what about the good aspects of confidence?  What about the rookie that has the "confidence" to pinch-hit in the bottom of the 9th inning with the game on the line?  What about the lawyer with enough "confidence" to deliver his argument in a way that convinces the jury?  What about the new worker who has the "confidence" to stay calm during the interview and answer all the questions properly?  What about the nerdy average-looking kid that is "confident" enough to ask out the love of his life?  If confidence is arrogance, then does societal success depend entirely on arrogance?

The answer to that is, simply, no.  The issue here is that confidence is a misused word.  A rookie does not have to believe in himself in order to hit a home run; he must simply focus on his fundamentals.  A lawyer only has to appear self-assured in his argument; deep down, he knows there are always counterarguments.  A prospective employee does not have to believe he is undeniably the best applicant out there; he only has to answer the questions presented to him to the best of his abilities.  The average guy knows he won't always succeed, but he knows that he has to try.  When it all boils down, the good in society depends not on arrogance or confidence, but on courage and determination.  It depends on one's courage to attempt a task to the best of his or her ability regardless of the odds or the situation.  It depends on one's determination to persist and endure even if the situation appears destined toward failure.  These are the values that society must value - not confidence, but courage and determination.

The world today is plagued by an evil in the form of ignorance; we deceive ourselves by seeking "confidence" in those we depend on.  If we continue to do so, our world will begin to become overrun with arrogant, ignorant people.  The forces of evil will slowly weed out the forces of good; arrogance will supplant courage and determination as the foundational values of society.  Thus, we must abolish the notion of confidence.  We must strip off its illusory coat, the misleading positive connotations that perpetuate our own ignorance in a vicious cycle.  When we see an arrogant person in a position of power, we bring ourselves to believe that arrogance, or "confidence" as one might say, is a force of good, one that gets us where we want to go in life.  Ignorance breeds confidence and confidence fuels ignorance.  For the sake of humanity, and for the sake of the world, we must delete this word from our vocabulary or, at the very least, shed light on its evil, hateful nature.