- Is this finally it? After all of the hand-wringing and speculation, could the eligibility/illegal benefits scandal that has been swirling around the University of North Carolina football program finally be over? Now that embattled star defensive end Marvin Austin and teammates Robert Quinn and Greg Little are officially not going to play for the Tar Heels this season, the answer is a resounding…..maybe. Austin’s tale at UNC the deadest story of the three, as he was kicked off the team Monday while the NCAA declared Quinn and Little "permanently ineligible." Still, the NCAA’s investigation into whether players received improper benefits from agents is ongoing and today’s decisions are merely the latest step in the process. Oh, and there’s always the ongoing investigation of the program for possible academic violations, so odds remain high that this charade is a long way from over. Of the 13 players who were sidelined when UNC began the season, six remain in NCAA legal limbo and their fates haven’t been decided. The NCAA could still force the university to vacate past wins or impose sanctions including the loss of scholarships or a postseason ban similar to what USC is currently facing for its own eligibility scandal involving former player Reggie Bush. The dreaded “lack of institutional control for the program” label has also been thrown around. But I suppose that’s what happens when players receive travel accommodations and jewelry, then lie about it to investigators in three separate interviews, as Little and Quinn reportedly did. Lying once is a mistake but understandable to some extent for guys who could be terrified of admitting what they’ve done. Lying three times……you deserve what you get. As for Austin, he allegedly received double the benefits furnished to Quinn and Little, so he was doubly screwed. The university isn’t exactly standing behind its student-athletes on this one, as athletic director Dick Baddour said the school wouldn't appeal the NCAA ruling. "I'm also very sad and disappointed that these individuals made these extraordinarily poor choices," head coach (and noted liar) Butch Davis said during a news conference. "Not only did they jeopardize themselves in their lives, they certainly have jeopardized this team, the university and I know that they're very remorseful about that. But it doesn't diminish the fact that these actions were poor choices in these kids' lives." Poor choices is one way to term it, but if Austin did indeed receive agent benefits and preferential treatment, then lie to the NCAA about it, then he didn’t make a poor choice - he’s just a moron and a scumbag. "I want to apologize to the NCAA and the entire North Carolina Tar Heel community including my teammates, coaches, students and fans," Austin said in a statement. "I have let you all down and I am truly sorry. I deeply regret my actions and the embarrassment I brought to the university and to the football program. I will pay a severe price for my poor decisions by not being able to play my entire senior season." You might be asking just what sort of perks and bennies these three players received and there is an answer. According to the NCAA, Quinn accepted two black diamond watches, a pair of matching earrings and travel accommodations to Miami for benefits worth $5,642. Little allegedly accepted diamond earrings, as well as travel accommodations for the Bahamas, Washington, D.C., and a pair of trips to Miami for benefits worth $4,952. But Austin trumped them both by raking in between $10,000 and $13,000 in improper benefits. Well done guys, it’s hard to see how you ever got caught………
- WE’RE GOING STREAKING! UP THROUGH THE QUAD TO THE GYMNASIUM…….AND RIGHT THROUGH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RALLY IN GERMANTOWN, PA., BABY! Okay, so Juan J. Rodriquez may not have been emulating Frank the Tank when he went streaking at the aforementioned Obama gathering in Germantown Sunday, but he was actually aiming for something much greater than impressing Snoop Dogg and a party full of hotties. Yes, Rodriquez was actually hoping to win $1 million with his act at the rally. Taking up a challenge offered on a Web site run by British billionaire Alki David, Rodriquez sprinted through the crowd at the "Moving America Forward" event while the president was delivering a speech about voting. With the site’s name painted on his chest and wearing only a pair of tennis shoes, Rodriquez was looking to nab the seven-figure prize offered to anyone who ran naked in front Obama. So far, Rodriquez has not officially been awarded the prize, but he was awarded a free trip to jail on charges of indecent exposure, public lewdness and disorderly conduct. The Staten Island resident must now hope that David and his site are true to their word. "We're waiting to review all the video footage and we'll be back with a statement tomorrow," said David. What’s the holdup? Well, to fulfill the terms of the challenge, a person had to shout the name of the website six times and be within view and hearing range of the president. "Whether he was in earshot and eyesite of the president is what's being debated right now," David explained. He went on to admit that the offer was to drum up publicity for the site. “Streaking is an age-old tradition and it's one that does get attention. You marry a naked person and Mr. Obama together in one event and it's very good," David stated. "I have to make it very clear, however, that I'm quite a fan of the president. It has nothing to do with him." That’s fine, but what I don’t get is why police are so upset about this. After all, what’s the biggest fear when it comes to public appearances for the commander in chief? That someone will try to harm him. Well, who’s less of a threat to harm him than a man wearing no clothes? You can't really hide a weapon if you’ve got nothing to conceal it…..or yourself………
- Nothing like blowing right past Waterworld, Titanic and the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and being the single most expensive movie ever made before the studio has officially given you the green light to begin production. That’s the forecast for The Hobbit, the much-hyped two-movie prequel to the trilogy. The rumored cost of the film is $500 million, which would push it $50 million past the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and set it up for one of the most unprofitable runs in cinematic history. For Lord of the RingsPirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, the cost was about $300 million. It was produced jointly with Dead Man’s Chest, for a combined total of around $450 million. Why is Hobbit so (potentially) expensive? Well, the reported $100 million legal bill hovering over the film is a definite factor. Still, the other three LOTR films were made for a comparatively reasonable $285 million combined. Peter Jackson must have some truly over the top plans for Hobbit and the effects are going to have to be out-of-this-world, off-several-hooks crazy good in order to justify spending half a BILLION dollars on a movie. To provide a bit of perspective, Inception has been one of this year’s successful movies and it will be fortunate if it can eke past the $300 million barrier. Even if Jackson intends to go 3-D on Hobbit, how he’s going to blow through half a billion on a movie is mind-blowing. But then again, no one (aside from the federal government) knows how to blow that much money in a short span quite like Hollywood………
- It’s communists v. fascists and as a man squarely opposed to both systems of governance, I find myself torn. Do I support the group I hate, the group I really hate or do I just pray that the earth opens up and swallows them both whole? Let’s lay this situation out, examine the facts and try to reach a conclusion. The main storyline is that an Iranian legislator has called on the government to sue Russia after the Russkies failed to deliver an antiaircraft missile system to Iran. Backing out of an arms deal is bound to offend a few people, people like the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazzem Jalali. Jalali tore into Russia after it welched on the agreement to sell the missile system to Iran. "The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should pursue the case with Russia's lack of commitment to the delivery of the system," Jalali fumed. "According to the S-300 contract, our country should take legal action in accordance with the contents of the deal in a bid to restore the inalienable rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran." That S-300 reference is to the sophisticated S-300 missile system, which Iran apparently feels a need for because it believes the entire world is against it. Jalali went on to warn that the situation would not help the relationship between Tehran and Moscow. "Iranian officials have warned Russia on frequent occasions that the Iranian nation has become distrustful of the Russians, and that action should be taken to bring down this wall of mistrust among the public opinion," he said, according to the official state news agency. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov contends that Iran cannot sue Russia over the contract because antiaircraft missile system supplies are subject to UN Security Council sanctions on Iran. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was the one to officially put the kibosh on the sale of S-300 systems to Iran in September, citing the U.N. sanctions that were imposed June 9 due to growing concerns over Tehran's nuclear program. For the umpteenth time, the United States and other world power insist the program is designed to produce nuclear weapons while Iran insists the purpose is energy and research. Russia has also halted weapons sales to Iran because of the sanctions, which banned export to Iran of armored vehicles, military aircraft, helicopters and ships. Russia argues that it only owes Iran prepayment of $166.8 million for the S-300 systems, citing Chemezov. No matter how this is resolved, I’m resolved to sit back and enjoy these two battling one another in a situation where everyone but the two combatants is a winner………
- Great, another excuse for FAT people, just what we need. Genetics, a fast-food culture and other handy excuses for being flabby, fatty, portly and unattractive are already too prevalent for the America’s obese, but now comes word that exposure to light at night may cause weight gain without a change in activity levels or increased eating. According to new research on mice for a study published in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, being in direct light after dark could actually case people to plump up. The only solace here is that the study’s lead author is a mere doctoral student in neuroscience at Ohio State University, not an actual doctor. So you’ll have to excuse me if I view your findings with a healthy dose of doubt, lead study author Laura Fonken. I understand that you and your team tested three groups of mice: a group was exposed to a standard light/dark condition, a group was exposed to a dim light cycle and a third group that was exposed to 24 hours of continuous light for eight weeks, but I reject your conclusions because you’re not helping this country’ obesity epidemic; you’re making it worse by providing yet another weak alibi for those too lazy and undisciplined to push away from the buffet table and do some freaking exercise. But I’ll humor you for the purposes of this story. What, pray tell, did you and your crew find, Fonken? That the light exposed mice were eating during their normal rest periods and “when we restricted their food to times when they would normally eat, we didn’t see the weight gain” at all? Fine. “This further adds to the evidence that the timing of eating is critical to weight gain,” Fonken rambled on. Yeah, or it could be that people eating fatty foods and not exercising is the issue. In the study, all three mice groups were exposed to the same activity and food levels, yet the mice exposed to more light gained more fat than the mice that lived in standard light conditions. Fonken tried to draw a link between the dim-light mouse group and human exposure to television or computer time and eating during screen time instead of during mealtime. Additionally, Fonken and her team are currently examining the role of the hormone melatonin and whether light may change the levels of melatonin, which helps regulate metabolism and may disrupt the genes that control when the mice feed and are active. Just do us all a favor and if what you learn from this next round of research is something that will give FAT people more excuses, just trash your research and pretend that it never happened………
No comments:
Post a Comment