A list of ten completely random things

Kinda random, but hey, then again, so is life. It's a brickolage of several of the blog postings I started, stopped and saved since my last posting, which was over four months ago. What can I say? I've been busy. But, here's a list of things with no apparent connection which I've been thinking on over the past four months.

10) Dropping off the face of the earth for four months. I keep on hearing the same thing from a handful of people - where have you been? Why haven't you e-mailed or called me? Sorry about that - got a little too wrapped up with my own stuff over the past four months, and didn't bury myself out until recently. I'll be better about that stuff in the new year.

9) Sarah Palin's push for a Constitutional Amendment. This comes from a blog posting from mid-October, right towards the end of the presidential campaign. The posting never saw the light of day, but I liked this one, so I'm including it here. I didn't change the verb tense - this is in reaction to an interview I saw with Palin on CNN, I think. This also could be labeled as "My goodness, the Republicans really are getting desperate, aren't they?". In a recent interview (should know who she interviewed with, as the fact that she gave an interview is rare), did you see what Sarah Palin supported as a new Constitutional Amendment? Huge shock here - an amendment which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. This does make me scratch my head in three ways. The first is the "careful" wording of the statement - what a load of crap. How stupid does she and the Republican party think people are? This isn't a way to "define" marriage, it's a way to ban gay marriages. Second, real original here, Palin. Let's use the same scare tactic that Bush, Cheney, and Rove used in 2004 to galvanize the base. Before you chide me for being too harsh on this being a scare tactic, look at what W. did (or, more fittingly, did not do) after winning the 2004 Presidential election. If this was such a big deal to him and his base, why, then, didn't W. pursue this over the past four years? Seemed awfully convenient to use at the time, though. Thirdly, given my four year stint in a very red state, I came to know and understand the positions of people who can truly call themselves conservatives. From my understanding, most conservatives aren't really too fond of government mandates which curtail people's individual rights, and this certainly fits the bill. This, to me, is clearly wanting to have your cake and eat it too - it appeals to neo-cons who like to blend their conservative moral beliefs with their politics, which most of the die-hard conservatives I know don't like to do.

8) Super Bowl pick: Arizona Cardinals versus Pittsburgh Steelers. The conference championships are going on as we speak, but I have yet to peek at the scores. But, if you'll notice, the teams in football and baseball championships are eerily similar. It's not that the same city/state will have teams in both championships, but rather, team types seem to remain the same. The 2008 World Series, if you remember, was the Tampa Bay Rays, the Cinderalla squad of the American League East, versus the Philadelphia Phillies, a perennial contender in the NL East over the past few years who finally made it. The Steelers are, of course, a perennial contender, and nobody expected the Cardinals to make the playoffs, much less be in the championship game. Super Bowl 42 winner: Steelers. Cinderella stories only happen in the movies, and in the American Upper Midwest.

7) Slumdog Millionaire will win the Oscar for Best Picture. The writing is on the wall already. This, in my opinion, is an even safer bet than Heath Ledger winning a best supporting actor Oscar for "The Dark Knight." I'll get my Oscar picks in when they're announced, but, as far as the surprise winner of the night goes, look to the Best Actor category - I'm giving Frank Langella ("Frost/Nixon") the ever-so-slight nod over Mickey Rourke ("The Wrestler").

6) European literari are snotty bastards, but then again, it may be us giving ourselves a bad rap. Another old one, but hey .... I don't know if you had the chance to see who won this year - it's some obscure French poet (the guy across the hall from me is a French literature scholar, and he's barely familiar with him. So, it's kind of a small reputation - maybe he's big in France). But, one of the key figures/leaders from the Nobel Laurate committee didn't exactly have nice things to say about American authors winning the Nobel - our literary view, according to him, is too narrow in scope, as it only focuses on the here and now (present day America), and doesn't address the universal and eternal (human condition/metaphysical angle, I'd imagine). My initial reaction was to tell this Euro-snotbag off - insert something about an old, archaic culture that can only remain relevant on the world stage by being insular- but, after seeing the American authors who've been nominated in the past few years, I think he may have a point. This took me by surprise - when I think of those American authors deserving of the Nobel, I think of Pynchon (even though he probably wouldn't go), DeLillo, McCarthy, Mamet, Didion. Those five, even though they do focus on American ideas and concerns, seem to me to be more universal (human condition/metaphysical approach). The two names popping up as being the most nominated writers: Joyce Carol Oates and Philip Roth. Huh? Really? I've read a couple of books from both authors, and I must say, I really wasn' t impressed by either. I mean, the novels were good, but I didn't get the big deal. So, maybe next time, American nominators, throw in Pynchon or Didion, maybe DeLillo - major authors as opposed to minor ones. That, and I must say, it's inexplicable how four authors - Milan Kundera, Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, and Umberto Eco - aren't Nobel laurates. Over the past seven years or so, some big names deservedly won the prize - Doris Lessing, Octavio Paz, Gunther Grass, and J.M. Coetzee. How about we give the prize first to older authors with solid, long-standing literary reputuations before giving them to the soup-de-jour?

5) Thoughts on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees for 2009. What struck me was the two first-timers on the list, two pioneers in their respective genres: Run DMC and Metallica. Both got in this year, as I think both should. It's not really a big fan of either, but, given how rap and heavy metal have influenced almost all of the other rock and roll genres over the past twenty or so years, they should get in. But, I'd still like to see Rush just get nominated; no clue why they're not in. That, and if you think about it, there are a lot of big name bands/acts that aren't in. In addition to Rush, why aren't Duran Duran, Heart, Pat Benatar, The Cure, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Kiss, among others, not in? I'll concede that it may be because these bands may be perceived to be too popular in their day, and kind of kitschy in our contemporary eyes, but that doesn't stop the Hall from inducting old doo-wop acts from the 50s and 60s who may have had only a hit or two. I know that the initial criteria for induction is twenty-five years after the date of your first major label release, but if the Bee Gees, Iggy and the Stooges (like me some Iggy Pop, but I do have to admit that band was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things), Little Anthony and the Imperials, and Martha and the Vandalas are in, the bands listed above should get in as well.

4) Why use a list of ten instead of a lower number? That's what I'm starting to think now, as I'm starting to run out of juice. But, ten is such a nice round number.

3) I've become addicted to burning mixed CDs. I'm a child of the 80s, so I loved me my mixed tapes (hence the name). I am truly digging this. Over the past four months (which doesn't really work as an excuse for my lack of communication - mixed CD alert!!!! Title of a crappy old Ratt song!), I've made a total of five mixed CDs (not many, I'll concede), but seeing what's out there is pretty cool. I've yet to walk completely down memory lane and burn myself a killer 1980s CD - I've been stuck in my prolonged college career (early 90s through current), and have been burning alt-rock, hard rock and hip hop stuff that I don't own. My favorite nuggets so far - Ice Cube's "Wicked" (which I saw him do at Lollapolloza in 92 - great track), the Presidents of the United States's "Peaches" (goofy song, but I still like it), Rancid's "Ruby Soho" (always had a soft spot for that one), Sonic Youth's "Sugar Kane" (like the ecletic SY sound, but can only take it in small doses), Scissor Sisters' "Take Your Mama" (love that song), and a bevy of Foo Fighters songs - "Road to Ruin," "The Pretender," "Everlong," "Monkey Wrench," and so on. I've had mixed reactions to Foo CDs - great songs balanced with the truly crappy. They haven't had a best of CD yet, so I made one of my own. In case I'm not around and/or answering the phone or email, I may be burning a disk. That, and hopefully this turns into a nice segue - feel free to vote on the quintessential 80s song that should be on anyone's 80s mixed cd in the poll to your right. I've got my strong feelings, but then again, children of the 80s, so should we all.

2) I've done something which I never thought I'd do. I've recently joined Facebook. Never thought I'd do that - it seemed to hip and trendy, and seeing how I'm neither, I thoughht it would be best to avoid it. But, I figured what the hell - I still don't have access to a digital camera, so there are no pictures as of now, but, hopefully in the near future. So far, I've got people I knew in all levels of my schooling - grade school, high school, BA, MA, and PhD, listed as friends. Kind of a cool thing, but outside of placing the random observations on people's walls, I don't get the point. Can one pick up women on these things? Dare to dream.

1) My New nephew - Henry Ronald, born 10/15/08, 6:15ish PM, 7 pounds, 3 ounces, lots of black hair. One of the reasons I've been off the radar is because of the Hammer - my new nephew Henry. He's already one of his Uncle Dan's favorite people - I've got a picture of him below, which hopefully works. His mom took the picture, so the picture is sideways (and he wasn't). But, his favorite thing to do with Uncle Dan so far is try to have a conversation - I'll talk, and he'll gurgle, make "mmmmm" sounds with his mouth, and move his lips.

Yup, you'll have to turn your head - I can't figure out how to move the picture. But, this is Henry from a month ago, wearing his favorite hat and gumming his nook to death. Cute little guy, isn't he?

Ten Things About the RNC in Saint Paul, Round II

Sorry, had to run to run out for a moment, and didn't get the whole list in. Here's the rest:

5) Is Minnesota really in play as a swing state for the 2008 election? According to several news outlets, it is. Gallop polls and phone calls aside, though, is one of states perceived to be one of the most liberal states in the Union really going to go for a Repub in November? While I'll concede that it is possible, I'll believe it when I see it. In an email to a friend from earlier in the summer, I had made the statement that the last time a Repub carried Minnesota was in the 1950s with Eisenhower. I was mistaken; Nixon carried Minnesota in 1972. So, it's been thirty-six years, and eight presidential elections, since a Repub last carried the state. And, if what went on during the caucuses in February 2008 is any indication, it won't happen this year. Those contending that the state is in play - including pundits from inside the state - seem to have conveniently forgotten how many Dems turned out for the caucus. The attendance was huge - I'll concede that the main reason for the draw was that the nomination was still up for grabs, and Clinton and Obama supporters came out in force. While some pundits may view the showdown between Obama and Clinton in the caucus as some kind of proof of a schism in the party, or that McCain's choice of Palin will appeal to disenfranchised Hillary supporters, I'm not so sure. The pundits are quick to forget that while the turn out for the Dem side of the caucus was huge, Obama won the caucus by a pretty convincing margin. That doesn't exactly signal a problem for the Dems. Also, let's not forget that Mitt Romney beat McCain in the caucus here. For those reasons - Obama's big win, McCain's loss, and the voting history of the state - I can't see Obama losing the state to McCain.
4) So what's up with the US Senate race between Franken and Coleman? As much as I like my home state, and the people in it, sometimes Minnesotans make some dipshit choices which make them look like morons to the rest of the US. Case in point: the upcoming US Senate election between Democrat Al Franken (yes, that Al Franken) and incumbent Repub Norm Coleman. The choice between the two - if you can in fact call it a choice - reminds me of one of the closing scenes of the Monty Python film "Life of Brian": when Brian is to be crucified, he's led into a room with a group of other men. There are two doors: one leading to freedom, one leading to crucifixion. While there's a choice inherent with those doors - as a man trying to escape death learns when asking for door number two - there really isn't a choice. The problem with this election is you've got a Celebricrat (celebrity Democrat) with no (and I mean no) political experience at all, and Norm Coleman. What so bad about Norm? He is the guy that brought NHL hockey back to Minnesota, and Saint Paul in particular, which isn't a bad thing, but it's about as politically important as "Daily Affirmations with Stuart Smalley." Norm, unlike Franken, has political experience - former mayor of Saint Paul, and it's his seat which is being contested in this election. To me, Norm is one of those politicans which McCain was railing against last night - their own wants first, the country's second. That's a pretty good way to describe a politican who began his career as a Democrat (while the mayor of the StP, starting in 1994), and, when he saw that his political career aspirations could and probably would be placed in the passenger seat by more established Minnesota Dems, conveniently switched to the Republican Party in 1996. To prove my point: who remembers the 1998 governor election in Minnesota? If you don't, you should, as it was the year Jesse won. He ran against Dem Skip Humphrey (son of Minnesota political legend Hubert Humphrey) and freshly anointed Repub Norm Coleman. Humphrey was more than penciled in as the Dems' governor choice long before the election, which certainly casts doubts on the legitimacy of Coleman's switch. That, and Coleman seems to be far too interested in the concerns of big buck lobbyists (American oil companies especially). But to balance that off with Franken - Dems of Minnesota, what the hell were you thinking? Franken hadn't lived in the state for decades, and when he does come back, you endorse his candidacy on little more than name recognition. Weren't there solid Dem state senators, congress people, and political officials who could have tapped instead? Somebody with at least some political experience? Hosting a radio show on public radio, going out on USO tours overseas, and writing books with political twinges really doesn't count as practical experience in my book. Add in independent Dean Barkley - not much to that. While there is a choice involved with this election, it's a choice in name only - it sure isn't much of a choice in my book.
3) So, if a Repub win in Minnesota in 2008 isn't likely, why was the convention held in Saint Paul? Two reasons, I think - neither of them is a radical conspiracy theory, but as I'm plunking out the two reasons, I'll see if I can come up with a crazy third. Reason number one: the convention location was a way for a Repub candidate, be it McCain or not, to distance themselves from the current Bush administration. This thing can fall apart, of course, if the decision to have the convention in Saint Paul was made prior to the Iraq War, signficant price jumps in the energy business, and so on. But, I think I'm safe. The logic here could have been that to distance one new candidate's possible presidency from a very unpopular president (at least to most Americans, anyway) would be to hold the convention in a very unconventional location (pun intented). This could signal a change - the old regime is done, and a new one is coming, and just to prove that, they'll hold a convention in a largely Dem state to bring in that new message. Reason II: money, and lots of it. Despite what I had to say about Pawlenty and Coleman, they are considered to be prime up-and-comers in the national Repub party, so their influence on swaying convention planners could be integral. Also, Pawlenty is the chairman of McCain's campaign, and McCain, when he first announced his intentions to run in 2008, was considered an odds-on favorite to win the nomination (although, as it turns out and as we all know, he had a major fight on his hands during the primaries and caucuses). But, what makes me also scratch my head is that Minnesota Repubs (and Minnesota Dems, for that matter) can tend to deviate from national party policies and agendas. When you see a state politican - governor, state senator or congress person, etc., on TV, they're usually listed as DFL (Democratic Farm-Labor) or IR (Independent Republican). So, the GOP in Minnesota really isn't the same as the GOP nationally or in GOP strongholds (parts of the Mountain West and Deep South). So, it's a bit of a head scratcher I still can't figure out. Sorry, no odd-ball conspiracy theory comes to mind.
2) What did people make of McCain's choice of Palin? This, I thought, was kind of interesting. At the bar this past Monday, Palin's choice as VP was the hot topic of conversation. Seeing how the Repubs were in town, there were several Repub backers in the bar that night, from both the Twin Cities and nationwide. Putting the less serious comments aside- "Hey, she looks like Tina Fey!" and "Dude, she's hot!" - what I found surprising is that the excitement I saw in the Xcel when she hit the stage was by no means matched by the Repub supporters in the bar. Granted, this is a small group of people who had been drinking - point conceded that it's not the best of samples. But, the majority of people I overheard and talked to - men and women, different classes, and so on - were by no means excited over Palin's choice and less then thrilled about her credentials. Most people saw Palin's selection as a move made in desperation and out of fear - if McCain had chosen Pawlenty or Mitt Romney (who, by the way, most of the bar wanted), the fear would be that the ticket would be perceived as a standard, traditional (and therefore Bush-like in nature) ticket which Obama-Biden would destroy in November. This, to them, made McCain seem scared that he'd lose in November, and wanted to shake things up to try to complete with Obama's appeal.
1) What did downtown Saint Paul look like during the convention? I was only down there once, on Monday night, but that was good enough. The bird porn people were an obvious reason, as were the anarchist groups. But what really got me was the fact that my hometown looked like a war zone. As I came into downtown Saint Paul, a white van was along side of my car, on the left hand side. As we came to a stoplight, the door of the van swung open, and a group of police dressed in full riot gear sprung from the car and ran down the street towards a group of people. That's not something which you see every day - and I'm glad for that. Downtown Saint Paul, after normal business hours, is a pretty relaxed, peaceful place. So, needless to say, I'm not exactly shedding any tears now that this is over. I'm hoping my hometown returns to normal pretty quickly here, which I think it will. I didn't much care for it looking like a war zone.

Ten Things About the RNC in Saint Paul

It's all over. Finally. In case you've been living under a rock for the last week, the Republican National Convention wrapped up last night when John McCain made his acceptance speech. The RNC was held in my hometown of Saint Paul, MN, and I was actually around to experience some of the sideshows of the convention. Here's a list of ten things I'll remember from the convention, in no particular order.

10) Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura made a good point on Tuesday night's episode of "Larry King Live." No, seriously. While it may seem hard to believe that the Body made an insightful comment - given his gaffs while governor (my favorite: during an interview with Playboy, Jesse made a comment about men being with several women during their lifetime, drawing an analogy between being a player and test driving a car - something along the lines of putting your key in various ignitions to see if it fits!), this actually caught my attention. Jesse paraphrased a quotation about convincing a nation to go to war; I dug up the quotation, and the portion he spoke about reads "[a]ll you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing their country to danger." Now, I'll concede that this might make me sound like a reactionary lefty, but this quotation reads much like how the Bush White House was (and still is) able to justify keeping US troops in Iraq. This quotation doesn't come from a Repub, a Bush White House staffer, or a CNN talking head - it comes from Luftwaffe commander and ardent Nazi Hermann Goering. It could be that Herr Goering was making a historical observation - I'd imagine that the Greeks, Romans, barbarians, and several European powers (besides Nazi Germany) used a similar approach. But what scared me is how similar this line of thinking appears to our contemporary situation. And the fact that a Nazi articulated this statement is even more frightening.
9) The two candidates on the Repub short list. It was either Tuesday or Wednesday that the local news broadcasts here in the Twin Cities were abuzz with McCain's second choice for VP. According to those broadcasts, the final two contenders for the VP nom were Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who, of course, got the nod) and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Why Palin over Pawlenty? There is, of course, a lot of speculation over why McCain chose Palin, from reaching out to the Repubs' more conservative base to trying to steal disgruntled Hillary supporters away from Obama to trying to make his ticket historical as well (the first female Repub VP versus the first African American presidential nominee). But, when it comes to Pawlenty versus Palin, there hasn't been much discussion. So, when it comes to this question, let me provide an answer; Palin was chosen over Pawlenty because Palin has a personality. This is not to say that Pawlenty doesn't have a personality - he does, but he's about as dry as melba toast. He's a bit of a wet noodle, and really too nice of a guy to make an impact on the national stage. Plus, I think Biden would have ripped him apart in a VP debate.
8) What I've learned about anarchists. Although they're very passionate about their cause - perhaps zealous (and overly zealous) - I don't think they qualify as the brightest bulbs on the string of Christmas lights. Case in point: Wednesday's local newsbroadcasts reported how anarchists planned to block traffic on one of the busiest freeway off ramps in downtown Saint Paul (the 7th street exit off of I-94 in Saint Paul, for those of you familiar with the area). Good idea in principle - cause chaos and fender benders by sitting in the middle of an off ramp (and, possibly being killed. Ouch.). But, when they got there, they realized that they forgot to do their homework - that off ramp had already been blocked off by the city a few days prior. A little reconnaissance might help there.
7) Is Governor Palin's pregnant 17-year-old daughter fair game for a political discussion? Absolutely not. I credit Senator Obama here for making a very definitive statement about that the same day the pregnancy was broadcast by the media - she isn't fair game, and Obama doesn't want anyone in his camp or Dems as a group to make this an issue. Cudos to him - although this could be read as a political tactic (and, more likely than not is), it's also the right thing to do. But, it does raise a question: why would she be a politicial target in the first place? In my opinion, it's due largely to the perception that the Repubs have of themselves, as being morally superior to Dems. This is derived largely from the different stances on abortion (Repubs typically pro-life, Dems typically pro-choice), sex education (Dems for a broad approach, Repubs advocating for abstinence), and appeal to conservative Christian groups (strong for Repubs, not so much for Dems). So, with this said, the pregnant teenage daughter of a conservative Repub VP nominee could be a scandal, as it could alienate a core group of Repub supporters who believe that sex before marriage, especially for people under age, is a big no-no. I remember talking to former female students living in a red state about the rings they wore on their hands - I thought they were married, but they told me that these were promise rings, promising to maintain their virginity until marriage (by the way: they often receive their rings from their fathers. Is it just me, or is there something kind of disturbing about a girl promising this to her father?). The example here is not meant to suggest that this type of situation happened in the Palin family - in fact, I don't know. But, the example is meant to illustrate the perception of premartial sex for some groups of people associated with Repubs. This, of course, could blow up in the Dems' faces if they push the issue, and really isn't appropriate for a political campaign. With that said, though, evidently someone forgot to send the Repubs the memo. The daughter has been paraded around the convention for days. I can see her wanting to be on the stage during her mother's acceptance speech, and during McCain's acceptance speech, but she's literally been seen all around the convention this week. I'm not suggesting that she should be hid off camera somewhere, or that she should feel shame or embarassment over her situation - she shouldn't, as these things happen. But, if the Dems don't want to make this an issue, it does seem like the Repubs very much do want to make this an issue. What I don't understand is why she was there on an airport tarmac welcoming John McCain to the Twin Cities. McCain whispered something to her - the news broadcasts later said that he told her how sorry he was that she was in the spotlight and that was happening to her. But who's continually putting her in the spotlight? Is it the media who's making a big deal out of this, or are the Repubs using her and her situation for their own political gain? While it could be the media, there are some things the Repubs did this week to suggest that it's them doing the spotlighting. In addition to the tarmac thing, the McCain-Palin camp was awfully quick to release a press statement this week that the daughter and her boyfriend would be getting married. Kind of seemed like a way to calm any anxieties from conservative groups, and, for a campaign which is supposedly going to take on the "good old boy" groups, seemed like a good old boy strategy to employ.
6) Things I've learned about Repubs during the convention. A handful of things. First, that they aren't the best spellers - I saw a sign at McCain's acceptance speech last night which supported "The Mavrick." Also, they like more than country music. That to me was shocking - every Repub I know can name at least one Toby Keith song. When Trace Atkins, he of "Honky Tonk Badonkadonk" fame, sang the National Anthem last night, that wasn't a shocker. But, when the speech was over last night, and the usual stirring patriotic music was over, did you hear what was being played? I heard Heart's "Barracuda" - seriously. Now, most politicans bypass the lyrics of a song - Reagan was fond for using Springsteen's "Born in the USA" during the 1984 campaign, for example - if he'd listen to the lyrics a little more closely, he wouldn't have been so quick to latch on to that song. But, "Barracuda"? I can usually make a mountain out of a molehill, but this one leaves me scratching my head. Who knew they liked classic rock? Third, I think they drink more - a LOT more - then the dems. I frequent a bar a few blocks east of the Xcel, and was there Monday night. The theme of Monday night's convention was pretty somber, as people were unsure of what Hurricane Gustav would do. Evidently those concerns were gone when the official business was done, though - at the bar, I met delegates from Maine, Alabama, and Missouri who were pie-eyed and having a great old time. I've seen liberals drink before - and they do drink liberally - but the liberals ain't got nothing on them. Lastly, they're opposed to all forms of pornography - including bird porn. I was of two minds when I first heard that term - first, a curiousity over what bird porn was, and secondly, a little voice in the back of my mind not wanting to know what it is. But, three people carrying signs for banning bird porn came into the bar on Monday night, and enquiring minds wanted to know. Bird porn is nothing sexual - it involves ardent bird watchers going to places where they shouldn't be - private property, public lands used by hunters, etc. - and ogling birds. Bird porn advocates want that type of behavior banned, and a member of the Maine delegation agreed. Shortly after that, though, the delegate engaged the bird porn group in a discussion of the assets of one of the waitresses. Ogling of the species: bad for birds, good for humans, evidently.

All-Time Football Team

So, with the NFL season soon to start, I've decided to put out my all-time football team. Like the previous baseball team posting, I'll limit myself to players whose rookie seasons were on or after my birth year. I'll be running this like the Pro Bowl rosters - starters and reserves, offense and defense. Here we go:

Offense:

Wide Receivers: Jerry Rice, San Francisco 49ers, Steve Largent, Seattle Seahawks. Rice is, of course, a no-brainer, as he's the most dominant wide receiver to ever play the game. Largent may seem to be an odd choice, given the other wideouts I could have here. But, the main reason why I chose Largent is that he's arguably the greatest possession receiver in the history of the NFL. He wasn't fast, and he didn't have great jumping ability. Rather, what he had was great hands and very precise routes. Reserves: Cris Carter, Minnesota Vikings, Art Monk, Washington Redskins.

Tight End: Tony Gonzalez, Kansas City Chiefs. There may be a general outcry from people my age who remember Kellen Winslow. But, like Winslow, Gonzalez redefined the tight end position. Gonzalez is a great blocker (as evidenced by the rushing seasons both Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson have had), and is a great receiver. This is the same thing often said about Winslow, but the distinction between Gonzalez and Winslow is that Gonzo has done it better for longer. Reserve: Kellen Winslow, San Diego Chargers.

Tackles: Anthony Munoz, Cincinnati Bengals, Jonathan Ogden, Baltimore Ravens. Munoz is considered to be the best tackle ever to play the game, and Ogden is a current player who's beenm dominant at the position for several years. Reserve: Gary Zimmerman, Minnesota Vikings/Denver Broncos.

Guards: John Hannah, New England Patriots, Mike Munchak, Houston Oilers. Hannah is probably the best guard to play in the 1980s, and Munchak is probably the best all-around O-lineman of the 1990s. O-linemen aren't exactly the most glamorous of folks, so let's just say that these two were the best. Reserve: Randall McDaniel, Minnesota Vikings.

Center: Mike Webster, Pittsburgh Steelers. The late great Webster of Steel Curtain fame gets the nod over Dwight Stephenson of the fish. Reserve: Dwight Stephenson, Miami Dolphins.

Quarterback: Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers. I'm of the opinion that QBs need more brains than guts, so this is why Montana is at the top (and why dim-witted gunslingers like Favre and Marino aren't even listed as reserves). I'll grant that you do need the stats - passer rating, career touchdowns and yards - to make the list as a very good quarterback. But, to make the list as a great quarterback, you also need moxy, drive, strategy, and grace under pressure. Montana had that in spades. Reserves: John Elway, Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts.

Running Backs: Barry Sanders, Detroit Lions, Walter Payton, Chicago Bears. There have been a lot of great running backs over the past 36 years, but these two are the best. Sanders had the best vision and cut of any back, and Payton had the mix of speed and power. Reserves: Emmitt Smith, Dallas Cowboys, Earl Campbell, Houston Oilers.

Kicker: Morten Andersen, New Orleans Saints. Did I have to really talk about a kicker? I don't think so.

Defense:

Defensive End: Bruce Smith, Buffalo Bills, Reggie White, Philadelphia Eagles/Green Bay Packers. The two best DEs of the late 80s to mid 90s. Smith was pure brutuality, and White had speed and strength. Reserves: Michael Strahan, New York Giants, Lee Roy Selmon, Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Defensive Tackles: Randy White, Dallas Cowboys, Dan Hampton, Chicago Bears. I'm cheating a little, as Hampton played both DE and DT, but these two were the best I've seen at the position. Reserve: Kevin Williams, Minnesota Vikings.

Linebackers: Junior Seau, San Diego Chargers, Mike Singletary, Chicago Bears, Lawrence Taylor, New York Giants. Like running backs, there are a lot of great linbackers to consider, but these three stand out. Seau's probably the best all-around linebacker of the group, Singletary's the best run stopper and defensive captain, and LT redefined the outside linbacker position. Reserves: Harry Carson, New York Giants, Jack Lambert, Pittsburgh Steelers, Andre Tippett, New England Patriots.

Defensive Backs: Mike Haynes, Oakland Raiders, Deion Sanders, Atlanta/Dallas/San Fran. Haynes was quiet, steady, and dominant; Sanders was flashy and quick. But, both were able to control their half of the field for several years. Reserve: Darrell Green, Washington Redskins.

Safeties: Ronnie Lott, San Francisco 49ers, John Lynch, Denver Broncos. Safeties have to be able to cover a considerable amount of ground, break up pass plays, come up to help with the pass rush, and, most importantly, put the fear of God into offensive skill players. Lott was the best to do that - knocking down and knocking out wide outs, backs, and tight ends. Lynch comes in at a close second. Reserve: Jack Tatum, Oakland Raiders.

Punter: Ray Guy, Oakland Raiders.

Best bars in Saint Paul

Ok, so I've been back in town for over a year now, and decided to put together a top ten of my favorite bars in the StP. These are based pretty much on bars being bars - I'm not really factoring any other things, such as live music (as I'm too old for that - the Turf Club on University just off of Snelling is the best for that, though) and good food (still gotta say that Dixie's, on Grand inbetween Victoria and Dale, still has the best food for a bar in the Twin Cities, not just Saint Paul). Why no Minneapolis bars? Well, why the hell would you want to go to Minneapolis? That city sucks - depending on the bar, you could find yourself in the middle of a throng of hipsters trying really, really hard to be something they're clearly not (like special, important, or artistic - they have pretentious down to an exact science, though) or in the middle of some really dicey and scary establishments. That, and I can't say that I've ever been fond of the prices at Minneapolis bars - a bit too high for the exact same thing. Why pay $5.50 for a pint of domestic beer in Shittyapolis when you could spend $3.00 for the same size and flavor in Saint Paul? I will give Minneapolis credit for one thing, though - one of my all-time favorite bars is in Minneapolis. Bullwinkle's in the seven corners area of Minneapolis (aka, near Dinkytown) is great - low key, good prices, and lots and lots of wood paneling. Tacky, yes, but also fun. Also, Stub and Herb's, in the heart of Dinkytown, nearby Marucci arena, is great fun as well. As you can tell, the best bars in Mpls. are near the University of Minnesota.

Anyhow, here's the list of the best bars, in my opinion, in Saint Paul. Semi-exact locations and parts of the city in which they can be found are also included.

10) Sweeney's (Dale Street, inbetween Grand and Selby, Mac-Groveland). College bar that I frequented numerous times as undergrad and grad student. It can be a bit packed during the school year, but during the breaks, it's a fun place to go to. Great back rooms in that place - a great outdoor deck for the spring and summer, and a good back room, complete with fireplace, for the winter. I'll concede that it can get a bit stuffy in there - that part of Saint Paul was extensively redone in the 80s, and there are million dollar townhouses down the street from Sweeney's on Cathedral Hill, so it can be bobo central at times. But, the owners of the place try to keep at as much of a traditional neighborhood bar feel as possible.
9) Dubliner Cafe (Vandalia and University). There are tons of Irish in Saint Paul, so there are bound to be Irish pubs - or pubs that try to be Irish - in the city. The Dubliner is about as genuinely Irish as you can get. Great live music, cheap beer, and a fun atmosphere - the only issue is that it's in kind of a dicey neighborhood. Lots of patrons, though, so there are very few problems there.
8) Eagle Street Cafe (Seventh and Kellogg, right across from the Xcel Energy Center). Love the Eagle Street - cozy little bar, its location makes for good people watching, good prices for a bar so close to the X, and one of the best wait staffs in Saint Paul (except for the bar at the number one spot) - they're fast, and they remember drink orders. I've never had a waitress or waiter give me the wrong beer if all they ask is if I'd like another. The only problems with the Eagle Street is its location and size - it's directly across the street from the X, so parking is a nightmare. That, and it's so small that if there's an event going on at the X (concert, circus, Wild game, etc), that place will be packed.
7) Cab's Pub and Eatery (on Arcade Street, east side). Cab's is just good plain fun - tons of 80s arcade games, pool tables, dart boards. Cheap beer, too - usually $3 for a domestic tap. The problem, though, is the location - the East Side is the rough and tumble part of the StP, and although most people will leave you be if you leave them be, there's still a chance that a fight (or something worse) could break out.
6) Mancini's (West 7th Street, near downtown). Mancini's is principally known as a great restaurant - and it is, with the best steak, fish, seafood, and Italian food in the city. But it's also got a great bar and lounge area. It's your classic, high-end Italian restuarant look - lots of red velvet, thick red shag carpet, strings of lights everywhere. While Mancini's is a high-end restuarant, the prices inside their bar/lounge aren't - great prices all on kinds of drinks, and their appetizers are the best in town (the garlic bread, which clocks in at $6 per order, is awesome). That, and they've got one of the friendiest staffs in town - nice, polite, and outgoing.
5) Shamrock's (West 7th Street and Randolph - on the fringes of Highland Park). Starting to like Shamrock's more and more. Most StP ers and Twin Cities residents are more aware of the smaller bar down 2 1/2 miles on Randolph from Shamrocks - the Nook. Both bars are owned by the same people, though - mainly, the third generations of the Caspers, known for their Cherokee sirolin rooms in the Saint Paul area (I know Dan Casper, one of the owners. That woun't get you a free drink, though). Take the same fun atmopshere of the Nook and multiply the size of the Nook by 10 times, and you've got Shamrock's. Shamrock's is a huge bar, great customers, fast and efficient bartenders, and just a fun place to go to have a beer. Just remember to watch out for the cops on 7th street, though - behave yourselves if you go.
4) Tavern on Grand (or, the Grand Tavern. On Grand, near Dale, Mac-Groveland). I don't know if they now call it Grand Tavern, or if it's still Tavern on Grand, but either way, this place is awesome. There's a lot of competition for bar business on Grand and near Grand - Muddy Pig, Sweeney's, Dixie's, Billy's, the Wild Onion - but this is by far my favorite Grand Ave. bar. The clientle is pretty mixed, so it's a pretty fun and energetic atmosphere. Great drink prices, and if you're hungry, some of the best food in town.
3) Half-Time Rec (on Front Street, just off of Lexington, Como area - which is the part of Saint Paul I grew up in). I grew up near the Rec, which underwent major renovations in the late 80s. Before the renovations, it was a crappy, run-down hole in the wall that from all accounts was a scary place to be, regardless of the time of day. Now, it's still a little run-down, but the seediness is gone. The Como area was a huge melting pot of Irish, Italian, French, and Polish immigrants, and you can get that feel walking into that bar. It's an odd mix inside the bar as well - it's a mix of white and blue collar patrons, locals and people who travel 10+ miles to get there, and it's a fun, welcoming atmosphere. It's predominantly an Irish bar, and of the times I've been there, the only incidents I've seen come from when people express anti-Irish sentiments or are wearing orange (which isn't the smartest idea to do in an Irish pub - orange is typically associated with Irish protestants, which is a no-no in an Irish Catholic area like Saint Paul). But, you can't put a price on atmosphere, which is why the Rec is so high on the list.
2) Patrick McGovern's (West Seventh Street, right before downtown). The downtown Saint Paul area is known for keeping up turn of the 20th century buildings and keeping them in good shape - huge buildings with great architecture, old, elaborate Victorian designs, and so on. McGovern's is located in a building like this, and is quite possibly the most fun bar to go to in Saint Paul (but, not quite, in my opinion - more below). Three stories of fun plus a patio that's open from spring through fall. Great location just outside of downtown Saint Paul, great drink prices, friendly patrons and wait staff, lots of wide screen TVs, and just a friendly and fun atmosphere. Parking can be a bit of a pain, but overall, the difficulty in finding a parking spot is more than made up for once you hit the bar.
1) Alary's (West Seventh Street, in between Jackson and Robert, downtown Saint Paul). Hands down, the best bar in Saint Paul. Now, I'll concede that they do cater to a specific group of people - cops and firefighters, specifically - but everyone is welcome there (that, and I've never seen a single altercation there, either - go figure, with all the cops and firefighters around). It's a bar like McGovern's, in that it's located in a well preserved late 19th/early 20th century bullding, but it's got much more to offer than McGoverns. Cheap beer ($3 a pint), friendly people, and what I can only describe as an interesting way to watch TV. Any bar, of course, will be packed during a football, baseball, or hockey game, and Alary's is no different - cheering, yelling, screaming, etc. But, what's really interesting in that bar is people do the same for Deal or No Deal and the primetime versions of The Price is Right - what's more, I was in there the night of the last Miss America pagaent, and people were doing the same. Fun, laid-back atmosphere, and the prices are great - all of these primarly come from the bartenders, who are located behind a huge, old-fashioned wood bar (designed in a square, can probably seat a good 50 people, if not more). That, and there's ample parking.

All-time Baseball Team

With the 2008 All-Star teams announcements made today, I started to think about which players might be on an all-star team of my creation - kind of like a spin on the What If? sports website. So, below are my picks for an all-star team to field - personal favorites, best in the game, and so on. To make it a level playing field, though, I decided to limit myself in two ways: first, I'd limit the team to players whose rookie season was on or after my birth year of 1972. Second, since we're in the throes of the "steroid" era of baseball, I've also eliminated those players who have tested positive for steroid use in their career (such as Rafael Palmerio, who would have had a shot at first base). For those who have had accusations, and pretty strong ones, sent their way, I've excluded their possible steroid using years, and the stats compiled during those years (roughly, from the late 1990s to 2007). It's going to be impossible long-term for anyone to determine who was or wasn't using during that time, and for how long, unless the players involved come clean. So, to play it safe, I'll exclude some of those players' years in my discussion to follow.

Catcher: Ivan Rodriguez, Texas Rangers (also played with the Florida Marlins and Detroit Tigers). I am passing up two Hall of Fame catchers here - both Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter were rookies after I was born, but I still had to go with Pudge here. Granted, he doesn't have Fisk's power stats, but Rodriquez is a former MVP, multiple time all-star, and will likely finish his career around 2,500 hits and 250 home runs. But what sells Pudge to me is his combination of offense and defense - not only is he one of the best offensive catchers to play the game, he's argubly the best defensive catcher in the past thirty years. That, and teams like the Marlins and Tigers acquired Pudge to help develop a young pitching staff - seeing how he's caught for two World Series teams (he caught for the first Marlins World Series team, and caught for the Tigers team that made the Series two years ago), he's been successful at it. Honorable Mention: Gary Carter, Montreal Expos/New York Mets, Carlton Fisk, Boston Red Soxs/Chicago White Soxs, Mike Piazza, New York Mets.

First Base: Eddie Murray, Baltimore Orioles. Why Eddie Murray? One main reason: he's one of only a handful (a total of three, I think: Mays and Aaron may be the other two) players with 3,000 career hits and 500 career home runs. Not too bad for career numbers there. He was overshadowed on his own team by Cal Ripken, Jr., but Eddie Murray is one of the best hitters to play the game. Honorable Mention: Steve Garvey, Los Angeles Dodgers, Keith Hernandez, St. Louis Cardinals/New York Mets, Frank Thomas, Chicago White Soxs/Oakland A's/Toronto Blue Jays, Jim Thome, Cleveland Indians/Philadelphia Phillies/Chicago White Soxs.

Second Base: Craig Biggio, Houston Astros. Biggio's one of those players who is so steady you could forget about him (as I did). Biggio is a ball player in every sense of the word - solid offense and defense, good clubhouse guy. While some second baseman of this era had more flash and more power (Sandberg and Alomar, especially), Biggio has something they don't: 3,000 career hits. Granted, he also spent time in the outfield and came up to the bigs as a catcher, but he's most known as a second baseman, and one of the better ones I've seen. Honorable Mention: Roberto Alomar, San Diego Padres/Toronto Blue Jays, Ryne Sandberg, Chicago Cubs, Lou Whitaker, Detroit Tigers, Frank White, Kansas City Royals.

Shortstop: Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees (also played for Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers). This one could be very debatable: A-Rod has played third base for close to five years now, and how could I pass up a guy like Cal Ripken? Well, in A-Rod's defense, I think he's already established himself as one of the best to ever play the game, and I think once he's done, he'll be in the top three or four players who people will point to as the best ever (Ruth, Williams, Aaron territory). That, and keep one thing in mind with the Iron man: he played his last five or six years at third. A-Rod's career will most likely be split between the two spots, but I still would list him as the best shortstop I ever saw. Honorable Mention: Derek Jeter, New York Yankees, Cal Ripken, Jr., Baltimore Orioles, Ozzie Smith, St. Louis Cardinals, Alan Trammell, Detroit Tigers.

Third Base: Mike Schmidt, Philadelphia Phillies. This is the great debate amongst baseball fans my age, those who grew up in the 1980s: Schmidt or Brett - who's better? They were pretty equal in the 1980s - Schmidt's MVP awards were balanced by Brett's batting titles, Brett's 3,000 hits were matched by Schmidt's 500 home runs. That makes them pretty much a wash, so to decide between the two, I look at another category: defensive. While Brett was an average third baseman, Schmidt excelled defensively, winning a handful of Gold Gloves for that position. That, in my opinion, gives Schmidt the nod over Brett. Honorable Mention: Wade Boggs, Boston Red Soxs, George Brett, Kansas City Royals, Chipper Jones, Atlanta Braves.

Outfield: Ken Griffey, Jr., Seattle Mariners (also played for Cincinnati Reds), Tony Gwynn (San Diego Padres), Rickey Henderson, Oakland A's (also played for New York Yankees and at leats four more teams). Not a bad group here: Griffey now has 600+ career home runs, was great defensively, and is considered to be one of the most natural and gifted ball players ever. Gwynn, in addition to Brett, is probably one of the best pure hitters of my generation, and was also a great defensive outfielder. Henderson was a rare player - hit for average, hit for power, and was incredibly fast. That, and you have to love a guy that refers to himself in the third person. I must admit, though, that I feel bad leaving Barry Bonds off this list - he's one of the most naturally talented players ever, but the whole steroid issue has me a bit concerned; I had to lop off some of his most productive years, which gave the nod to these three. Honorable Mention: Barry Bonds, Pittsburgh Pirates/San Francisco Giants, Andre Dawson, Montreal Expos/Chicago Cubs, Dale Murphy, Atlanta Braves/Philadelphia Phillies, Kirby Puckett, Minnesota Twins, Manny Ramirez, Cleveland Indians/Boston Red Soxs, Jim Rice, Boston Red Soxs, Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle Mariners, Willie Wilson, Kansas City Royals, Dave Winfield, San Diego Padres/New York Yankees/Toronto Blue Jays/Minnesota Twins, Robin Yount, Milwaukee Brewers.

Designated Hitter: Paul Molitor, Milwaukee Brewers (also played for Toronto Blue Jays and Minnesota Twins). Since I'm an AL guy, had to go with the DH, Molitor's argubaly the best DH ever - hit for great average throughout his career, and a Hall of Famer. That, and he's a Saint Paul guy. Honorable Mention: Edgar Martinez, Seattle Mariners.

Starting Pitcher: Greg Maddux, Atlanta Braves (also played for Chicago Cubs and San Diego Padres). I would have loved to put Roger Clemens here - but, like Bonds, I had to exclude him because of strong steroid allegations. But, Maddux is an equally good choice. Maddux is probably one of the smartest pitchers to ever play the game - 350 career wins and 3,000 + career strikeouts with only marginal stuff. He's got the mantra of a real estate agent - location, location, location. Hands out, the craftiest pitcher since Steve Carlton. Honorable Mention: Roger Clemens, Boston Red Soxs, Tom Glavine, Atlanta Braves/New York Mets, Randy Johnson, Montreal Expos/Seattle Mariners/Arizona Diamondbacks/New York Yankees, Pedro Martinez, Montreal Expos/Boston Red Soxs/New York Mets, Mike Mussina, Baltimore Orioles/New York Yankees, Johan Santana, Minnesota Twins/New York Mets, Curt Schilling, Baltimore Orioles/Philadelphia Phillies/Arizona Diamondbacks/Boston Red Soxs.

Closer: Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees. I was thinking about Eck here as well, but I think Rivera is the most dominant closer ever. Think about it - that guy pretty much has been using the same pitch for well over a decade - the cutter - and he still gets a ton of saves. That, and several of his career saves have been more than just one inning saves - several have been 1 1/2 to 2 innings. The guy is pretty much indestructable - except in the postseason. Honorable Mention: Dennis Eckersely, Oakland A's/Cleveland Indians (among others), Rich "Goose" Gossage, New York Yankees/San Diego Padres, Trevor Hoffman, San Diego Padres, Lee Smith, Chicago Cubs, among others, Bruce Sutter, St. Louis Cardinals/Chicago Cubs.

So, Let's Try This Again ... For the Third Time

The last two blogs I've done I let die out - I was kind of bored with them, posting personal stuff and activites I've been up to. Let's be ffrank - I'm not exactly an international man of mystery here. But, I've been reading other blogs dedicated to people's interests, and I've decided to go after that route instead. So, I'll be blogging about some of my favorite things: books, movies, TV shows, music, sports, and pop culture. And, as you can tell from the blog's title, it'll be a random mix of things.

We've all probably had those nights when we've been hunched over drinks at a local tavern, talking with friends about the things we'd want to bring with us on a desert island, which books are better than others, and so on. I just did that last night for the first time in a while, so I decided to organize my postings around that idea, in a list format.

To kick things off, I'm a huge movie fan, and I always find myself renting or buying and watching films with memorable characters. So, for that reason, I'll be starting off with a top ten list of a group of characters who are vital in making a good flick: scene stealers and key characters no movie can do without. So, my list of all-time favorite supporting actor roles in film.

10) Marty Feldman as "Igor" in Young Frankenstein. I don't think you can go wrong with this movie; yes, it's kind of cheesy, and it's kind of dated, but it's still pretty funny. Feldman steals the show, and his role is the most memorable from the movie. You gotta love a scene stealer, so I had to put him in at 10.
9) Ben Kingsley as "Ben O'Ryan" in Suspect Zero. I know most people would list Kinglsey's role as Don Logan in Sexy Beast here, but there's something about Kinglsey's performance in this movie that makes me give the nod to this character. Suspect Zero was an indy flick from a few years back, and in case you haven't seen it, and for me not to spoil it for you, Ben O'Ryan was (maybe) a remoter viewer trained by the FBI. O'Ryan's speciality was tracking down serial killers - as the film progresses, it's unclear if he himself is a serial killer or if he is still trying to track them down. This is a pretty creepy performance from Kingsley, and I think a stronger one than his role in Sexy Beast.
8) Jason Miller as "Father Damian Karras" in The Excorist. Yet another creepy one here, but I think Miller hit it out of the park in this movie. What's particularly striking about Miller's character are the contradictions he needs to resolve in this movie. While he's a man of science - a trained psychologist who looks for verifiable data - he's also a man of faith as an ordained Jesuit priest. Also, although he has dedicated his life to the priesthood, and still feels guilt at leaving his aged and sickly mother to live alone in run-down neighborhood. When he encounters the possessed young girl, and the older, more experienced priest sent to perform the ritual, these tensions come to a head. The final twenty-five minutes or so really sell this character to me: watching Fr. Karras be continually tested and ultimately unravel is one of the more suspenseful scenes in a movie loaded with suspense.
7) Lee Strasberg as "Hyman Roth" in The Godfather, Part II. I think a debate over which of the first two Godfather flicks is very viable. While Part One is complete in itself, Part II has so many strong story lines woven masterfully together and so many great characters. While DeNiro's role in this film won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, there are several other great ones - Robert Duvall as Tom Hayden, Michael Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli, and John Cazale as Fredo Corleone. But for me, Lee Strasberg's performance as the Meyer Lansky-esque Hyman Roth stands out. Strasberg was a long-time acting teacher, and one of his most famous students (Al Pacino) helped to get him this role. But, Strasberg delivered in this part. One of the more memorable scenes from this movie is when Michael Corleone (Pacino) confronts Roth about a possible hit on one of Roth's associates. The fierceness in Strasberg's eyes, combined with a slow delivery of lines about Roth's former associate Moe Green, is one of the more memorable scenes from that great movie.
6) Javier Bardem as "Anton Chigurh" in No Country for Old Men. Yeah, it may seem like a trendy pick, as Bardem just won the Oscar for his performance in this movie. But, for those of you who saw this movie, ask yourself this: what do you remember the most about this movie? Chances are pretty good that it's a scene featuring Bardem. While you could very easily posit Chigurh as the villian of this film, or as the anti-hero, what really grabs me about his performance is how closely this character adheres to characteristics of a cowboy figure/character. That's one of the things which really grabbed me about this character -although his character seems to be the exact opposite of Tommy Lee Jones's character, who's arguably the hero of the film (it's even down to a standard Western cliche - Bardem's character dresses all in black, whereas Jones's character is rarely seen without his white Stetson), Chigurh nonetheless adheres to a strict code, and the code strikes me as something coming out of a dime Western novel - but it's also a bit twisted.
5) Robert Duvall as "Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore" in Apocalypse Now. Yes, he's got the famous line of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," but this is also another memorable performance in a film loaded with memorable performances. Kilgore seems like a character who embodies the paradox of the American experience in Vietnam - while he recognizes that he's in an foreign land, he still insists on making this land as American as possible, while he recognizes that this war is dangerous for his men, he still puts them in harm's way, while he knows he's in the jungles of Vietnam fighting an enemy who is indistinguishable from innocent civilians, he still insists on using outdated, WWII-era mentalities and strategies in combat - i.e., bomb them back into the stone age. The scene where Kilgore makes his men surf during a firefight is a prime example of this.
4) Samuel L. Jackson as "Jules Winfield" in Pulp Fiction. Loved this character in this movie. The dialogue between Winfield and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) is incredible in this movie. In addition to the killer dialogue written for Jackson's character in this film is the transformation of his character as the film comes to an end.
3) Joe Pesci as "Tommy DeVito" in Goodfellas. You can't go wrong with this pick - Pesci is this movie. Goodfellas is one of Martin Scorcese's best films, and while there is a great cast for this movie, it's Pesci who steals the show. Yes, he's got the great, memorable lines in this movie, but the balance the character shows between being a devoted friend and a ruthless mobster and as a family man and a raging psychopath makes for a compelling character.
2) Kevin Spacey as "Verbal Kint" in The Usual Suspects. This is one of my favorite movies - even though I know the twist at the end is coming (and I won't spoil it for people who haven't seen it), I still never get tired of watching this movie. The main selling point to me is Spacey's performance: as a viewer, I find myself rooting for Kint, being disgusted by him, feeling pity for him, being afraid for him, and thinking of him, at alternate times of the film, as a smart man and as a complete idiot. I stick to Hitchcock's definition of suspense as playing with audience's emotions throughout a film - knowing that something's about to happen and the audience has no way to stop it. In this performance, Spacey plays the audience like a organ, which makes for a great film.

And, in my opinion, the great supporting actor role of all-time goes to ....

1) Joseph Cotton as "Jedediah Leland" in Citizen Kane. Cotton was one of those actors who fit best in an ensemble cast - other notable Cotton roles include great casts in Shadow of a Doubt, The Third Man, and Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte. But, if you want to talk about the utlimate ensemble cast, it's Citizen Kane. Cotton never got the accolades that Orson Welles did, which I think is unfortunate. The character of Jed Leland does what a good supporting character should do - react to and be the opposite of the lead character in a film. Jed Leland is the opposite of Charles Foster Kane in every way - in a sense, Leland acts as the conscience that Kane very desperately needs. It's perhaps no coincedence that Kane's character begins his downward spiral once he fires Leland and kicks Leland out of his life. Cotton plays this role in such a way that he helps to make a man who looks very much like a tyrant (Welles's Kane character) seem flawed, human, and redeemable.