11/22/63 by Stephen King

I am and I'm not a big Stephen King fan. Some books I absolutely love (Under The Dome, The Stand, Insomnia, Bag Of Bones) and some I just can't even finish (Tommyknockers). So it's hit or miss on if I'll pick up a King book. This one sounded interesting. And it was. I wouldn't even call it a horror story. The official description reads:

On November 22, 1963, three shots rang out in Dallas, President Kennedy died, and the world changed. What if you could change it back? Stephen King’s heart-stoppingly dramatic new novel is about a man who travels back in time to prevent the JFK assassination—a thousand page tour de force. Following his massively successful novel Under the Dome, King sweeps readers back in time to another moment—a real life moment—when everything went wrong: the JFK assassination. And he introduces readers to a character who has the power to change the course of history. Jake Epping is a thirty-five-year-old high school English teacher in Lisbon Falls, Maine, who makes extra money teaching adults in the GED program. He receives an essay from one of the students—a gruesome, harrowing first person story about the night 50 years ago when Harry Dunning’s father came home and killed his mother, his sister, and his brother with a hammer. Harry escaped with a smashed leg, as evidenced by his crooked walk. Not much later, Jake’s friend Al, who runs the local diner, divulges a secret: his storeroom is a portal to 1958. He enlists Jake on an insane—and insanely possible—mission to try to prevent the Kennedy assassination. So begins Jake’s new life as George Amberson and his new world of Elvis and JFK, of big American cars and sock hops, of a troubled loner named Lee Harvey Oswald and a beautiful high school librarian named Sadie Dunhill, who becomes the love of Jake’s life—a life that transgresses all the normal rules of time. A tribute to a simpler era and a devastating exercise in escalating suspense, 11/22/63 is Stephen King at his epic best.

This was a good book. I really enjoyed it. King does a great job of describing the time from 1958 to 1963. He doesn't hold back either. It's there in all it's glory as well as it's shadows.

When I first held the book I was surprised at how thick it was. I couldn't imagine how King could make such a big book out of the premise. It seemed pretty cut and dry. But this is Stephen King and this book shows just how good of a writer he really is.

Surprisingly the parts of the book I liked best were the parts about Jake just living in that time. The parts with him and Sadie. The book seemed to bog down at the Oswald parts, where Jake spied on him and did his research.

The parts about Jake living? Good stuff. It was all good, but the "side" stuff, the stuff not involving the main part (stopping Oswald) was the best.

And since it was King, there is a horror element to it. It tells us that sometimes things happen for a reason and well it might have seemed a major mistake, it might have been the best alternative.

There's a neat little surprise in here for fans of It, as King revisits Derry briefly. I definately got a kick out of it and I like these little touches that show off King's "shared" universe.

King fans will enjoy this and non-King fans should check it out as well.

Classless At The Draft

Why is the NFL draft at Radio City Music Hall in New York every year? After the disrespect that the fans there have showed for the game, it should be moved. Make it rotating around all 32 NFL cities. Why can't this happen? Booing the commissioner? Why? Booing other teams? Why? When Troy Brown got booed when he read the Patriots 2nd round pick, I think he should have flashed his Super Bowl ring. Shut those Jets fans right up. It's a serious sign of disrespect to the sport to boo like that. Way to show class New York.

18 Games? Yes Please!

I love football. I miss football. I live on the couch watching football all days on Sunday during the season. If there are plans, my girlfriend knows to not schedule them during Patriots games.

I understand that it's a violent game. People get injured and it's being discovered that there are long term affects from playing the game.

The NFL wants to add 2 more games to the schedule, making it 18 total. As a compromise they'll take away 2 of the preseason games. Right now there are 20 games total and with the new proposal there will still be 20 games total.

Yes, preseason games are not real football games, they're live action try-outs for back-ups, new schemes, new players, etc..

Those opposed to the 18 games keep citing injury and call the NFL hypocrites for on one hand saying they want to promote player safety and on the other hand wanting two more games that would be two more additional times for players to get hurt.

I fail to see where the hypocrisy lies. Why can't the game be made safer and at the same time add a couple more?

Of course it's about money. That's why the owners own the teams and thats why the players play. Money.

The hypocrisy angle makes no sense. If you make the game safer to play, then the risk of injury in the two additional games is lower. There will always be a risk of injury in football, it's a violent game.

That will never change.

But the players CHOOSE to play the game. They understand the risks. They have always understood the risks. But they still choose to play the game. I know what the risk is when I speed or climb up onto the roof and jump into the pool like I did as a kid. But I chose to take those risks, the consequences are on me.

Football players choose to play this very violent game. They know what can happen and they still choose to play. So they know what can happen when they get older. They are choosing to face those risks.

I know what can happen when go on a construction site. I choose to accept those risks.

So I just don't understand the "more injury" angle. So? They take that risk in the 16 games now. Will 2 more really be tempting fate that much? Probably not. Career ending injuries happen off the field all the time (Robert Edwards). I don't see how 2 more games will really cause that many more injuries ESPECIALLY if you end up making the game safer in the first place.

It seems more of a win/win. Players get two additional games of income. Owners get two additional games of income. Fans get two more games to watch.

One of the things that I love about Football over Hockey, Baseball and Basketball is that Football only has the 16 (18) games. Every single game counts. The Red Sox are 1 and 5 right now but it's not panic time just yet, it's a long season. Not in football. In the NFL, 1 and 5 means you're most likely missing the playoffs, your season is essentially over.

Every game counts.

Two more games won't adversely affect that. It would actually make it more interesting, making the middle of the season more intriguing becuase those two extra games means more teams will have a shot at the playoffs for longer.

Players getting worn out? There's a solution for that that would benefit the league and the fans in the long run.

The solution? Add more players.

Have teams make the decision to play their starters for all 18 games or borrow something from baseball and have the back-ups play a couple games mid-season or near the end. Why wouldn't that work?

The benefit? The back-up QB, for example, gets meaningful playing time which lets him develop a bigger body of work and makes him more interesting to team's looking at him as a potential starter. Matt Flynn got a big payday off 2 games performances. What would have happened if he had had more visible playing time?

The players have more players on the field in more meaningful playing time. Now instead of a back-up being a space filler, the back-up would need to play a couple of games and be good enough to really win. That makes them more valuable and means more money for them and the player's union.

This carries over to every position. That means more players in the League.

For the fans? I can't be the only one that isn't a star-watcher. I don't just watch football to see Brady throwing the ball to Welker. I love watching them, but I love watching football more. I'd still watch every game even if it was Ryan Mallett throwing to Donte Stallworth for two or three games.

And from a Fantasy Football standpoint? Things get infinitely more interesting. Now when drafting you have to take into account that players won't play all the games, instead of just byes, and you wouldn't necessarily know when that would be so would have to plan on it. Fantasy just got more interesting and challenging and fun.

I just can't see a negative to going to 18 games.

Fans get more football and more players to watch.
Owners get more football and more income.
Players get more income, more time off (less injury) with others playing meaningful games, and there are more people playing football.

What's the problem?

NFL Draft: The Biggest Crapshoot In The World

The NFL draft gets alot of attention. Not sure if it's deserving or not. I tend to just randomly check throughout the day (night now) and see who picked when and where and really pay attention to who the Patriots pick.

In the grand scheme of things it's a complete guessing game. No one know what is going to happen when these players play in their first NFL game. There's no way to tell.

Sure a player could be graded high, but if he goes to a crappy team who doesn't know how to use him right, he'll end up sucking and could be considered a bust.

So much about what makes a player good is who they're playing for, who they're playing with, what scheme they are playing under, etc.. That's why there are so many free agents that end up playing better with their new team and so many that end up playing worse.

There is just too much that goes into a player's development that it's impossible to guess how well they will do. So the draft is the world's biggest crapshoot. It's all guesswork and hopes and prayers. Would Tom Brady, a 7th round pick and the 1st or 2nd best QB in the league, be as good if he played for a different team?

That's what makes the draft rehashes such a waste of time. Sure we can look back and see what mistakes were made, but it's pointless to substitute players by looking at what we know now. There's still no gurantee that the player would be as good as they are now.

Mock drafts are funny. So much of it is guesswork and more often then not, even the experts like Mel Kiper, end up being wrong. Very wrong. Predicting who 32 teams will pick? Impossible.

But mocking what their needs are? That's fairly doable.

The Patriots pick 27th and 31st. Their biggest needs are Defensive Line, Linebacker and Cornerback. I'd like to see them trade out of the 27th spot and pick up more 2nd round picks (where I think the best value in the draft usually is) and another 1st for next year. The 31st pick should go DE, then 2nd round should be nothing but CBs.

Last year was very odd. They picked a couple of running backs and tight ends, and they already had Gronkowski and Hernandez. So the drafted TEs were more then likely never going to play. So why bother drafting them?

It was a waste of a draft.

Right now the Pats have 2 1s, 2 2s, 1 3 and 1 4. They should be able to get some good talent with those picks.

I'd like to see one of the 1st be traded and pick up another 2nd for this year. So would be 1 1, 3 2s, 1 3 and 1 4. DE, CB, CB, OL, RB, DE.

That's my hope.

The draft may be a major crapshoot, but at least it provides for a ton of reading material during the offseason.

A Touch Too Much?

A couple months ago Fox premiered a new show, Touch, starring Kiefer Sutherland. The basic premise of the show is that Kiefer is a single dad (wife died in the Towers on 9/11) and he has an autistic son. His son can see the patterns of the world, lives intertwined and crossing, as a series of numbers. Using those numbers he gets his dad (Kiefer) to help some situations come together the way they were meant to.

The first episode was good. As a wanna-be writer I can see how difficult it would be to make the various situations all come together in a way that works and still relate to the numbers that Jake (the son) gives Kiefer. I liked the first episode,it was well crafted, but was a bit worried about how well it would translate to a regular series.

The regular series (months after the first episode appeared) finally aired. We watched the second episode (the first being a rerun of the premiere from months ago) the other night.

It's still a well crafted show. It takes alot of work to make those divergent people all cross paths in the way needed and still provide motivation for why/how they get to where they are. Like the premiere, some of the connections feel forced, but it still comes across decently.

The show has potential, but not if it ends up being the same thing over and over. But I don't see what can be added to keep the show fresh.

It has some comparasions to Alcatraz. That show has the same plot ('63 returns to present day, must stop them) but there's some mysteries throughout and most of the episodes end up answering part of the questions or adding a new question. So it keeps the repeat premise fresh.

Touch needs that, but I can't see where/how it will come from. And any potential aspect added will only come across as forced. Which won't help the show at all.

Also, Kiefer is annoying. He says the same things over and over and over. Big negative.

The Sad Part Of TV Watching

What is the sad part? It's the time when all your shows are on hiatus. You've just watched a bunch of season finales and now have nothing but repeats to look forward to.

Months and months of repeats.

Yeah, occasionally you'll find the rare show that starts at this time of year and is decent. But that's rare.

I'm not a big tv watcher. For years would barely have it on. The most work it would get would be football Sundays. But recently, we (my girlfriend and I) have found some shows we actually enjoy. We'll DVR 'em and watch when we get a chance.

And as of last night, all our shows are on hiatus until the new season starts this fall. Now this does't include "fall back" shows, shows that we'll put on and watch but don't care if watch in order or on time. These are shows that will put on and watch if there's nothing else on.

What do we like for shows? Here's a quick run-down:

The Walking Dead
Alcatraz
Person Of Interest
Grimm
Lost Girl
The River
Touch (This is one of the rare shows that starts this time of year. First two episodes have been okay, but not sure if this will end up making the cut. The premise is quirky and I'll go into more depth on it in another post.)

The fall-back shows:
Storage Wars
Any of the housing shows (House Hunters, Property Virgins, etc..) on HGTV
Tosh.0
Duck Dynasty

The girlfriend also watchs Sons Of Anarchy, but because it was so far along in seasons, I won't be watching it unless we start getting it a season at a time. She also watched Dexter as well.

I'm hoping to be able to get ahold of A Game Of Thrones and watch the first season soon.

If you haven't been able to tell, we're not into the "one and done" kind of shows, the periodicals like CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, etc...

And we especially don't get into sitcoms.

We like the fantasy/action/adventure shows. We like shows that have depth. We like shows that are quirky. Basically the shows that not that many other people do.

Aside from Touch, which just started, only one of our shows is guranteed to be coming back next season: The Walking Dead.

We're both big fans of Firefly. Which of course only lasted one season. We keep hoping one of our favorite shows will become the next Lost or Buffy, lasting for awhile. It kind of sucks knowing we only have one show to look forward to next season. Can only hope we'll have more.

So this time of the year is now doubly sad for us.

Manning Should Have Been A Titan

People are talking about the Titans and 49ers as being the losers in the Manning sweepstakes, and they are, but it's not like they would have been huge winners if had gotten Manning.

The 49ers would be in the same boat as the Broncos, but not as badly. They wouldn't have been able to keep Alex Smith, and it looks like he's pissed at them for even looking at Manning and leaving anyways. But at least they had a back-up in place already, Colin Kaepernick. And their team was the closest to reaching the Super Bowl. Manning could have been the piece to put them over the bar.

Now they have to find a starting QB because the run at Manning will cost them Alex Smith.

The ones that would have gotten an almost equal cost vs gain ratio from signing Manning (and losing) are the Titans.

Signing Manning would have led to the release of Hasselbeck, and an 85% Manning is a slight upgrade to Hasselbeck. Jake Locker? He's not the starter to begin with and the Coach could always say "use it as an Aaron Rodgers situation". Rodgers sat behidn Favre for a couple of years before exploding onto the scene as a starter. Don't think Locker wouldn't have wanted to learn from Manning before pulling a Rodgers?

Now, the Locker situation still exists, but he's behind Hasselbeck again. Hasselbeck isn't going anywhere. Tennessee is a perfect situation for him, even if they did go after Manning.

For Manning, the better options would have been:

1- 49ers
2- Titans
3- Broncos

If he wanted to go to a team that would have the best shot at getting to the super bowl.