29.11.03
College football: Did not watch or listen to the Tech-UVa game. Maybe I should have, I know. But, as I have said elsewhere in this space, Tech hasn't done well when I watched. Maybe it wasn't that. Maybe they just suck on the road. And, for the record, I no longer believe. Or, more precisely, I'll start believeing again at spring practice. I certainly don't like Tech's chances (either against Ga Tech in Charlotte, or, probably more likely, against Colorado State in San Francisco) in their bowl. In other words, a completely worthless game, which is primarily named after its sponsor (and a city name thrown in, in the case of San Fran). Excuse me while I go somewhere and vomit.
In other analysis (I'm trying to be brief, because I really just want to go somewhere and get a drink. I certainly don't want to dwell on the Tech-UVa game too long.
So I'll just ask this: How the hell does Tech allow 28 points in the second half of that game? Huh? They were outscored by three touchdowns in the second half. Three fucking touchdowns! How does that happen! We are Virginia Tech! No one outscores us by three touchdowns in a half. Except this year, apparently. And except our rival, apparently. I think I'm going to be sick. Wake me when it's time for the maroon-white game. (As a side note, Tailgate Fever has noted that the orange effect, in a word, sucks (like many other initiatives on the part of the athletic department these days, like the condescending, worthy-of-Mountaineer-fan "Hokies Respect" campaign). The Hokie Update made the point that orange is our secondary colour, and if there were going to be a colour-out (like an orange effect, or a white-out), then it should be maroon. But having the healthy mix of maroon, orange and white gives the stands some visual character, in my view. If you want all orange, there's a school about 4 hours southwest of here that has adopted the informal nickname of "Big Orange". Go there. It's not a bad place (even if it does, apparently, endorse the notion of "separate but equal" in its athletic programs with regard to sex). But here at Virginia Tech, I would argue that white is our second colour, not orange. Sure, we wear uniforms with orange trim and/or orange numbers, but the same is true of white. Not only that, the teams don't suit up in the "Maroon-Orange game" in the springtime. The spring game is known as the "Maroon-white" game. Fine, the school lists its colours as "chicago maroon" and "burnt orange", without mentioning the huge role played by white in its colour scheme. Burnt orange isn't that prevalant, even if it is mentioned by the university. And the shirts that the university sells/gives out/I don't know what the deal is are ass-ugly. They make us look like the stereotypical Appalachian, a look that we here in Blacksburg prefer to reserve for our psychotic couch-burning rivals.
Some other quick thoughts:
With Tennessee and Georgia winning (and Florida having made a monstrous 3rd quarter comeback as I type, it looks like Georgia will represent the SEC East, since Florida is unlikely (it's possible, but not likely) to jump Tennessee in the BCS standings, and Georgia hammered Tennessee earlier in the season.
Proof that a tough non-conference schedule is a good thing: Southern Miss lost three games at Cal, at home against Nebraska and at Alabama (none of them were great this season, but two of them were good, and it's never easy to win at Alabama). They went through Conference USA like a knife through butter, going undefeated in conference play. Maybe Coach Beamer and AD Weaver can take notes, instead of scheduling patsies like Penn State did (Weaver is, apparently, an alum).
West Virginia clinches a share of the conference championship, and its slim hope of going to a BCS bowl are kept alive (WVU needs Pittsburgh to win close, I would think; it would affect the human polls in Pitt's favour if they won big). You didn't hear it here first, but enjoy Jacksonville, WVU. Hope NC State beats the crap out of you like they did Notre Dame last year (or like Virginia beat you last year).
Bowling Green won the right to host Miami of Ohio this coming Thursday for the MAC Championship. Since Miami already accepted a bowl invitation (GMAC, in Mobile, Alabama), does this game actually mean anything (I hate to ask this, too, given the fact that I'm a son of two Miami alumni)?
More later. R.
28.11.03
College Football: Good article this week at Tailgate Fever. It put together a three part series this week, with earlier parts being a Cavalier fan's view of the game, and an analysis of the BC loss. Always amusing and informative. A must read for any Hokie. Nowadays, I swear by it. It is always something that I read on Fridays.
Letters to the Editor, from the Roanoke Times: I didn't get around to reading the local fishwrap until a couple of hours ago, and found an interesting letter about Anglicanism, and an issue to which I hadn't given much thought. But I also read something yesterday, and thought I ought to make a note of it, even if I only post; if I only post, I give it my tacit agreement unless I explicitly disagree. In any case, here's an interesting letter from C.S. in Roanoke, published yesterday:
Your newspaper seems to back every tax-and-spend fantasy of the Roanoke City Council.
The $18 million-plus stadium for high school football games, when we have a good memorial stadium paid for, is a prime example of wasteful spending.
Victory Stadium, unless I'm mistaken, is the home of a local high school football team. It also hosts the Stagg Bowl every December (the Stagg Bowl is the NCAA division III championship). To be honest, I haven't followed this as closely as some up in the Roanoke valley (I'm out here in the New River Valley, and the Roanoke paper is almost our local paper by default; Blacksburg is little more than a distant suburb of Roanoke, if even that), so I'm not aware of all the issues. On its face, however, it does seem wasteful, especially if they can make use of Victory Stadium for several more years.
The beautification effort all over the city of vacant lots, centers of busy streets and who knows what's next. Williamson Road, one of the busiest traffic streets, is giving up a center lane so that we can look at grass while waiting for the traffic to move. All well and good. We need some beauty in our lives.
We need even more a city council determined to reduce taxes rather than increase them. Is council really in favor of all these projects being paid for by new taxes on the poor and senior citizens? We pay too much now for council stupidity.
How about mounting a campaign to replace the whole lot of them, including spendthrift City Manager Darlene Burcham?
Support the idea of making Roanoke a low-tax city, not just a beauty spot for the rich.
Yeah, I agree with all that. But, since he advocates revenue cuts, in which parts of the budget would he use the associated and necessary spending cuts? I am not conversant in the City of Roanoke's budget, so I can't say one way or another where spending should be cut.
In today's letters, Tom from Galax points out that we shouldn't elevate reason above Scripture:
In his enlightening and thought-provoking commentary (Nov. 16, "Don't bind Scripture in a straitjacket of mere culture"), Michael Sitton reminded us that Anglicans have historically considered issues in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason.
He speaks of these as a three-legged stool. Without any one of the legs, the stool collapses. He then goes on to say that reason has been neglected in the current debate within the church on homosexuality.
Sitton then correctly observes that Scripture and tradition are affected by the cultures in which they arose. What concerns me is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that reason is also affected by the culture in which the "reasoner" lives.
To be honest, I hadn't considered this about reason, but it is, in fact, correct. Reason has been used, over the centuries, in different contexts to prove different (even discordant) things. Prior to the 17th century, scientists used reason to prove that the universe was geocentric.
When one says that one's "interpretation [of Scripture] must be continually held up to the light of reason," it seems to imply that reason is all light with no darkness at all.
Without debating Sitton's conclusion on homosexuality and Christianity, I'm concerned about elevating reason above Scripture and the historic reflection on that Scripture, as if it were the pure and unstained standard by which we must live. To do so cuts off the other two legs of the stool, again leaving us with a very unstable place to sit.
This is an interesting point, which leads me to this question: am I wrong in stating that, considering that Christianity (of which Anglicanism is a part) follows biblical teachings, that biblical teaching (Scripture) should be given primacy? Since Tom suggests that we not elevate reason above Scripture because, by so doing, we chop the Scriptural leg of the church off, then one presumes that it also follows that we shouldn't elevate Scripture above reason. Likewise, tradition should be on the same plane (neither elevated nor depressed) relative to the others.
Of course, the real question comes when you have a Scriptural interpretation which differs from reason and/or tradition (or a rational interpretation which differs from a traditional/historical one). What, then, is the best theological solution to this? Is it to compare the interpretations of the three bases of the church, and take the view of some sort of "majority rule"? Is it to assert the primacy of one of the three bases, or would asserting the primacy of one base merely reduce the church to that single base, because of the fact that the other two bases would have to agree before actually becoming bases? That is to say, were you to assert the primacy of one base, then that (I argued just this, and that the independent base should be Scripture the last time I did such a segment) one base would be the only independent base, and therefore the only leg on which the church stands.
Ugh. So confused. And profoundly unsure of the answer, now. Perhaps I should pray on it. Or perhaps get the local Episcopal rector to discuss this with me, in the hope that I may better understand it. As a side note, the husband of the aforementioned Episcopal rector is on the Times' editorial board. Just thought I'd point that out.
I believe. Go Hokies!
Friday Five: Been a couple of weeks, so I'll do it this week. Just for the hell of it.
- Do you like to shop? Why or why not?
- Depends on the item. I don't like to shop for the sake of shopping, but if I am interested in the items for which I'm shopping (say, electronics) then I normally enjoy my experience.
- What was the last thing you purchased?
- This. As an aside, it's an interesting read, with various conspiracy theories. And I may, at some point, try to determine with actual, you know, sources, whether they may be true.
- Do you prefer shopping online or at an actual store? Why?
- I normally prefer shopping online, but there are times when I just have this primal urge to see something demonstrated, or just feel like walking around the Best Buy or Circuit City, just to browse and figure out what I really want. I'm your stereotypical man, if you substitute "electronics store" for "hardware store"
- Did you get an allowance as a child? How much was it?
- Occasionally. And occasionally (but by no means every time I asked) I got some item that I wanted.
- What was the last thing you regret purchasing?
- Probably my DVD player. I bought this piece of crap about 15 or 16 months ago, and never really cared for it. Then, about 2 or 3 months after I bought my DVD player, my TV software and board (I run everything through my computer) decided that it didn't like the idea of sound coming from any signal coming from the tuner, so I have had to use the video and audio jacks for everything. And that meant either (a) piggybacking DVD and Playstation onto (monaudio) VCR onto TV board - meaning that I couldn't get stereo sound, regardless of what I did - or (b) buying a new (stereo) VCR through which I could run everything. I saw this DVD/VCR combo thing, and decided that I wanted it, and it had stereo inputs and outputs. The only problem is that the s-video jack only works as an output for the DVD side. I understand that it's a digital signal, but, for god's sake: how hard can it be to convert analog video to digital? So I had to run your regular analog video cable (along with my analog audio cables) from the DVD/VCR to my computer. And my DVD (and mono VCR) have done nothing since except eat space in a closet.
Off...more later - R.
College Football: Jackie Sherrill, one of the more colourful coaches of college football, is done. He was sent to his retirement last night by an ass-kicking in the Egg Bowl, getting shut out by Ole Miss 31-0. He didn't always follow the rules: he left Texas A&M in the late '80s under the cloud of NCAA sanctions; he coached at Mississippi St. through the '90s, including a period in the mid '90s (1995 or so, I think) when he faced NCAA sanctions. And Mississippi State is, apparently, under investigation again.
But, in any case, he (usually) put together a good team, and there were the colourful incidents of which he was a part. The most famous of these is, of course, the motivational castration of a bull in front of his players (I think this was while Sherrill was at A&M, but I could be wrong). He felt that having his players see a bull lose its manhood would cause them to fight for theirs. Or something. Who knows? He probably could have used that this season, when his team all but quit on him midseason. Here's to you, Jackie, in your retirement. I'll hoist one to you, at least for the colourful incidents.
Pro Football: It should be noted that I didn't watch TV yesterday. I didn't watch the NFL games, nor did I watch the Egg Bowl.
So I'll just note that Miami beat Dallas in Dallas worse than they beat my Redskins in Miami. Ummm...I can't figure it out either, but it pleased me to see that Dallas lost at home by nearly 3 touchdowns.
Another thing that I can't figure out is how Green Bay loses to Detroit. Fine, the game was in Detroit. So? Detroit hasn't exactly set the league on fire the last few seasons. Even Barry Sanders has castigated the Lions' (mis-)management on their lack of commitment to winning. The question still stands. How, exactly, did Detroit beat Brett Favre? Black magic, I guess. Or maybe it was the tryptophan shakes in the visitors' locker room. Eh.
Letters to the Editor:
Am looking at today's letters to the editor in the L.A. Daily News. A couple jumped out at me, so I figure I'll respond to some of 'em.
First, we have Graydon, from Canyon County, writing about price controls:
Re "Price controls hurt" (Their Opinions, Nov. 21).
Oh really? Whom? It is true that developing a new and more effective product can cost millions, but it is a one-time cost and can be written off -- every cent of it -- and those products are sold at a very handsome profit for years with the total cooperation ("collusion") of the Food & Drug Administration, the copyright and patent offices and our "esteemed" politicians, who get millions of dollars donated to their campaigns by the pharmaceutical companies to maintain the status quo.
So here's my question, G. If you sink money into research into something (say, a widget - or even better, some miracle drug that cures everything), should someone or a group be able to force you to just burn that money (i.e. write it off) for the sake of affordability to the masses? Last I checked, the drug companies are in business to make a profit; although they are at times charitable (such as involving company programs giving free samples to doctors - often passed on to indigent patients - or programs to provide drugs directly at a reduced or no cost to indigent patients), they sink billions (yes, that's with a b) of dollars into research in the hope that they'll be able to get it back. And they also sink millions of dollars into the process, administered by the conspirators at the FDA, to prove to the government that the drugs safe and effective; in other words, they sink millions of dollars into the process by which they may be allowed to bring the drugs to market. And since it's a one-time expense, you just suggest that the companies "write it off". Why should they be forced to do so, anyway? And how (other than forcing the expenditure of millions of pharmaceutical dollars in the approval process) does the FDA "collude" with the drug industry?
I am not saying that they are not entitled to a profit, but when those prices are completely extortionate that is where I draw the line. It is true that prices are controlled in Canada and elsewhere, but quite obviously those companies are making money or they would not be selling those products to them in the first place.
Ah, but Graydon, you are saying precisely that they are not entitled to a profit. First of all, the prices are "completely extortionate" because the R&D process consumes billions of dollars every year; they have to pay for that somehow. How, exactly, would you propose that drug manufacturers pay for research? Moreover, another reason that drug companies' prices are "completely extortionate" is that they are forced to sell drugs to governmental agencies and commercial retailers in other countries at a lower price. They are forced to do so because other governments, through treaties of which the United States is a signatory, hold the whip hand. Other governments may, if drug companies are unwilling or unable to provide drugs at "a reasonable cost" as defined by the governments, revoke any patent protections on those drugs and manufacture cheap knockoffs. So here is my question to you, Graydon: at what point do prices become "completely extortionate"? For that matter, since drugs aren't the only things which make our lives better (the computer on which I type this, and the car sitting in my driveway are two others that occured off the top of my head), should we set price controls on everything which make our lives better or "livable"?
Jerry from Granada Hills writes about the Democrats' apparent hypocrisy regarding the latest Medicare bill, and that they should support it, since it is an expansion of Medicare, which he calls (correctly, I think) "socialized medicine". I don't want to delve too deeply into this, but I'll just say this: the bill is awful, not least for its $400 billion (which trumps the $87bn approved by the Congress to prosecute the war in Iraq, and the $400bn, just like projections for previous entitlements, is almost certainly absurdly low) expenditure. Conservatives (and, fiscally, I am that) hate it because it is the largest entitlement since Johnson's Great Society. Liberals hate it because of (a) the privitization issue (which I like...no one is forcing seniors off the governmental rolls; they are merely giving seniors a choice, and competition breeds efficiency, something for which all programs should strive) and (b) gaps in coverage (I forget exactly what the numbers are...something like the first $250 is picked up by the taxpayer, the next $2000 is paid for by the consumer, then the rest is picked up by John Q. Taxpayer). Ted Kennedy was threatening to filibuster this piece of legislation. Of course, I opposed it for different reasons than "Red Ted", but I would have loved to see that particular bill killed on the Senate floor.
Next, we have Dennis from Canyon County saying that, while it's good that we forced Saddam out of power, our army isn't made for occupation (a fair point), and we should leave the democritization of Iraq to the Iraqis:
I agreed with George W. Bush when he sent troops into Iraq to get rid of Hussein, and I think the USA certainly stepped up to the plate and did the right thing -- with and without help from some of our alleged allies. But now it's time to end it. It certainly appears the Iraqis don't want any more help, and Americans are now giving their lives for people without the sense to realize there is a better way to live.
This is certainly, at base, about what is good for the Iraqis. Personally, I believe that an Iraq without Saddam is very good for the Iraqis. I also believe that a constitutional republic, or a representative republic - rather than a totalitarian republic as Iraq was under Saddam - is a wonderful form of government, something that would benefit Iraqis. There are some Iraqis that, doubtless, see us as occupiers, after nothing but the oil (were that the case, though, one presumes that we'd have just violated the embargo and bought it, like the French allegedly did). Some may, even, have changed their outlook and see us now as occupiers after seeing us a few months ago as liberators. But most, doubtless, are those who have been removed from power by the Americans in the last 2 years, and their ideological brethren: the Islamofascist Taliban, assorted terror groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, and the perverted national socialist Ba'athists of Iraq and Syria. And, given that Saddam, in his 25 years in power, killed nearly 2 million fellow muslims both at home and in two wars of aggression, and in the process of killing these fellow muslims, used tabun and sarin gas to do so (both with the Iraqi kurds, at places like Sarseng, and against the Iranians, in battles like the marshes at Fao), it was necessary to rid ourselves of the man, and of the Ba'athists. Of course, one presumes that Dennis agrees with this; he stated that he supported our war of liberation.
However, we must see this through. We must stay and oversee an orderly - and peaceful - transition to a stable constitutional republic, and we must defeat those who would slit our throats.
He does make a good point, though: Iraqis, in the end, are the ones who need to take the lead and build a peaceful government; the Americans cannot (and note that I am not saying "may not"; I am referring to the impossibility of such), however much they might wish to, impose such a government on them against the will of the Iraqis. However, as the Iraqis have not had such a government, they will need assistance and guidance, provided by the Americans; Americans have helped liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Now the Americans must help lead Iraq down the path toward self-determination, because were we to leave now, we would end up with a situation such as in Iran (a virulently anti-American anti-democratic theocracy) or Afghanistan until the Taliban were removed (ditto, but with warlords running things in many outlying areas). Or we would end up with one of Saddam's minions running it, and in any of those cases, we'd need reinvade.
Now they're beating Americans to death with bricks -- enough is enough. Even a loser in Vegas knows when to leave the table. James Hahn wants to do something about the gangs in L.A. Good, round them up and send them to Iraq -- they like to fight -- and bring home the service people.
Ah, yes, those exemplars of the rule of law and of democracy: the street gangs. Some things just make me chuckle.
Next we have Arthur from Los Angeles, proposing impeachment:
I support the effort to hold President Bush and others within the White House responsible to the American public by calling for their impeachment. President Bush lied to the people and to Congress about weapons of mass destruction and the purported "grave and imminent" threat Iraq posed to the U.S.
I would love to see a citation of such a lie. Moreover, Arthur, President Bush never mentioned that Iraq was a "grave and imminent" threat, as you suggest. One presumes that you refer to the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union addresses, in which Mr Bush says that Iraq, as a part of the "axis of evil" is a "grave and growing danger" (it's about a third of the way down, in the paragraph starting "States like these, and their terrorist allies,..."), and further said that the United States must not wait until such a "threat is imminent" (near the end of the speech, in the paragraph starting "Some have said we must not act...")
It is obvious that there was no imminent threat, and the unilateral actions of the Bush administration in waging and threatening wars of aggression do not serve the interests of the people of the U.S., but instead serve the interests of the big oil and corporate elite who are Bush's true constituents.
If Bush really wished to serve "big oil and the corporate elite", he'd have done what France did: just allowed commercial interests simply to ignore the UN embargo and buy the oil. Had he committed such an awfully cynical act, it would have, more than likely, been ignored by the media and by the public. "Big oil" would get their access to the oil, and no one would get slammed by public opinion. And the number of people killed by Saddam would continue to rise.
As a side note, to be fair, Saddam was in power for closer to 30 years than 25 (he was the power behind the throne as early as the early 1970s, before he ascended to the presidency and seized power in 1979, I think it was). If you do the math, it works out to, on average, roughly 5,500 people a month killed by Saddam. So, if you wish to bring up the "body count" argument (as does, apparently, Iraqbodycount.net, and if you use their number on the high end (9,749 dead as I type), and consider that we have been there since spring, we are on pace to kill only a third as many as would have Saddam (assuming it was an average year). Is it tragic? Of course it is. No one denies that it's tragic. But, I suppose, since the intervention of the United States led to the deaths of these people, it must be reported, whereas if these people were killed by the orders of the Ba'athists, it wouldn't even be known. But the fact is that civilians killed by Saddam are just as dead than the (far fewer in number over the same period) civilians killed by America.
Walter from Van Nuys says this about the recent legislation passed in California (SB 60) allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses:
The words "starving" in Mexico and having to share a car to get the kids to school are an invalid appeal. Just how does giving driver's licenses to those who already have violated the laws make California a safer place? Your heroine admits to sneaking across the border and purchasing and driving an automobile which I'd guess is not insured (three laws broken).
Which laws do you want enforced: Those which are convenient to your ideals or all of them? There are legal ways to become a citizen. Schwarzenegger, our elected governor, followed them and only expects that others should do the same. Davis, our ex-governor, tried to be ethical and not allow SB 60 for valid reasons until he thought he could buy a few more votes by caving in. A pathetic move.
This, of course, is the crux of the issue. I think it was Proposition 187, back in the mid '90s, that mandated government not allow illegal immigrants to have some services. The opponents of Prop 187 (which was eventually victorious on the ballot, but declared in violation of the California constitution, if memory serves, by a judge in San Francisco) screamed "racism". Well, we're back for more of that (there's a letter in today's LA Times about that. Of course, Bruce from LA's argument falls short when he suggests, correctly, that such laws will probably not deter some terrorists. Of course, this argument is specious, because it suggests that if a law doesn't deter an action, it is worthless. To expand on Bruce's "terrorist" theme, there were laws - both state and federal - on the books on 11 Sept 2001, providing the following acts were illegal:
- carrying weapons onto a plane
- using those weapons to threaten passengers and crew
- hijacking the plane
- murdering several thousand people
Does this mean that we should take these laws off the books, as well? Of course not. There are some who will be deterred by such a law, and in that there is value. Moreover, they are our expression of belief as a society that doing such things are wrong. In the end it is about the rule of law, and the idea that a lower level of government should not abet the violation of the law of a higher level of government (California and the United States, in this case).
Emilia from Los Angeles, and Leada from Sunland are on opposite sides of the issue of the strikes of the UFCW and MTA workers (whose union name I forget), albeit for seemingly different reasons. First, from Emilia:
The people who are on the picket lines deserve what they are asking for. The "big three" supermarkets did not hire their employees through the borders. Try to be in their shoes and you'll know what I mean.
Be courteous to the customers even it if kills you because customers are always right -- even the rude ones. Smile and greet them. Standing up on your feet for eight hours or more. Lifting heavy stuff for scanning -- no wonder most cashiers and meat cutters have carpal tunnel syndrome. The scabs at Ralphs didn't even know what half of $3.65 was. Shame on the letter writer for belittling the striking employees.
Having been in their shoes (I worked at 7-11 once), I can say that, Emilia, you're right. it does suck. Having said that, the strikers deserve, as do the grocery stores (as is the case in any business deal, regardless of what it involves) exactly what they negotiate. If the strikers don't like what the grocery stores offer, they can better themselves through education and find another job that they believe is more along the lines of what they "deserve". And I don't know how it is at Albertsons or Ralphs, but at the 7-11, there were a few hard workers, but more were lazy dregs. I never found it particularly demanding labour; maybe that's why it's not particularly high paying, either.
Leada from Sunland has no sympathy for the workers involved in either strike, because theirs are not the only increases in health care costs:
I think it's about time we abolish the MTA and hire a private company to run our buses. Just think of how much we could save on administrative costs, wages for drivers and mechanics, hospitalization, workers' compensation, unemployment taxes, etc.
One imagines that a private company, competing for the bid, would do the job more efficiently than does the local government monopoly.
I have no sympathy for the MTA workers and the supermarket workers. I am retired and have Blue Shield. I just got notice of how much my costs are going up in 2004. Hospital stay, $196 a day for one to 10 days. This year it was free. Day surgery, $200. This year it was $25. My husband has prostate cancer and needs a shot every three months. Last year it was free. This year we had to pay $295 for each shot. Talk about take-aways -- see what our HMO has done to their retirees.
In other words, the strikers are not the only ones whose health care costs are increasing. Consumers don't give a hoot how much it costs, because employers and insurance pick up most of the tab. But when employers can no longer both pick up the tab and make a profit, then it would make sense to pass some of that to employees. Certainly employers have the right to offer, as part of compensation, health care. But employers also have the right not to do so, or to offer an extra stipend in lieu of health insurance through the employer; likewise, employees have the right to leave a job that doesn't offer health insurance as part of the compensation, or to stay in such a job. I believe that decoupling employee compensation from health care will lead to more reasonable rates, as insurance companies and health care professionals are forced to compete with one another for people's business.
As a side note (and in the interest of full disclosure), I don't have health insurance at the moment. Personally, I see no need for it, although I probably ought to look into some sort of catastrophic coverage. So, when someone, whether the President or Senator Kennedy cites the growing problem of people without health insurance, blame me. I lack it by choice.
Kelly from Saugus makes a good point.
So I see that the teamsters are refusing to make deliveries to Vons, Ralphs and Albertson's. It must be nice to have a job where one can choose not to do their assignment and yet face no disciplinary action. It's obvious that the lunatics really are running the asylum.
John, from Studio City, suggests simply breaking the strike:
I've had enough of these low-life striking bums constantly waving signs in my face and costing the economy untold thousands of dollars in lost revenue. When will the supermarkets find the guts to fire every single last one of them? Hundreds of people will rush to fill their shoes and earn the high wages they take for granted.
Although I think it harsh to call them low-life bums, this would be one solution to the problem. Although, other problems would creep up. I am not conversant enough with California or federal labour law to tell you whether this is legal or not (if such an act isn't legal, it should be; I'm not saying it's right from a moral or ethical standpoint, but I am saying that both employers and employees should have the right to terminate their relationship at any time, subject to contractual limitations). Further, the grocery chains would have to deal with the ire of unions everywhere (such as the Teamsters, see the letter above), and one presumes that a union - or unions - like the UFCW would organise a boycott of the grocery stores, thus costing the stores business.
Finally, Myrna from Rosemead runs off at the mouth with this anti-FOX rant:
The Fox media, owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, has been misleading us in its efforts to boost support for the Bush administration by presenting an ever-lengthening list of misrepresentations to the public. If the U.S. is to remain a true democracy, based on the tenants of our Constitution, the American public desperately needs truth in reporting (a fact that became evident a long time ago).
Yes, America needs truth in reporting. How, exactly, does it matter that FOX is owned by NewsCorp, itself owned by Rupert Murdoch? Is this an insinuation of some sort? And, if so, of what, exactly? But to merely rattle off some tired, baseless allegations that FOX is "presenting an ever-lengthening list of misrepresentations to the public" without proof doesn't help your cause, Myrna. What misrepresentations does FOX present to the public? And how long ago did it occur to you that America needs "truth in reporting"? Were I to venture a guess, I would guess it's when FOX News came on the air; that is to say, a media organisation which purported to give news, rather than solely commentary, that was to the right of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson (a statement which, were I to further guess, applies to approximately 98% of the electorate).
On a semantic note (yes, I do nitpick from time to time; moreover, I am appalled that a major newspaper didn't catch this), of whom is the Constitution the landlord? That is to say, who, exactly, are its tenants? If you're referring to its values, or ideas, then I suggest you use the word "tenet" next time, Myrna. And, more generally, the notion that editing begins and ends with the spell-checker is appalling to me. I have, from time to time, misspelled words on this blog; I don't regularly use a spell-checker. However, I do edit my work before I post it. If errata slip through the cracks, then mea culpa.
We rely on news outlets to deliver that truth; otherwise we are just as bad off as the former Soviet Union or Communist China or all those other places around the globe. The Fox media is doing nothing more than "leading us down the (proverbial) garden path" for its own gains. I think it comes under the category of greed.
Huh? Since when is FOX the only news outlet available to Myrna? Perhaps it is, in which case I might agree with her - although I would make the subjective assertion that FOX is far more balanced than anything disseminated in any totalitarian state. And how is what FOX is doing different from what NBC or CBS or ABC (or the print media, of which at least one outlet - the Daily News - is available to Myrna) do? And I would love an explanation of the last comment, about the "category of greed".
Zuletzt: I have a real mea culpa to offer up. In an earlier entry, I suggested that it was the Arabs who are attacking everyone at the edges of the Muslim world. Although Arabs are attacking some (such as in Sudan or in Israel), they don't bear the complete blame. I should have said Muslims, because there are several ethnic groups who try to bring more of the world under Muslim dominion.
More later...letters to the editor are always amusing. R.
26.11.03
College Football: In my last post, I had an aside about how they named bowl games, with a promise to expand on it, and, in picking games and talking about the usual crapola, I didn't come back to it, mainly because I just got caught up in the rest of the post.
As an aside, how do my Caps beat my mother's Red Wings? Suffice it to say that my Caps have, to be quite frank, sucked so far this season. And then they go and turn in a performance like that against the Wings. Eh. I'm not sure I'll ever figure it out.
Anyway, back to the whole Bowl naming thing. My feelings about it are that a real bowl name isn't, in its entireity, the name of the host city, or the name of some corporation paying for the privilege of a commercial every time the bowl is mentioned in the media. And they certainly do not combine the two. Names like Cotton, Rose and Sugar are fine bowl names; names like Diamond Walnut San Francisco, or San Francisco Diamond Walnut, or Continental Tire or Las Vegas are not. I understand the financial climate, especially given that bigger bowls have to make bigger payouts, and therefore may have to depend upon some sort of corporate sponsorship to turn a profit. That's fine, so long as the bowl doesn't completely sell out (like the Capital One Bowl did). If they don't sell out, then I can still say "Sugar Bowl" instead of "Nokia Sugar Bowl", or "Rose Bowl" instead of "Rose Bowl presented by AT&T". And, to me, it will always be the "Citrus Bowl". Steve Spurrier didn't say "You can't spell 'Capital One' without UT", did he? I don't bloody think so.
I am ambivalent about the bowl name being the nickname of a city, rather than the city name. It's kind of uncreative that they dubbed them the "Motor City Bowl" or the "Music City Bowl"; corporate sponsorships certainly didn't help the names, and I can't remember both of them offhand (I remember one, but not the other, and I won't play favourites). Although using a city's nickname is slightly uncreative, it is still better than the "Detroit Bowl" or "Nashville Bowl".
I would prefer the name "Toilet Bowl" to some of the current names (such as Fort Worth Bowl, or GMAC Bowl). In fact, a few years ago, when Notre Dame and Ohio State were struggling through seasons (neither would finish bowl-eligible), the big joke that a few friends and I had was for the two teams to play each other in Toledo and call the game the "Toilet Bowl". If the bowl organisers felt the urge to commercialise the name, I could go along with "Ti-D Bowl" or "2000 Flushes Bowl", simply because they were appropriate. If you can find a corporate sponsor whose name is appropriate and demonstrates a bit of creativity, then that's okay (I can't think of any examples, though, offhand). But don't buy out the original, pre-commercial names. If you're a group of bowl organisers, then just tack the title sponsor's name on to the beginning of the bowl name, or the presenting sponsor's name on the end. But bowl names which are solely commercial, and don't demonstrate a whit of creativity just suck.
Zuletzt: Am subscribed to a Capitals discussion list. Just got this:
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:33:18 -0500
From: address blocked
To: Caps discussion list
Subject: Sabers, 5-1 2nd intermission
Well, after that horrible scare Monday, it looks as if the planets are
back in their proper orbits.
Enjoy your evening - Ryan
College picks: Well, the College Pick 'em contest is over. I wish I had thought about this when I signed up for the pro picks. In any case, there is no picking games on ESPN this week. So, I'll just have to do that here.
Just as an aside, I really don't want to analyse the Tech-BC game. I wasn't there, and chose instead to watch LSU-Mississippi. I'm convinced that when I am not at games, but merely watch them over TV, I bring bad luck to the Hokies. So, since I didn't get a ticket, I chose to ignore the game. Perhaps I should have listened to Roth and Burnop's call of the game, rather than ignoring it. Eh.
I was rooting for Ole Miss in their game; I just don't care for LSU, particularly since their fans incited a mini-riot here in Blacksburg last August. This, I suppose, is why I got so much pleasure of posting that letter to Dennis Dodd that said that LSU fans smell like corndogs. Perhaps it is because of this, and of my affinity toward the underdog, but I sincerely believe that had Eli Manning converted that 4th down (and not tripped over his own lineman), Ole Miss would have won that game. And if pigs had wings, they could fly.
In any case, there are 29 games between yesterday (North Texas beat New Mexico St. 13-10) and Saturday night (when Miami travels to Pittsburgh). I'll pick all of 'em, even the wildly uncompetitive ones. It is rivalry week, after all. Last week wasn't, simply because Tech battled...Boston College (which, although not rivals in any traditional sense will be, according to the ACC, "interdivisional rivals", if only by default; everyone else was taken...another argument for WVU and against BC...but I digress).
In any case, I saw the Sagarin ratings in USA Today yesterday, and, taking home field into account, Sagarin apparently favours UVa to beat Tech by 1. I'm hard-pressed to remember the last time Tech was an underdog to a football team not called "Miami". In any case, it's a rivalry game, and one hopes (oh, Jesus, how I hope) that Tech can get itself motivated for that; it has won the last 4 Commonwealth Cups (I forget who the current sponsor is...Dominion Power, or Dominion Electric, or whatever Virginia Power renamed itself, or, frankly, who gives a crap?). Virginia comes in ready to play, and on an emotional high, having soundly beaten Georgia Tech last week, and earning their bowl-eligibility. One of these teams is likely headed to Charlotte for the Continental Tire Bowl (more on bowl names in a second). The folks in Charlotte don't particularly like the idea (unlike the Gator bowl, which may well feature Maryland and West Va., part deux) of a rematch. Personally, I don't have any problems with it.
Had Tech beaten BC, they would probably be in line for that Gator Bowl bid to face Maryland, leaving Pitt, Miami, West Virginia, Syracuse and (possibly) BC to fight over the remaining bowl slots. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
In any case, before I digressed, I really don't want to take Virginia here, but, whatever else I am, I am profoundly unsure of how Tech will respond to playing on the road; they've done piss-poor on the road all season, with victories in Blacksburg, at Rutgers and at Temple. Hardly an inspiring list for a team who has to travel to its' rival's place. Ugh. Unsure, or not, I can't bring myself to take UVa, because, quite simply, they're UVa, with their coats and ties at the outdoor wine and cheese tasting events ERRRRRR football games. So I'll take (however reluctantly) Virginia Tech to retain the Commonwealth Cup for the fifth season.
I'm not sure what it is, but Ron Zook has done better on the road this season than at home. Maybe it's the (relative) lack of pressure that comes with being on the road. You can adopt the motivational ploy of "Us against the world". If fans are booing (an ugly sound; much uglier than cheering), then it means that you're doing something right on the road. If you're at home and fans are booing, one of two things is possible: Either you need to stay away from the refs (for your own safety), or you're playing poorly enough to merit boos. The short version, applied to the Florida/Florida State game is this: I would feel a lot more comfortable picking Florida were this game in Tallahassee.
If you're unaware, I'm not the biggest fan of Chris Rix. His judgment (just as all of ours, from time to time) is highly questionable, and Florida can force Rix into mistakes, especially if they can stop the run. Certainly, Florida could win (and, with Tennessee and Georgia losses, get into the SEC championship). And, even if the game is in Gainesville, I think that Florida will win.
Although not strictly a rivalry (and now will never become one, as this is Miami's last conference game), Miami and Pittsburgh will settle much on the field. Presuming West Virginia beats Temple, the winner of this game will share the conference championship with WVU. If Miami wins, they will represent the Big East in the BCS. If Pitt wins, then the conference's representative will depend on how close WVU is in the BCS rankings. If WVU finishes within 5 spots of a victorious Pitt, then WVU will go to the BCS; otherwise, it will be Pitt. WVU is most certainly not helped by the fact that they play a lousy Temple team. So, more than likely, the winner of this game will go to one of the three non-championship BCS bowls (my money is on Orange; the Orange must pick either FSU or the Big East champion as a "host").
In any case, there have been 5 games played between teams in the top 4 of the conference (the only game remaining is the UM-UP game). In all 5, the home team won (WVU beat Tech and Pitt at home, Tech beat Miami, Miami beat WVU and Pitt beat Tech). Even if Brandon Miree doesn't play, I think that Pitt can win this game. If Miree does play, Pitt will win, simply because Miami's run defence has been...mediocre, especially against stars like Anthony Wilson (I think) of WVU, and Kevin Jones of Tech.
Other games (in this case, I'll give no explanation):
- Ole Miss beast Mississippi St.
- Louisville wins at Cincinnati
- Colorado beats Nebraska, leading to Solich's firing
- Marshall beats Ohio
- Miami University (the one in Ohio, not to be confused with the University of Miami, in Florida) beats Central Florida
- LSU beats Arkansas
- Arizona State beats Arizona...although no one in the other 49 states cares
- Texas beats Texas A&M; A&M will fight, but they're not nearly as good as one would have thought when they were ranked after 3 weeks
- Bowling Green beats Toledo at home, and earns the right to host Miami in the MAC championship
- Syracuse beats Rutgers
- Tennessee beats Kentucky to win the Bourbon Barrel
- Mizzou beats a woefully bad Iowa State
- Georgia beats Georgia Tech; Tech, in all likelihood, won't recover from their loss to UVa, and Georgia's playing for a spot in the SEC championship as well as for rivalry.
- West Virginia beats Temple, in Temple's last Big East game
- Southern Miss wraps the Conference USA crown up by beating East Carolina.
- Wyoming beats UNLV. Neither of them are that good, but the game is in Wyoming.
- Memphis beats South Florida. If the game were in Tampa, I'd probably pick the other way.
- TCU beats SMU
- Louisiana Tech beats Rice. I don't think that either of these teams are anything spectacular, but the game is in northern Louisiana.
- Boise State beats Nevada, in a game which may or may not (I'm too lazy to look) wrap the WAC crown up for them.
- Wake Forest beats Maryland. The ACC has been weird this season.
- Alabama-Birmingham beats Houston
- Fresno State beats UTEP
- Hawaii beats Alabama in Alabama's "Bowl Game".
- Stanford beats Notre Dame. This game isn't being played under the shadow of "Touchdown Jesus".
Zuletzt: This is amusing, and I'm probably going straight to hell for laughing at it. If you're a prude, puritan, repressed sexually, or humour-impaired, I advise against clicking the link. Otherwise, enjoy. (Thanks to CognoCentric for the link. And thanks to Setting the World to Rights for the link to CognoCentric).
Later, R.
25.11.03
Relegation & Promotion: Am a big Powerline fan. Since I'm a big fan of sport, as well, I was drawn in by Deacon's post about relegation and promotion in the English (and European) soccer leagues. He asks why we don't do the same over here. Although I am not certain why our professional system developed the way it did, the fact is that relegation would probably be unworkable in the professional leagues, because most minor leagues (such as the single-A Carolina League, home of the Potomac Cannons, the team I've rooted for for about 15 years) have contracts with major league teams (in the Cannons' case, with the Cincinnati Reds); so you would have, potentially, organizations with two or more teams in the majors, leaving it very little leeway with regard to injuries and player callups, other than the waiver wire. Since all four major sports (football, baseball, basketball, hockey) have a system like this in place (perhaps football less so) and otherwise a monopoly (ignoring Canadian football), a system like this seems infeasible. Being completely ignorant of the legal issues involved, I am not certain of any collusion/restraint of trade/antitrust implications that would be involved in such a situation, and while they occurred to me, they also seem negligible, in that minor leagues have such arrangements (for the players rather than the franchises) in place.
Perhaps a better example or level on which to try such an idea would be collegiate sports; the NCAA has four football divisions (IA, IAA, II, III) and at least eleven conferences in each division (the lower the division, the greater the number of teams and conferences; IA and IAA both have around 120 teams, spread from 11 to 15 conferences in each; II has about 180 teams if memory serves, and III has about 300 or so). One could choose to demote, say, Louisiana-Monroe and/or Southern Methodist (proud football tradition or not) to I-AA for the I-AA national champion and/or runner up.
Of course, the NCAA is little more than an umbrella organization for its members, namely the colleges. The conferences are the ones with the real power, because the colleges choose to associate with one another in the much more intimate setting of conference. Moreover, conferences can easily order their members in a given sport (football, in this case), whereas any ordering by record is meaningless, because where conference members play similar schedules (at least in conference, by which teams are normally ordered), NCAA members, even within divisions, have broadly disparate schedules. Notre Dame, at 4-6, for example, has played a brutal schedule, and has played (I'm doing this off the top of my head) exactly one team with a record below .500 (BYU), and is scheduled to play another this weekend (Stanford). Navy, at 7-4, on the other hand, has a much better record (one which, one should note, includes a loss to Notre Dame), but has played against exactly two division IA teams with records at or better than .500: TCU and Air Force (it also played against I-AA Delaware which has just one loss, and to which Navy lost, for the record).
My point is that it's much easier to say that North Carolina is the worst football team in the ACC this year than it is to say that Louisiana-Monroe or SMU or Army or whoever is the worst team in division I-A this year. So perhaps the conference route ought to be looked into. Conferences could make contracts or alliances with one another. The SEC could, for example, align itself with the Sun Belt, where one SEC team is demoted and one Sun Belt team is promoted (this year it would be Vanderbilt, I think, and North Texas). The Sun Belt could also align itself with a IAA conference, like the Southern Conference, or the Mississippi Valley Conference, or the ACC could make an agreement with the Southern, which could itself make an agreement with the Big South.
Conferences are, however, composed of athletic programs, not just football programs. Athletic departments could be judged on how well they do in the Sears Cup competition (a short explanation is that the Sears Cup awards points for achievements in all sports; Stanford has, for the last several years, dominated nationally), if conferences are loath to create a mishmash of different sports with different members.
Of course, this isn't without its problems. The last time I heard, a few years ago when Idaho was renovating its stadium, IA football programs must play in a stadium which holds 30,000 fans. Were the promotion/demotion pipe dream (for that's what it is; would members of any big conference agree to the chance that they would be cast out?) ever to occur, there would be little the NCAA could do to resolve this rule, other than to remove it from the books.
Moreover, and much more problematically, any demotion of a program to / promotion of a program from division III involves the problem of scholarships; DIII doesn't award any athletic scholarships. There are programs above DIII which don't (the only ones which come to mind are the Ivy League schools, some Patriot League schools, and the service academies). I am unaware how one might resolve that; eliminate athletic scholarships altogether? That would lead to a mass exodus from the collegiate ranks, as many athletes' only chance to go to school involves such scholarships, and would force many need-based programs and grants to expand vastly to pick up slack. Allow DIII schools to grant scholarships? This would violate the pure amateurism inherent in the DIII programs. And it may well lead down the road to the mockery of amateurism that major programs - such as at Virginia Tech - have become. Washington & Lee and Chicago were early members of major conferences (the Southern, in W&L's case, from which came the SEC and ACC; and the Big Ten in the case of Chicago). Both have maintained academic ties with the institutions with which they aligned themselves almost a century ago, but both severed athletic ties with those institutions long ago, because they viewed the collegiate mission as one of education and academics, rather than athletics and entertainment.
Other thoughts rattling through my brain at this hour:
The Sun Belt Conference is a I-AA conference, even if it (and the NCAA) proclaims itself a I-A conference (conferences are differentiated, I believe, by the teams against which its members play the majority of non-conference games; if I-AA teams comprise a majority of non-conference opponents, the conference is designated I-AA, and the same is true of I-A opponents). The Sun Belt has exactly three non-conference wins against I-A teams (North Texas beat Baylor, North Texas beat Troy State and Middle Tennessee beat Troy State). If one includes Troy State in the Sun Belt (which will be the case formally next year), the Sun Belt still has exactly three non-conference wins against I-A competition (Troy State beat Marshall and UAB to cover its two losses to SB teams). Otherwise they are patsies, against teams like Oklahoma, Arkansas and Virginia (all of which, I think, scheduled SB teams for homecoming).
Temple ought to be an honourary Sun Belt member. For the last 10-20 years, Temple has been little more than a patsy in I-A football. Considering that they're losing their membership in the Big East for football, they really ought to go to the Atlantic 10, in which they have membership for their other sports, get out of the Linc and go back to Franklin Field (or wherever they played football before the minimum seating requirement; Franklin Field is Penn's home, I know) and play A-10 football.
On that same note, the Big East loses three of its better football members to the ACC, and still it doesn't ask Temple to stay. I was surprised to say the least. Not sure what that says about the Big East's faith (or lack thereof) in Temple's football program and its drawing power. If nothing else, removing Temple does mitigate the schedule strength blow that the conference took with Temple (Temple has won exactly one game, against Middle Tennessee, and lost to a I-AA opponent - and potential conference opponent - Villanova).
Penn State and the Big East would make a great fit (I know, it's another pipe dream). PSU is not a midwestern school, but might balk at leaving the Big Ten due to the academic ties they have established with the rest of the conference. And the Big Ten schools are, on average, academically superior (and with only one exception public, like Penn State) to the Big East (which is a hodgepodge of good private schools and mediocre public ones, especially with recent additions).
As psycho and nuts as their fans are, West Virginia still would have made the best addition to the ACC. It boasts natural rivalries with Maryland, Virginia Tech and, to a lesser extent, Virginia. And the quality of a conference isn't measured by the number of major markets it has (the Big East, for example, had Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Miami; the SEC, for example, has Jacksonville, Atlanta and New Orleans), but by its rivalries and overall level of play. The SEC has been so successful because of the rivalries and level of play. Every school in the SEC has at least one natural conference rival, unlike Miami or BC in the Big East (Miami's rivalries, I would argue, run toward UF and FSU, and BC's rivals are UConn - minor, but regional - and Notre Dame). In any case, I digress. West Virginia would have been an excellent twelfth team in the ACC, but were overlooked for their lack of a major market. Damn shame if you ask me. Reuniting South Carolina with the ACC would also be a good fit, if another pipe dream.
The size of the perfect conference would run from about 7 to 9 teams. This would allow for a full round robin (and, if the number is odd, allows for an equal number of home and away games in conference), and allows for opportunities to play teams from out of conference (such as rivalry games). It also allows, in basketball, for a double (in the case of 9) or, potentially, triple (in the case of 7) round robin.
Was thinking about basketball tournaments, and wondered why the bottom seed in each Big East division were left home. It is no harder to schedule 14 teams than it is to schedule 12. The only satisfactory answer I could find is logistics (which is, of course, by no means trivial). It would mean playing 6 first round games - presumably on the same day, so as not to give any team a pronounced advantage. Four games on the same day is hectic, so six would be completely nuts more than likely.
Which is the better way to seed a conference tournament when said conference consists of two divisions (such as the Big 12 or SEC)? By conference standings (Big 12), or by standings within the division (SEC)?
Zuletzt: Deacon has had to change his icon, to something which is much less identifiable, especially to a fan of college football who lives only a couple of hours and one state line away from Winston-Salem. Personally, I think Wake's stance stupid, because, whatever his political stance (with which I happen to regularly agree, for the record), Wake should be honoured to be associated with someone whose scholarship is expressed in the clear manner in which Deacon blogs. Having said that, I would be remiss if I didn't say (and, yes, I'm aware that it didn't come to a lawsuit):
It's Wake's mascot /
and they'll sue if they want to /
sue if they want to /
sue-e-e if they want to.
Which leads me to ask:
Would you sue too /
if it happened to-o-o you-u-u?
More at some later date (have no idea when) - R.
Happy Thanksgiving if I don't blog between now and then.\
21.11.03
A quick correction, which I probably should have noted the last time I did one of these: The Trilateral Commission is based in Tokyo, Washington and Paris. In the letter I wrote, when dissecting other letters (this in response to some nitwit who said that America attacked Iraq unilaterally - not counting the UK). In my letter, I should have mentioned one of the three (probably would have mentioned Paris, simply because of the fact that, like the Swiss, it is in Europe) rather than Zurich.
Guess TCU isn't the 2nd best team in the land. They will end up being the 2nd best team in Conference USA (if I read the records right, Southern Miss clinched because the worst it can do is tie TCU, and it has head to head). Maybe playing a slightly tougher non-conference schedule (Cal and Nebraska, as opposed to Navy and - next week - Southern Methodist) helped USM prepare for conference play. Probably the home field advantage helped too. But turnovers were the deciding factor. TCU rolled up something like 150 more yards of offense than did USM. But they also turned the ball over 3 or 4 more times than USM did. And so they lost.
Really gone this time; almost certainly won't be back until Sunday to analyse the college games.
R.
The reason I feel old is because of this. The title of the blog being "So Many Men...So Lil Time!!", I thought that I was getting something tawdry. Has the language changed this much since my high school days? Has the internet had an effect this profound? I swear, reading that was little different than reading middle English, or, at the very least, Jacobean English. Or, to be fair, some stereotypical business document, what with the jargon. I didn't understand more than every third word (or abbreviation; the authoress uses them interchangeably).
Maybe it was tawdry.
More later - R.
20.11.03
College Football: Have analyzed Tech's win over Temple earlier (Sunday, I think). If you didn't catch it (and are too lazy to scroll down), the short version goes something like this: a win's a win.
Having said that, senior day is coming up on Saturday here in Blacksburg. Seniors such as center (and potential All-American) Jake Grove, wideout Ernest Wilford and defensive end (possibly injured, but he'll be honoured either way) Nathaniel Adibi will be honoured, as it is their last home game at Lane. Methinks that this makes for a emotional game, and I can't imagine the coaches let up on the team too much in practice this week; they only won by a lousy point at Temple. Virginia Tech buries Boston College.
Ohio State has kept games close over the last couple of years, whether they're losing or (as is far more often the case) when they're winning. Now, they travel to Ann Arbor, where Michigan will be looking to (a) get revenge for last year, when the Buckeyes won in Columbus, (b) get revenge for the last time the two teams played at Michigan Stadium (the Bucks won, but I don't remember the score offhand). The winner of the game wins the Big (11) Ten. Moreover, the winner of this game (especially if it's Ohio State, but Michigan is by no means eliminated) may well get a ticket down to New Orleans, for the Sugar Bowl. So there's really no shortage of motivation on either side. Add to that the fact that this is one of the best rivalries (I still think Army-Navy the absolute best) in all of college football, and, as Homer Simpson would say, "that'sa one spicy meatball!" Both teams have very good defenses, although I'd have to give the edge here to Ohio State. Ohio State's special teams are also better than Michigan's, this by a rather wider margin. But the widest margin of all involving these comparisons of units may be the fact that Michigan's offense is orders of magnitude better than Ohio State's. I think that Ohio State's defense keeps it close, but ultimately, Michigan beats Ohio State for the first time in three years and a probable trip to Pasadena.
More than likely, Saturday's game between LSU and Ole Miss will decide the Western division representative in the SEC championship in 2 weeks. LSU's defense is scary good, although they've only played the 72nd toughest schedule. Both offenses are very good, with Ole Miss getting the slight nod here. Add the fact that it's in Oxford, and this may well be too close to call. However, I'll go with my heart (rather than my head) and say that Ole Miss beats LSU and wins the SEC West (Hotty Toddy!) And if you're gambling on my picks, especially when I note that I'm going against my head, then you're out of your mind.
West Virginia travels to Syracuse, where it's been killed the last four visits, by a total score of something like 116-30 (if I remember correctly, and I'm too lazy to check). That's bad. Personally I think that were this game played on a neutral field WVU would win, but among the top five teams in the Big East, any game involving two of them, thus far, has been won by the home team. Therefore, even though WVU is hot right now, I'll take Syracuse to bounce back from their loss at Miami and beat the Mountaineers.
Miami of Ohio (9-1) beats Ohio (2-8), and Southern Cal (9-1) beats UCLA (6-5). UCLA's offense is just too weak against this Southern Cal defense.
More later, R.
State Visits: Well, this is more about reactions thereto. The Guardian published several letters from famous (and not so famous) Britons, some of whom live here in the states, as well as some famous American expatriates. A couple of excerpts I found heartening:
The first is from my favourite author, Frederick Forsyth, can be found here. I reprint it in its entirity. I find it much more eloquent in discrediting the British left than I have ever been. Say, don't most of the statements below apply to the American left as well?
Dear Mr President,
Today you arrive in my country for the first state visit by an American president for many decades, and I bid you welcome.
You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world's most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.
I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.
It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.
Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left's idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il... and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.
We also have this, from a builder named, coincidentally enough, George Bush.
Dear George,
I would like to welcome you to our country. Both as a person and a president, you are a nice guy, and it is a good idea for both yourself and the people of England that you have taken the time to come over to visit our country. I am a self-employed person, and have been getting quite a lot of free advertising from your being in the public light for many years now. I would like to thank you for that. Only the other day I heard someone say on the radio: "George Bush, he's doing a guvvy [Newcastle slang, meaning a little job for oneself] job. I've just seen him parked outside the house!" I would have voted for you, George. I think your father was nice as well, when he was president about 10 years ago. Although my family and friends vary a little in their opinion, I think you are the right man for the job.
Next, we have the editor of Prospect, David Goodhart, who seems to express reservations at Bush's policy, but makes a critically important point, namely that we finish the job in Iraq, rather than cutting and running as they are talking about (although they mention speeding up the timetable for Iraqi self-government, rather than cutting and running).
Dear President Bush,
Welcome to London. I will not be marching against you, but I know that quite a few readers of Prospect will be. Many of them are precisely those "sophisticated Europeans" you like to mock. And I can understand some of your irritation towards us. If Al Gore had done what you have just done in Afghanistan and Iraq (which he might well have done), we would be lining the Mall hailing him as a liberator. Moreover, many of us "sophisticated Europeans" have a rather unsophisticated view of you. Your unpopularity here is, in part, an expression of a culture gap between British and American politics.
In Britain, because of the historical importance of parliament, we place a higher value on verbal fluency in our national leaders. American leaders often sound more like Joe Public but they have other leadership qualities that are less visible: impressive in small groups, focused, good judgment. The idea that you are a cipher for the people around you has also been proved wrong in the past few months: Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell have all, at different times, been put in their place, and those famous neoconservatives are not at all happy about the direction of the Iraq occupation.
And therein could lie the tragedy of your presidency. You may not be a slave to any faction but after 9/11 you did seem to embrace the neo-conservative vision of spreading democracy and markets on the back of America's unrivalled military power. Many of us "sophisticated Europeans" thought it was a hubristic vision and still don't understand why the tried and tested multilateralism of the postwar period would not also work for the war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, some of us also found it hard not to admire the boldness of that vision to liberate Iraq and transform the Middle East. You took a gamble - a lot of people warned you it would be a big and bloody one - but if you don't follow through and create a stable, democratic Iraq, you will leave the Middle East more dangerous than before and the international system badly damaged for no good reason. You will have made America look like a dumb bully that just lashes out without thinking. In other words, you will have proved all us "sophisticated Europeans" right. Please don't.
Then we come to this, from an English rabbi, Dr Sidney Britcho:
Dear President Bush,
Sadly, your visit will be marred by a large demonstration opposing your presence in this country. This should not deter you in your policy to continue your fight against the terrorist forces that are seeking to weaken the strength of liberal democratic principles, whose implementation is the only hope for achieving world harmony.
Please appreciate that those protesting against you are also the same individuals who opposed the British government joining the coalition to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Be resolute in winning the peace in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan by creating there the basis for representative governments, which will in turn set an example to the other peoples of the region. Whatever the sacrifices, do not leave before the job is done.
There is also a fourth page of letters to the president, including one from the London representative of the Palestinian Authority, claiming that by supporting Israel, Bush puts America at odds with the Arab and Muslim worlds. To that charge I will respond thusly: Maybe. But what puts the two groups at odds much more than America's support of Israel (which includes an acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist) is Islam's continuing bloody expansion, looking for a Muslim empire. Arabs, at the edges of their Muslim empire, have attacked:
- Anglicans in Africa, including in the Sudan and Nigeria
- Catholics in the former French West Africa (Mali, Chad), and in the Philippines and Indonesia
- Jews in Israel
- Orthodox in the former Soviet republics, especially Georgia and Armenia, I believe, and also in Greece
- Hindus and Sikhs in India
- Zoroastrians in Pakistan and India
- Buddhists in India and Indonesia
Need I go on? The problem is that some members of the "Religion of Peace" have chosen to fight the war to have the entire world live under sharia, denying them basic human freedoms, so that they will be able to live under a 1400 year old code of laws. Bully for them. I suggest that the PA stop these Islamists who would wish to seek empire (and another question is why they're not being called on it, unlike Bush and Blair are being called on these false charges of empire?); at which point, America would be morally bound to throw its support toward a resolution fair to both sides.
As a parting thought, it's unsurprising to note - yet good for the soul, ego, whatever - that there are indeed Britons who support our actions in the Middle East.
More later,
R.
19.11.03
Schadenfreude: You know those Geico commercials? The ones where some crap happens, someone says "I have really good news", the other person replies "You...(fill in some crap related thing here)?", to which the first responds "No, I just saved on my car insurance"?
Those are as funny as Rowan Atkinson.
Melodrama is also funny. And when melodrama and schadenfreude are mixed, it's the highest of high comedy. Like when some dude and his chick are talking, he says he has good news, she mentions something about commitment (I think), he says that he's saved on car insurance.
So she walks away. But the funniest moment of the commercial is when he starts pleading his case: "I thought that meant something to you. I just saved."
I'm laughing just thinking about it.
Anyway...
College football: Dennis Dodd pops off about how the computers have some sort East coast bias, since the computers and schedule strength are the major reason that Ohio State, rather than SC, is in 2nd place in this week's BCS rankings.
To which I say pbbttthhhhhh.
Most people say that SC is the second best team in the land, and, truth be told, I think that, head to head, SC would probably beat Ohio State. But, that said, computers use formulae rather than simple, subjective human judgment. If computers rate SC lower than Ohio State, it's because, according to the formula used by the computer thinks that Ohio State is better.
The computer could make a persuasive argument. Ohio State, according to the BCS, has played the 13th toughest schedule in the country, whereas SC has played the 37th. Regardless of what the computers say, if SC played a schedule that got it a quarter of the way closer - that is, to the 31st toughest schedule, they would still hold 2
I don't think that the BCS is perfect, and the computer rankings leave much to be desired, not least of which is from the prohibition of computer rankings to use margin of victory. Let's just say that there is a substantive difference between beating a team at home by 24, and beating that team at home by 3.
If SC had beaten Cal, then this would be moot.
And in this Dodd article, Dodd floats the idea of Conference USA coaches bumping TCU up in the poll to second place, to help their poll numbers, and, thus, their BCS numbers; C-USA will collect a substantial portion of TCU's bowl payout and distribute it between the 11 football members (although I don't know what, exactly, is specified by the agreements between schools and the C-USA), and, therefore, the five C-USA coaches with ballots should cast their second place votes for TCU.
Dodd makes the note that they could lose their votes because of this, because USA Today, which administers the vote, notes and marks such "abnormal-looking" ballots. Personally, TCU, though its schedule strength is even weaker than LSU's (90th to 72nd), may well deserve this vote, and I can't argue against anyone who would vote them second (although, like Dodd implies, voting them first would be a bit far-fetched; OU has a much stronger schedule, and has beaten up on just about everyone it's played). TCU, after all, is one of two I-A football teams which remain undefeated.
Other things mentioned in the notebook:
- Barbara Hedges, AD at Washington, said that Keith Gilbertson will be back next year. I'm not a big fan of keeping coaches only one year, but if U-Dub doesn't beat Wazzu, the Huskies will finish under .500 for the first time in my lifetime. I'm glad that she's giving him a vote of confidence, but the question is whether he's earned it. I would wait and see how he plays against Wazzu. Since it is his first year, I wouldn't even fire him for losing, necessarily. But if he loses bad, he'd be out the door were I AD up there. Of course, the losses to Nevada and Cal (54-7!) don't help Gilbertson's cause.
- In Columbus, they apparently booed a baby at a Blue Jackets game when he was shown on the video screen...because it was wearing Michigan paraphenalia. Amusing. And I bet that if the Red Wings were to show a baby wearing OSU gear, the baby would get booed, too.
- Miami of Ohio, my parents' alma mater, can become the first non-BCS school to become bowl eligible with 1 loss. They're 14th in the BCS, and they have to get to 12th. They have Ohio and UCF (combined record: i forget offhand, but neither have more than 3 wins, I don't think). I don't see them making it. Shame, too.
Zuletzt: Guess Gruden didn't want to put up with Keyshawn's delusions of grandeur any longer.
Later. R.
17.11.03
Errata/clarifications: I want to clarify a couple of things from the last couple of days.
When I was checking about Mike Leach, I wondered whether I had confused him with someone else, and he had worked with Mike Stoops at Florida (he was OC at Kentucky while Stoops was DC at Florida...he was Tim Couch's OC, as a matter of fact). Turns out he hadn't. He just worked under Stoops (with Heisman almost-was Josh Heupel) at OU.
It probably would have worked better had I mentioned coaches playing the drinking game "asshole" instead of ADs. Does Tommy Tuberville have to drink whenever Chan Gailey or Mark Richt say so? And, for the record, I still don't know (nor give a damn) who Auburn's AD is.
MNF: Ronnie Lott got his number retired at halftime of tonight's game. His acceptance speech just rambled on about Eddie DeBartolo and John (I think; I'm too lazy to check the man's first name) York, the owners of the 49ers in the early '80s and presently, respectively.
San Fran is up by 3 midway through the third. Back to the game. - R.
Very disturbing. Are they kissing, or what, exactly? Looks like Parcells is trying to make a move on Belichick.
16.11.03
Sorry about the Zuerst. Had to tell you. Been eating more than my share of pasta and veggies lately. I'm not a vegetarian, but I've moved away from some fatty meats in the hope that I can get rid of (or at least shrink a little) the size of my gut. Suffice it to say that I had a Buddha belly (I'm 6', 210# if you're interested; that works out, roughly, to 1.85m, 95kg, if you're accustomed to metric and are too lazy to do the calculation).
College Football: Now I know what Ohio State fans go through every week. But, nonetheless, a win is a win. That's all I'll say on the subject.
Other quick thoughts:
- West Virginia beat the crap out of Pitt, beating them by the same three touchdowns by which they beat the Hokies. No longer is Pitt in control of its destiny in the conference; Miami is.
- LSU beat the crap out of Alabama, and the road team wins regularly in this series (I'm too lazy to check, so I'll take the announcer's word for it). Something tells me, though, that LSU would have broken that particular curse had the game been in Baton Rouge. They just manhandled both of Alabama's units (offense and defense).
- Texas Tech played closer than I thought they would. I figured that they would put up at least 30 points, because their offense is one of the best in the country, but I didn't expect Texas to put up only 43. I expected about 50 or 60 from Texas, simply because Texas Tech's defense isn't good. If it was, then the winner of next week's Oklahoma - Texas Tech game would, assuming they beat the North's sacrificial lamb, probably K-State, go to the Sugar Bowl. And the loser would, very possibly, get a BCS at-large bid.
- Speaking of K-State, it shows how much the Nebraska program has fallen that K-State won in Lincoln for the first time in 40 years. Since Nebraska has lost to both Missouri and K-State, Nebraska has been eliminated (the best they can do is finish tied with K-State and, possibly Missouri, and they will be eliminated by their losses to the teams with which they are tied). Both KSU and Missouri control their own destiny, as they haven't played one another yet (that's next weekend, in Manhattan). Missouri, though, must win out (their other game is at home, against Iowa State, the following weekend) to get themselves tied with K-State at 5-3 (this assumes that Mizzou wins out). And, for whatever (little) it's worth, the northern team has a home field advantage, as the game is in Kansas City; much closer to Columbia or Manhattan than to Norman.
- As it stands, since Texas Tech doesn't have a defense worthy of their offense (this applies, too, to N.C. State; more on them in a moment), Oklahoma has wrapped up the south crown. Texas Tech is playing for little more than pride, but Oklahoma is still playing for a shot at the title, having taken it easy on Baylor, 41-6. I don't think that the Texas Tech defense can contain Oklahoma's offense (and Jason White), but the key to this game will be whether Oklahoma's stellar defense can contain B.J. Symons and the Texas Tech offense. Early signs point to yes, because Mike Leach, Texas Tech's coach, was an assistant at Oklahoma a few years ago, and so Bob Stoops will know what Leach is liable to try.
- Ohio State, as I noted earlier, gives its followers angina attacks with they way they manage never to pull away from teams. Of course, Purdue is a very good team, and Ohio State won in overtime much the same way Virginia Tech did: OSU's (and Tech's) kickers made their kicks, and Purdue's (and Temple's) didn't.
- Just visited the Texas Tech athletic website, looking to make sure that Mike Leach had coached under Bob Stoops at OU, and found that he got his B.S. in American Studies. Certainly that's to be applauded, considering that that's not glorified p.e., but of what exactly does the American Studies program at BYU consist? Is it history, or sociology, or something like a survey of the two. Heck, is it the historical or sociological analog of basket weaving or p.e.? Just call me curious.
- Maybe Auburn just can't beat the good team, especially on the road. Now that they've lost to both Georgia and Georgia Tech, does that mean that they're the "asshole" (I think I've also heard it referred to as "jester"; in any case, whoever it is that gets shat upon in that drinking game) of the state of Georgia? Moreover, does this mean that Vince Dooley (longtime AD of Georgia, who's being forced out after the season) or Dave Braine (former AD here at Va Tech, now in Atlanta) can make the Auburn AD (like I give a damn who it is) do shots? Or the stupid "waterfall"? Perhaps I should have noted that their first resurgence (after the USC blowout and the loss at Tech) started against Vanderbilt and, if memory serves, Western Kentucky.
- Michigan does what Wisconsin couldn't. They beat Northwestern at Northwestern. (yeah, like that shocks anyone)
- I watched the second half of the N.C. State - Florida State game. What a wild ride. Philip Rivers is, in a word, awesome. He should be a great quarterback one day. He's very intelligent on the field, his release is very quick, so he won't get sacked too much, and he has outstanding vision. In the overtime, on fourth down (the one that Cotchery - I think - dropped), a guy I watched the game with was yelling at Philip to run, because there was a lane on the right that was open for a fraction of a second (and closed almost immediately; there wasn't any gain in it). Philip, perhaps realising this, tossed it to his left, but Cotchery dropped the damn ball. In any case, the Pack lost, but not because of the offense. Let's face facts, when you allow 50 points, you deserve to lose, but the defense is young, and N.C. State scares me just as much as do Miami and Florida State.
- TailgateFever noted that, since Temple is being kicked out of the Big East and Boston College is leaving (whenver that will be...apparently it may not be until 2006), Tech's final Big East game was a loss to Pittsburgh, involving some shitty fans (with which I don't really disagree) in a shitty city (with which I throughly disagree...suffice it to say that it's better than most cities that I've been to, including Philadelphia and, truth be told, Richmond). They mentioned that the stadium was nice but that the atmosphere sucks, because the fans' only way of getting into the game seems to be taunting. Certainly it's nicer than old Pitt Stadium (where the atmosphere was also terrible, if the Tech-Pitt game in '97 is any indication...it was about half full, and about a quarter of those had made the drive up to support Tech; on the plus side, my buddy - who attended Carnegie-Mellon at the time - and I busted on the graphics: "Those must have been done at Carnegie-Mellon". Fortunately, we got lucky and sat next to a couple of nice Pitt fans who, during the game, chatted us up, and after the game, wished the Hokies luck). In any case, it looks like West Virginia (who, also, have complete assholes for fans...some of them were stupid enough to toss crap at the twenty or thirty state troopers massed in front of, one presumes, the student section last night). In short, Heinz Field is, undoubtedly nicer than Pitt Stadium, but the atmosphere isn't as bad, most of the fans are assholes, and TailgateFever is completely wrong; the city is very nice.
I've been thinking of trying my hand at the "computer poll" game. Have come up with a formula (though how good I don't know...haven't tested it on real data), and have had a spreadsheet to keep game scores for the last couple of years, but now I just have to integrate the two. So this week (and probably for the rest of the season), I give you my subjective top ten:
- Oklahoma
- Southern Cal
- LSU
- Ohio State
- TCU (hey, why not? They're undefeated against decent - though not as good as what the top teams in the BCS conferences face - competition)
- Michigan
- Tennessee
- Georgia
- Virginia Tech (hey, I'm still a homer)
- Texas
NFL: I just realised that I've never talked a bit about Canadian Football, or Arena Football, or soccer, or NFL Europe (which, while minor league, is pro). So pro football is, perhaps, a bit broad.
Some thoughts about today's games (all of which come from the scores, as I was unable to watch any of them, and am too lazy to look at silly write-ups or box scores):
- Who should I curse? Stephen Davis, or the geniuses who let him go from the Redskins? That's all I really need to know about that game.
- Nice to know that Philly can beat a mediocre Giants team. Ver-r-ry unsurprising.
- New Orleans beat Atlanta. Again. I don't think they've lost to Atlanta in something like 2 years. Either that or I have it completely backward. And I'm too lazy to look.
- Houston beats a mediocre team on the road. Its defense will keep games close, so they'll finish two or three games better than last year.
- Is it surprising to anyone that Arizona lost, even if it was to Cleveland?
- Tennessee won a home game. Against Jacksonville. Another unsurprising result.
- St. Louis beat Chicago by only 2? I thought their offense was better than that.
- Wake me when the Baltimore - Miami game is...wha...it's over? Nine to six. Exciting. snooze
- And the most shocking result of the early games...I will say about St. Louis' offense that maybe Dick Vermeil is a better coach than Mike Martz, which is why the team started going downhill after Vermeil left, and why Kansas City went through the first half of the season (and the first game of the second half) undefeated. Now, though, I will summarize the game thusly, with two five-word phrases, one relevant to each team:
- KC: 'Phins popping champagne corks tonight
- Cincy: Cincinnati can roar with Lewis
- Indy beat the Jets. Guess it was so close because Chad Pennington played.
- Is Tampa going to even make it to the playoffs to defend their title?
- How the hell does Oakland lose to Detroit and beat Minnesota? Yeesh.
- Seattle beat Detroit at home. Call me stunned.
- Jake Plummer is apparently third in the AFC in QB rating. I found this shocking, to say the least. Dude'll choke at some point. And, I feel I must say it loud, considering that I couldn't say it last week: San Diego sucks!
Not a clue who's winning the Dallas - New England game. Off to find the score. Later - R.
