A commentary and journal site for the author. Topics will include Christian issues, gaming, comics, cartoons, news, and anything else I feel like talking about at the moment.
Send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
Saturday, February 08, 2003
Two months old but overdue for posting
The above picture of Buster was taken Dec 3, 2002. For size purposes, compare it the below picture of him taken the day we got him.
I have some better pictures of him from that same Dec 3, 2002 batch, one of my projects for the weekend is to get them up :)
I feel like this some mornings...
/em crosses fingers and hopes he remembers how images work
"You can have your 'Good Old Days' -- I'll keep my microwave"
(The title of this article was the standard response to a late neighbor of mine whenever anybody fell into nostalgia.)
Spent the last hour or so reading through my archives. I really need to post more often :-) Actually, I've been busy on the "HERO Stuff" side of this webpage, follow the link at the side if you've never been there.
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
In Other Sports Editorials...
"3. Pete Rose
He bet on baseball. He bet on Reds games. He put his autograph on a document that declared him permanently ineligible for baseball. Rose had been the Reds skipper from 1984 until he was banned, at the age of 48, in 1989. The ban cost him dearly -- besides being denied a sure place in the Hall of Fame, he also forfeited would likely have been a long managing career.
"The matter of Mr. Rose is now closed," said Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti after the ban was made public on Aug. 24. "Let no one think it did not hurt baseball. That hurt will pass, however, as the great glory of the game asserts itself and a resilient institution goes forward. Let it also be clear that no individual is superior to the game.""
Oh boy, I can already here the Rose Faithful hemoraging. The facts are ugly, aren't they?
I live near Cincinnati, and while I attended several Reds games growing up (thanks to a program where honor roll students got free game tickets) I've never been a baseball fan. Does that invalidate my opinion that Rose has no business in the Hall? Well, I don't think so, but there are parts of Cincinnati where I would probably get assaulted for saying that.
Are there worse criminals in the Hall? Immaterial: Rose is not banned from baseball because of his crimes. Say it with me, fanbois -- HE'S BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE.
Are there worse role models in the Hall? Immaterial: Rose is not banned from baseball because he's a poor role model. Say it with me, fanbois -- HE'S BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE.
Is the punishment not in keeping with the crime, because he never bet against the Reds? Immaterial: the rule that Rose broke makes no distinction on who you betted on, only whether or not you betted on baseball. He betted on baseball and as such, say it with me fanbois -- HE'S BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE.
Is this all a big conspiracy without evidence? Um, yeah whatever, enjoy the weather on your planet. It's an open, completely non-secret fact that Rose is and has always been a major gambler. He tried to cover his tracks -- gee, do you think he was covering his tracks because he knew he could be BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE?
Is it unfair for the Hall to keep him ineligible because he's BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE? You might actually have a point, depending on how vague your definition of "fair" is. Mine says that as long as other people who are BANNED FROM BASEBALL BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE are disallowed from the Hall, it's fair.
Is it unfair for the comissioner to maintain the LIFETIME BAN Rose himself agreed to? Gee, Petey, which part of LIFETIME BAN did you not understand? The part where they agreed to reconsider after a while, perhaps? Okay, maybe that's fair. Still, why call it a lifetime ban if it's subject to parole? I'm sure boxing is better since it let Mike Tyson back, isn't it (this sentence is sarcasm)? This one is baseball's fault -- nothing short of new evidence should be reason to even review a LIFETIME BAN, which by the way occured BECAUSE HE BROKE A BASEBALL RULE.
Do I sound mean? You haven't heard anything yet. I also don't think it's right that the Hall of Fame gift shop is allowed to sell Pete Rose merchandise -- if he's banned from the Hall he should be, you know, banned from the Hall. Yes, I'm even harsh enough I don't think he should be allowed to visit.
Now excuse me, I need to find my Marx glasses and hat so I can drive home safely...
Nice article about the NFL Overtime Situation
Most telling quote -- ""Even some defensive guys feel it has to go that way," allowed Houston cornerback Aaron Glenn. "I just think guys are tired of losing in overtime on a field goal."
My opinion? Way too much is being made of this situation. 40% of overtime games are won on the first possession? That means 60% weren't. I have to admit I am curious to see what percentage were won by the team that won possession, because of the potential field position issues. I may have to try and scrounge that one up...
The fact that there were a record number of overtimes this year tells me that parity is actually working -- and that's a good thing, Jerry Glanville or no. With the exception of certain teams that are perenniel losers (Cincinnati Garfields, anyone? Arizona Birdbrains? Seattle Shouldabeens?), this year put paid to the statement that, in the NFL, it really does come down to the field. This is part of the reason why I think baseball is in trouble, for the record.
Back to the point, though -- is there a problem with overtime in the NFL? I personally don't think so, and the main basis for my point is a nasty bit of truth none of the NFL types are actually going to say publicly... THE ONLY REASON THE GAME IS IN OVERTIME IS BECAUSE YOUR TEAM FAILED TO WIN IN REGULATION. If you weren't good enough to put the points on the boards during the 60 minutes of regulation OR stop the other team from doing it, any whining about not getting a chance in overtime is pure, 100% sour grapes.
A lot is made in this article about the punting and placekicking -- which is kind of funny. I have a special place in my heart for special teamers. Football, no question, is won and lost in the trenches (the offensive and defensive lines). Having said that, football is a game of field position, and nothing determines field position like special teams. The Cincinnati Garfields managed to look like a team one or two lucky breaks away from competeing (much better than they actually were) in the early half of the 90's because of one man and one man only -- punter Lee Johnson, one of the NFL's best in his prime and still in the top half.
But forget all that talk about statistics of starting position for a moment -- everyone that really follows football will tell you there's only one statistic that matters, and that's the score. On most teams, the placekicker is going to be the first or second highest-scoring player on the team. Placekicker is an odd position, not unlike a janitor in that respect -- nobody notices you until you DON'T do your job. Overtime is placekicker time, and that's all there is to it. Decrying the effect a good placekicker can have in overtime is almost as absurd as expecting the NFL to outlaw running places on 4th and short.
UPDATE: Found another link with more complete figures for this year here. 10 of the teams that won the toss won on the first posession -- one of the teams that lost the toss won on the first possession (one because of Captain Headlight's boner in Detroit, opting to kick instead of recieving despite winning the toss). One of the 26 overtimes resulted in the 16th tie in NFL history. 17 of the teams that had first possession (16 of the teams that won the toss) won on that possession.
One very interesting fact glaringly absent from the initial article two of those 11 "one outs" happened because a kickoff went out of bounds -- an absurd mistake (Bears/Lions in week 7 and Patriots/Dolphins in week 17) that can HARDLY be blamed on the rules. Punters can lose games too, you know.
Sad thing is, this is news to some people
Pentagon actually comes out and says France isn't an ally anymore.
I realize I'm supposed to break into the "Shocked... SHOCKED! To discover..." dialouge right now, but I can't. This is pure "eh" material, something I suspected when I was in High School (late 80's) and was a fact of life before I left college. France's reaction to 9/11 just made it that much more obvious, their continued behavior cements their relationship as part of the Axis of Weasel.
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
Nice article about the Religious Affinity Scam