I just realized that as a result of my lack of postings over the last several months I have neglected to provide commentary on the most recent season of American Idol that you all so dearly crave that concluded on May 20th. My apologies.
Well, here goes... It was yet another season of talentless hack singers performing in a boring, glorified karaoke competition that no one in their right mind could possibly enjoy. I did not watch any of it, but I'm completely convinced that the entire season completely sucked. The End.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Dancing with the Stars Season Recap
I just realized that as a result of my lack of postings over the last several months I have neglected to provide commentary on the most recent season of Dancing with the Stars that you all so dearly crave that concluded on May 19th. My apologies.
Well, here goes... It was yet another season of D-list pseudo-celebrities performing in a boring competition that no one in their right mind could possibly enjoy. I did not watch any of it, but I'm completely convinced that the entire season completely sucked. The End.
Well, here goes... It was yet another season of D-list pseudo-celebrities performing in a boring competition that no one in their right mind could possibly enjoy. I did not watch any of it, but I'm completely convinced that the entire season completely sucked. The End.
I Hate Idiots
Okay, this is going to be a rather short post, but I had to do it. Though you could argue that it belongs on my brand spanking new politics blog, I believe that it is probably better off here. I was just watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos and there was quite a lively debate going on with his roundtable, but my local ABC news channel, channel 13, had to interrupt for "breaking news." This breaking news was apparently that the space shuttle was about to land in less than a minute in California. Really, that's breaking news? You really felt that the fact that the shuttle was going to land in less than a minute was worthy enough to have your anchors break in to the coverage of This Week to make overwhelmingly superficial commentary about a subject about which they have limited knowledge? You people are idiots.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
NBA Western Conference Finals: Game One
After watching the end of game one of the Western Conference finals between the Nuggets and Lakers last night, I'm convinced more than ever that many (if not most) NBA analysts are idiots with little to no comprehension of sound late game strategy and clock management. In this case I will be directing my ire at Jeff Van Gundy, but I'm certain many other analysts have advocated for similar strategic errors in the past.
With 30.5 seconds left in the fourth quarter, the Nuggets trailed the Lakers 101-99 and preparing to inbound the ball at midcourt. An errant pass was intercepted by the Lakers' Trevor Ariza and recovered on the Lakers' offensive side of the court with just over twenty-eight seconds to play. And so Jeff Van Gundy said essentially that since there was a four second differential between the shot and game clocks, the Nuggets did not have to foul.
I suppose Van Gundy was technically correct, the Nuggets did not have to foul. But then again, the Nuggets also did not have to try to win the game. I'm going to assume for the moment that the Nuggets were trying to win the game and lists the steps that would likely have to take place for Van Gundy's strategy to have any chance of working.
1. Nuggets do not commit any fouls (this is after all the foundation of the entire strategy).
2. Lakers do not score on the possession.
3. Nuggets rebound presumed errant Lakers shot attempt (see number 2) with 4-5 seconds remaining.
4. Nuggets successfully inbound the ball to one of their players.
5. Nuggets score basket to either tie game (2-point attempt) or take the lead (3-point attempt).
6. If time remains, Nuggets prevent Lakers from scoring and force overtime or win game.
The overwhelming flaw in this plan is that it essentially requires every step in the plan to go flawlessly if the Nuggets are going to have any chance to win. There is almost no margin for error. And the strategy is foolishly optimistic considering the fact that the Lakers have Kobe Bryant on their team, a ruthlessly attacking player who would (a) almost certainly have the ball as time wound down and (b) stood a greater than 50% of chance of scoring on the play, getting fouled on the play (Bryant being an 85+% foul shooter), or both. And then you throw in the very real possibility that the Nuggets just might not get the rebound since Bryant would likely draw help defense, potentially leaving the helping defender's man unchecked to grab the offensive rebound, and I certainly can go on.
So what did actually happen? Well, the Nuggets had a tad bit of trouble going the entire 24 second shot clock without fouling, and so ended up fouling Bryant as he drove the lane toward the basket with right around ten seconds left. So there the Nuggets were, down two points with Bryant shooting two free throws with ten seconds left where if they had fouled immediately, they could have been down two with Bryant (or even Ariza) shooting two free throws with 26-27 seconds left. And of course Bryant did hit both of the free throws to put the Lakers up 103-99 with roughly ten seconds left.
But the absurdly stupid strategy suggestions did not end with 28 seconds remaining. Van Gundy next said that the Nuggets should not necessarily attempt a three point shot when inbounding the ball, but rather should go for the best available shot. Okay, so with ten seconds left and the Nuggets down by four points, Van Gundy thought that now the Nuggets were in the right situation to start the "quick layup-quick foul-hope the guy misses at least one free throw so that we can eventually cut it to a one possession game-oh, he didn't miss, well let's start the cycle over again by taking a quick layup" strategy. This strategy is actually a decent one that can be used to prolong a game, but not when you only have ten seconds left. (It seems like the perfect strategy to employ with, oh I don't know, 28 seconds left.) Granted, with ten seconds left, there are not going to be many more times that your team finds itself with the ball. And this means that when you are down by four points, you have to score as many points as possible on each of these very few possessions. This means taking three point shots!
So the bottom line is that Chaucey Billups wisely attempted and made a three point shot (though it should not have counted since he stepped out of bounds just prior to attempting the shot), but the Nuggets did eventually come up short, losing 105-103. There's no way to know for sure if they would have won the game if using a strategy other than the asinine Van Gundy strategy (evidently adhered to by George Karl and probably a great many other NBA coaches), but they almost certainly would have given themselves a better chance.
With 30.5 seconds left in the fourth quarter, the Nuggets trailed the Lakers 101-99 and preparing to inbound the ball at midcourt. An errant pass was intercepted by the Lakers' Trevor Ariza and recovered on the Lakers' offensive side of the court with just over twenty-eight seconds to play. And so Jeff Van Gundy said essentially that since there was a four second differential between the shot and game clocks, the Nuggets did not have to foul.
I suppose Van Gundy was technically correct, the Nuggets did not have to foul. But then again, the Nuggets also did not have to try to win the game. I'm going to assume for the moment that the Nuggets were trying to win the game and lists the steps that would likely have to take place for Van Gundy's strategy to have any chance of working.
1. Nuggets do not commit any fouls (this is after all the foundation of the entire strategy).
2. Lakers do not score on the possession.
3. Nuggets rebound presumed errant Lakers shot attempt (see number 2) with 4-5 seconds remaining.
4. Nuggets successfully inbound the ball to one of their players.
5. Nuggets score basket to either tie game (2-point attempt) or take the lead (3-point attempt).
6. If time remains, Nuggets prevent Lakers from scoring and force overtime or win game.
The overwhelming flaw in this plan is that it essentially requires every step in the plan to go flawlessly if the Nuggets are going to have any chance to win. There is almost no margin for error. And the strategy is foolishly optimistic considering the fact that the Lakers have Kobe Bryant on their team, a ruthlessly attacking player who would (a) almost certainly have the ball as time wound down and (b) stood a greater than 50% of chance of scoring on the play, getting fouled on the play (Bryant being an 85+% foul shooter), or both. And then you throw in the very real possibility that the Nuggets just might not get the rebound since Bryant would likely draw help defense, potentially leaving the helping defender's man unchecked to grab the offensive rebound, and I certainly can go on.
So what did actually happen? Well, the Nuggets had a tad bit of trouble going the entire 24 second shot clock without fouling, and so ended up fouling Bryant as he drove the lane toward the basket with right around ten seconds left. So there the Nuggets were, down two points with Bryant shooting two free throws with ten seconds left where if they had fouled immediately, they could have been down two with Bryant (or even Ariza) shooting two free throws with 26-27 seconds left. And of course Bryant did hit both of the free throws to put the Lakers up 103-99 with roughly ten seconds left.
But the absurdly stupid strategy suggestions did not end with 28 seconds remaining. Van Gundy next said that the Nuggets should not necessarily attempt a three point shot when inbounding the ball, but rather should go for the best available shot. Okay, so with ten seconds left and the Nuggets down by four points, Van Gundy thought that now the Nuggets were in the right situation to start the "quick layup-quick foul-hope the guy misses at least one free throw so that we can eventually cut it to a one possession game-oh, he didn't miss, well let's start the cycle over again by taking a quick layup" strategy. This strategy is actually a decent one that can be used to prolong a game, but not when you only have ten seconds left. (It seems like the perfect strategy to employ with, oh I don't know, 28 seconds left.) Granted, with ten seconds left, there are not going to be many more times that your team finds itself with the ball. And this means that when you are down by four points, you have to score as many points as possible on each of these very few possessions. This means taking three point shots!
So the bottom line is that Chaucey Billups wisely attempted and made a three point shot (though it should not have counted since he stepped out of bounds just prior to attempting the shot), but the Nuggets did eventually come up short, losing 105-103. There's no way to know for sure if they would have won the game if using a strategy other than the asinine Van Gundy strategy (evidently adhered to by George Karl and probably a great many other NBA coaches), but they almost certainly would have given themselves a better chance.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Where is Channel 175?!
Okay, I'm back!
And what could possibly convince me to come back after a long hiatus? (I am of course excluding my brief return yesterday to write an uncharacteristically short post.) Well, we already established in an earlier post that it cannot possibly be because I have become any less lazy over the course of time. And just to prove this point, I am way too lazy to even go back to that previous post in which I mentioned that I had unequivocally not given up being lazy.
Well, to end the suspense, what has brought me back is rage. Yes, rage. You see, the other night, as in last night, I had used the remote control to turn on the television device sitting in my living room. And as I quite often do, I was using the remote control to navigate through the different channels, most of which of suck, to see whether there was anything worth watching currently airing.
And as usual, just about everything that was on television sucked, just as one might expect of generally sucky channels. And so I was left with my standby channel, one that rarely disappoints in situations such as this: The Boomerang Network.
For those who are unaware, the Boomerang Network is Cartoon Network's sister station that broadcasts cartoons from a bygone era when the creators of the programs cared about such quaint things as interesting plots, animation, good drawing, and humor. Now granted, not every one of the shows that the network chose to air possessed all of these qualities, but most of these shows certainly seem as if the creators (a) actually took more than twenty minutes to complete individual episodes of the show and (b) believed the children watching the show were more competent and attentive than trained monkeys.
But alas, I was thwarted. And why was I thwarted? Well, because in their infinite lack of wisdom, whoever it is that decides what channels I get in my cable subscription has decided to remove Channel 175 from my list. That (those) bastard(s)! I will have my revenge! I have not completely formulated the revenge plan as of yet, but rest assured, it is being formulated. I'll have more later (unless they wise up and bring back Channel 175).
The rage is back!
And what could possibly convince me to come back after a long hiatus? (I am of course excluding my brief return yesterday to write an uncharacteristically short post.) Well, we already established in an earlier post that it cannot possibly be because I have become any less lazy over the course of time. And just to prove this point, I am way too lazy to even go back to that previous post in which I mentioned that I had unequivocally not given up being lazy.
Well, to end the suspense, what has brought me back is rage. Yes, rage. You see, the other night, as in last night, I had used the remote control to turn on the television device sitting in my living room. And as I quite often do, I was using the remote control to navigate through the different channels, most of which of suck, to see whether there was anything worth watching currently airing.
And as usual, just about everything that was on television sucked, just as one might expect of generally sucky channels. And so I was left with my standby channel, one that rarely disappoints in situations such as this: The Boomerang Network.
For those who are unaware, the Boomerang Network is Cartoon Network's sister station that broadcasts cartoons from a bygone era when the creators of the programs cared about such quaint things as interesting plots, animation, good drawing, and humor. Now granted, not every one of the shows that the network chose to air possessed all of these qualities, but most of these shows certainly seem as if the creators (a) actually took more than twenty minutes to complete individual episodes of the show and (b) believed the children watching the show were more competent and attentive than trained monkeys.
But alas, I was thwarted. And why was I thwarted? Well, because in their infinite lack of wisdom, whoever it is that decides what channels I get in my cable subscription has decided to remove Channel 175 from my list. That (those) bastard(s)! I will have my revenge! I have not completely formulated the revenge plan as of yet, but rest assured, it is being formulated. I'll have more later (unless they wise up and bring back Channel 175).
The rage is back!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Neighborhood Ball
I am back! Yes, I know that there are a fair amount of people out there that have probably missed me. No really, you don't have to admit it to me, I know that it's true. What, you may be asking, was the reason for this two-month long hiatus? Well it is because I am lazy - very, very lazy. But an equally valid question that you may be asking now is why am I writing now? You may be asking whether or not I have suddenly stopped being lazy. Is it one of your New Year's resolutions to stop being lazy Cabral? Of course you can probably answer this second question yourselves. Nonsense! Absolute rubbish! But the first question still remains, and the answer to this question is that there is a matter of incredible importance that requires my immediate attention.
And this matter concerns the recent inaugural balls that took place. Now I did watch a fair amount of the inaugural events that took place earlier in the day, but admittedly I lost interest in following what was going on closely as the hours of coverage reached into the double digits. When President and First Lady Obama were at the balls, every now and then I would look up and pay attention to what they were saying, but on the whole, I gave this portion of the programming little focus. It wasn't until Wednesday morning, January 21 that a horrible truth was revealed to me. Apparently at the Neighborhood Ball, the very first ball that the President and First Lady attended (I think) the DJ for the event was Nick Cannon... Nick Cannon?!
I just cannot comprehend this... Barack Obama, you have only a few short hours ago become the President of the United States and the first inaugural ball that you attend is DJ'ed by Nick Cannon? Okay, okay, okay, I know that there was likely at least one other thing on your mind leading up to inauguration day. You probably were not completely focused on who would be appearing at what balls on that evening, but come on, Mr. President, the ball was DJ'ed by Nick Cannon!
Perhaps President Obama is too nice of a guy; perhaps he is even a nicer guy than myself (a bit of a stretch, but you never know...), but I can imagine the following scenario taking place:
Aide: "Welcome to the Neighborhood Ball, Mr. President!"
President Obama: "Thank you so much, it is a pleasure to be here."
Aide: "If you or the First Lady should need anything at all, sir, we are here to help."
P. Obama: "I thank you; you are too kind... Wait a minute, who is that DJ'ing the ball?"
Aide: "Oh, that's Nick, sir!"
P. Obama: "Nick who? Nick Lachey?"
Aide: "No, sir, it's Nick Cannon."
P. Obama: "Wait, who's Nick Cannon?"
First Lady Obama: "Oh, I think that Nick Cannon is some D-list talent that some kids find hilarious for some reason."
Aide: "That's correct Ms. First Lady! Nick Cannon is hilarious!"
P. Obama: "Wait a minute, how did Nick Cannon get chosen? Did Biden do this? I knew I should have named him Secretary of State..."
Aide: "No, Mr. President, as you instructed, we're keeping the Vice President out of sight and muzzled. I believe it was Malia and Sasha who picked Nick Cannon."
P. Obama: "Sasha and Malia picked Nick Cannon?! That's it, they're not getting that dog now!"
F.L. Obama: "But dear, we promised. We can't have your presidency starting with you breaking promises so easily. Well, if you are going to break your promises, break the promises you made to the Republicans, not the ones you made to the kids."
P. Obama: "Hmm... You're right. The kids get to have the dog, but they're not going to see the next Hannah Montana movie."
And this matter concerns the recent inaugural balls that took place. Now I did watch a fair amount of the inaugural events that took place earlier in the day, but admittedly I lost interest in following what was going on closely as the hours of coverage reached into the double digits. When President and First Lady Obama were at the balls, every now and then I would look up and pay attention to what they were saying, but on the whole, I gave this portion of the programming little focus. It wasn't until Wednesday morning, January 21 that a horrible truth was revealed to me. Apparently at the Neighborhood Ball, the very first ball that the President and First Lady attended (I think) the DJ for the event was Nick Cannon... Nick Cannon?!
I just cannot comprehend this... Barack Obama, you have only a few short hours ago become the President of the United States and the first inaugural ball that you attend is DJ'ed by Nick Cannon? Okay, okay, okay, I know that there was likely at least one other thing on your mind leading up to inauguration day. You probably were not completely focused on who would be appearing at what balls on that evening, but come on, Mr. President, the ball was DJ'ed by Nick Cannon!
Perhaps President Obama is too nice of a guy; perhaps he is even a nicer guy than myself (a bit of a stretch, but you never know...), but I can imagine the following scenario taking place:
Aide: "Welcome to the Neighborhood Ball, Mr. President!"
President Obama: "Thank you so much, it is a pleasure to be here."
Aide: "If you or the First Lady should need anything at all, sir, we are here to help."
P. Obama: "I thank you; you are too kind... Wait a minute, who is that DJ'ing the ball?"
Aide: "Oh, that's Nick, sir!"
P. Obama: "Nick who? Nick Lachey?"
Aide: "No, sir, it's Nick Cannon."
P. Obama: "Wait, who's Nick Cannon?"
First Lady Obama: "Oh, I think that Nick Cannon is some D-list talent that some kids find hilarious for some reason."
Aide: "That's correct Ms. First Lady! Nick Cannon is hilarious!"
P. Obama: "Wait a minute, how did Nick Cannon get chosen? Did Biden do this? I knew I should have named him Secretary of State..."
Aide: "No, Mr. President, as you instructed, we're keeping the Vice President out of sight and muzzled. I believe it was Malia and Sasha who picked Nick Cannon."
P. Obama: "Sasha and Malia picked Nick Cannon?! That's it, they're not getting that dog now!"
F.L. Obama: "But dear, we promised. We can't have your presidency starting with you breaking promises so easily. Well, if you are going to break your promises, break the promises you made to the Republicans, not the ones you made to the kids."
P. Obama: "Hmm... You're right. The kids get to have the dog, but they're not going to see the next Hannah Montana movie."
Monday, November 17, 2008
NFL 2008: Week 11
I just had to touch on a few NFL stories for week 11, with the Monday night game between Cleveland and Buffalo still yet to be played.
First of all, with each successive week, I become more and more convinced that the New York Football Giants are going to repeat this year. Their running game seems virtually unstoppable at this point, and the fact that they are not relying too heavily on one back is extremely important. Since they are spreading the rushing load around, the odds of their running backs being fresh and healthy for a presumed late trip into the playoffs seem high at this point. It is a bit worrisome that top running back Brandon Jacobs did come down with a bit of an injury in yesterday's game versus the Ravens, but since he insists that he could have come back to play if absolutely necessary, I'm going to cross my fingers and judge it as being of little concern.
The Giants running attack was dominating yesterday, totalling 207 yards rushing, and in so doing, becoming the first team to break 100 yards against Baltimore's previously top rated run defense this year. The Giants run offense is doing the important job of limiting the need for the Eli Manning to beat teams passing. The Giants defense is also doing its part, ranking number two overall in the league in total defense, and in the top ten in both rush and pass defense. Being able to control the ball with a solid running game on offense and being able to prevent your opponent from doing so on defense are certainly ingredients for success in the NFL.
Okay, now that I'm done fawning over the Giants, I'll move to a few other things. First of all (or second of all), I'll discuss the Chargers-Steelers game. By now you may know that the Steelers defeated the Chargers 11-10, this game being the first time in 12,000 plus NFL games (or something like that) in history that the final score was 11-10. When I first heard this stat, my initial response was who gives a damn? Do people really have this little to do that they sit around and wait for professional football final scores to see if they have ever been achieved in the history of the game? And then I remembered that the answer to this last question is yes, and that the people who do have such little to do are at the Elias Sports Bureau. But then I later learned that the officials had improperly taken away a touchdown at the end of the game that would have given the Steelers a 17-10 or 18-10 win and I realized that there were other people who would actually give a damn. Those would be fantasy football players and gamblers. I certainly am glad that my fantasy football team wasn't affected by this error, and it is times like this that I am overjoyed that I never got into gambling.
And I guess I should say at least something about the Denver Broncos so that James doesn't whine that I dedicated an entire post to football and didn't discuss the Broncos. The Broncos are in first place, leading an otherwise absolutely crummy division. Good show! Keep up the good work!
And finally, I get to the reason that I really wanted to write this particular post. I'm going to discuss the Philadelphia-Cincinnati 13-13 tie that took place on Sunday. And to be more precise, I'm going to discuss Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb's apparent lack of understanding that ties were possible in the NFL. I find this utterly ridiculous that a starting quarterback on an NFL team did not know that a tie was possible. Now sure, ties don't occur that frequently in the league, the last one having occurred six years ago, but McNabb was in the league six years ago. One would think that even if he didn't know ties were possible when he entered the league that just perusing the scores of games that particular week would have caused him to say, wow a tie - I didn't know that was possible! That's crazy!
But even if that tie had not occurred in 2002, this still seems utterly absurd. Maybe the Philadelphia Eagles just haven't played that many games that have gone to overtime since McNabb has been in the league, but one would think that if they have played any other overtime games, since he is the starting quarterback he would be out there for the coin toss for overtime and he would at least listen to all of the rules that the referee gives. I'm not 100% certain, but I think that the referee does tell the players gathered for the second coin toss that if no team scores after fifteen minutes of overtime the game ends in a tie. I mean, did the guy not watch any pro football while he was in college? Admittedly, I'm a bit of stats junkie and I love ties in the NFL because I think it is funny how they screw up playoff races, but off the top of my head, I was able to remember that there were two ties in the 1997 NFL season, and three of those teams with ties were in the same division. And that division with three teams, and one of those teams, are the division and team on which McNabb has always played for in the NFL. I guess McNabb must have known what record his team had the year before joining the team, but he didn't think to look at their record just one more year back? Unbelievable...
First of all, with each successive week, I become more and more convinced that the New York Football Giants are going to repeat this year. Their running game seems virtually unstoppable at this point, and the fact that they are not relying too heavily on one back is extremely important. Since they are spreading the rushing load around, the odds of their running backs being fresh and healthy for a presumed late trip into the playoffs seem high at this point. It is a bit worrisome that top running back Brandon Jacobs did come down with a bit of an injury in yesterday's game versus the Ravens, but since he insists that he could have come back to play if absolutely necessary, I'm going to cross my fingers and judge it as being of little concern.
The Giants running attack was dominating yesterday, totalling 207 yards rushing, and in so doing, becoming the first team to break 100 yards against Baltimore's previously top rated run defense this year. The Giants run offense is doing the important job of limiting the need for the Eli Manning to beat teams passing. The Giants defense is also doing its part, ranking number two overall in the league in total defense, and in the top ten in both rush and pass defense. Being able to control the ball with a solid running game on offense and being able to prevent your opponent from doing so on defense are certainly ingredients for success in the NFL.
Okay, now that I'm done fawning over the Giants, I'll move to a few other things. First of all (or second of all), I'll discuss the Chargers-Steelers game. By now you may know that the Steelers defeated the Chargers 11-10, this game being the first time in 12,000 plus NFL games (or something like that) in history that the final score was 11-10. When I first heard this stat, my initial response was who gives a damn? Do people really have this little to do that they sit around and wait for professional football final scores to see if they have ever been achieved in the history of the game? And then I remembered that the answer to this last question is yes, and that the people who do have such little to do are at the Elias Sports Bureau. But then I later learned that the officials had improperly taken away a touchdown at the end of the game that would have given the Steelers a 17-10 or 18-10 win and I realized that there were other people who would actually give a damn. Those would be fantasy football players and gamblers. I certainly am glad that my fantasy football team wasn't affected by this error, and it is times like this that I am overjoyed that I never got into gambling.
And I guess I should say at least something about the Denver Broncos so that James doesn't whine that I dedicated an entire post to football and didn't discuss the Broncos. The Broncos are in first place, leading an otherwise absolutely crummy division. Good show! Keep up the good work!
And finally, I get to the reason that I really wanted to write this particular post. I'm going to discuss the Philadelphia-Cincinnati 13-13 tie that took place on Sunday. And to be more precise, I'm going to discuss Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb's apparent lack of understanding that ties were possible in the NFL. I find this utterly ridiculous that a starting quarterback on an NFL team did not know that a tie was possible. Now sure, ties don't occur that frequently in the league, the last one having occurred six years ago, but McNabb was in the league six years ago. One would think that even if he didn't know ties were possible when he entered the league that just perusing the scores of games that particular week would have caused him to say, wow a tie - I didn't know that was possible! That's crazy!
But even if that tie had not occurred in 2002, this still seems utterly absurd. Maybe the Philadelphia Eagles just haven't played that many games that have gone to overtime since McNabb has been in the league, but one would think that if they have played any other overtime games, since he is the starting quarterback he would be out there for the coin toss for overtime and he would at least listen to all of the rules that the referee gives. I'm not 100% certain, but I think that the referee does tell the players gathered for the second coin toss that if no team scores after fifteen minutes of overtime the game ends in a tie. I mean, did the guy not watch any pro football while he was in college? Admittedly, I'm a bit of stats junkie and I love ties in the NFL because I think it is funny how they screw up playoff races, but off the top of my head, I was able to remember that there were two ties in the 1997 NFL season, and three of those teams with ties were in the same division. And that division with three teams, and one of those teams, are the division and team on which McNabb has always played for in the NFL. I guess McNabb must have known what record his team had the year before joining the team, but he didn't think to look at their record just one more year back? Unbelievable...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Fate of Joe Lieberman
Okay, now that I posted a non-political story, I can get back to politics. (But I swear, I'm not going to turn this into a political site. Just one more post...for now.) And this story deals with Joe Lieberman and what the Democratic Caucus in the Senate should do with him.
Let's get one thing out of the way first. Joe Lieberman is definitely a traitor to the Democratic Party. You can come to no other conclusion if the guy endorses the opposition party's presidential candidate, actively campaigns for that presidential candidate, speaks at that party's convention, and then levels not so veiled threats about leaving his own party and defecting if he doesn't get his own way.
Joe Lieberman did all of those above things. He chose the losing side, and rather than displaying any contrition, he comes wielding empty threats. There is a very simple way that Democrats should handle Lieberman, notwithstanding President-Elect Barack Obama's opinion that Lieberman should stay in the caucus and retain his committee chairmanship.
The Democrats should say, "Joe, you can stay in the caucus if you'd like, but you're not keeping your chairmanship. Those are the terms and they are non-negotiable." If Lieberman reacts like a spoiled brat and goes off to join the Republican caucus, who cares?
If the Democrats needed Lieberman to remain in the majority (as they did the last two years) or if they needed Lieberman to maintain a sixty vote filibuster proof majority (which it appears they won't reach even with Lieberman), then this issue might be a bit more complicated, but neither is the case. Why would the other Democratic senators allow themselves to be worked over by a traitor to the party like Joe Lieberman? Joe Lieberman has precisely zero leverage in this discussion to make demands.
Let's say Lieberman does decline such a gracious offer and goes to the Republicans. Is Joe Lieberman now all of a sudden going to vote with the Republicans on domestic issues on which he used to vote with the Democrats? Is he going to vote in the opposite way as he used to vote purely out of spite? Honestly, I wouldn't put this past Lieberman. I do so hope that we get the chance to find out.
Lieberman has been extremely arrogant in the way he has carried himself over the last couple of years. He should not be allowed by the entire Democratic caucus to come with his threats. Give him the non-negotiable terms described above and see if he is foolish enough to switch to caucusing with the Republicans. If he thought that his re-election bid in Connecticut was tough in 2006, then he is in for a very bruising experience in 2012.
Let's get one thing out of the way first. Joe Lieberman is definitely a traitor to the Democratic Party. You can come to no other conclusion if the guy endorses the opposition party's presidential candidate, actively campaigns for that presidential candidate, speaks at that party's convention, and then levels not so veiled threats about leaving his own party and defecting if he doesn't get his own way.
Joe Lieberman did all of those above things. He chose the losing side, and rather than displaying any contrition, he comes wielding empty threats. There is a very simple way that Democrats should handle Lieberman, notwithstanding President-Elect Barack Obama's opinion that Lieberman should stay in the caucus and retain his committee chairmanship.
The Democrats should say, "Joe, you can stay in the caucus if you'd like, but you're not keeping your chairmanship. Those are the terms and they are non-negotiable." If Lieberman reacts like a spoiled brat and goes off to join the Republican caucus, who cares?
If the Democrats needed Lieberman to remain in the majority (as they did the last two years) or if they needed Lieberman to maintain a sixty vote filibuster proof majority (which it appears they won't reach even with Lieberman), then this issue might be a bit more complicated, but neither is the case. Why would the other Democratic senators allow themselves to be worked over by a traitor to the party like Joe Lieberman? Joe Lieberman has precisely zero leverage in this discussion to make demands.
Let's say Lieberman does decline such a gracious offer and goes to the Republicans. Is Joe Lieberman now all of a sudden going to vote with the Republicans on domestic issues on which he used to vote with the Democrats? Is he going to vote in the opposite way as he used to vote purely out of spite? Honestly, I wouldn't put this past Lieberman. I do so hope that we get the chance to find out.
Lieberman has been extremely arrogant in the way he has carried himself over the last couple of years. He should not be allowed by the entire Democratic caucus to come with his threats. Give him the non-negotiable terms described above and see if he is foolish enough to switch to caucusing with the Republicans. If he thought that his re-election bid in Connecticut was tough in 2006, then he is in for a very bruising experience in 2012.
Kickball and the Summer of 1996
Alright, back to non-political stuff. I would like to relate to you a brief story from my youth that still makes me smile to this day. And this story happens to be 100% true, in case you are wondering.
Back in the summer of 1996, my younger brother and I had the misfortune of working as counselors at a summer camp. Well if it was such a misfortune, you might ask, then why does this story bring a smile to my face? That's a very good question, and I certainly will answer it before long.
This was a miserable summer because the pay was incredibly low; we were basically indentured servants. And we were not happy to be there - in fact we hated being there. And I'm pretty sure most of the kids hated being there as well. Who could blame them really? Though I was eighteen at the time, I knew for a fact that all of the activities that they had the kids doing sucked. I mean seriously, they had these children dancing to that stupid Macarena song, they had them doing arts and craft, and a whole host of other stupid activities that an eighteen-year-old certainly would not enjoy, and six to twelve-year-olds should not enjoy either. Six to twelve-year-olds should be more interested in winning foot races and solving complex mathematical problems and not these sort of trite activities that should be reserved for four and five-year-olds.
Now since I hated these activities, and believed that deep within themselves all of the children did so as well, I didn't feel obligated to force the kids to do any of them. This decision on my part did not necessarily go over so well with my fellow counselors, but I decided that since many of them seemed to have an inability to pronounce my name correctly (one even going so far as to add additional syllables), I was going to be of as little help to them as possible. And I must admit that the children adored me all the more for not making them do stupid, boring stuff.
But alas the goal was not to have the children love me, but to hate me, and in so hating me, love me all the more. So I had to be a jerk to the kids. I know from experience that once kids get to be about ten, eleven, twelve, that's when they start developing jerk-personae. Some of those kids in the camp that year might have been very adept at being jerks for their age, but they could not hope to compete with one such as I who had had several years head start in honing my jerk skills.
But I've kind of been meandering a bit, or rambling, if you will, and have yet to come to the incident that occurred while I was working at that camp that summer that still brings a smile to my face. I was in the midst of a kickball game involving a group of mostly six-year-olds, and I happened to be standing on the portion of asphalt that would be considered left-center field. I believe that there were two runners on base, a boy on third and a girl on second. Well, the ball happened to make it through off the bounce to me and as I scanned the "field" (the blacktop), I could see that somehow there was a mix-up and the boy and girl were both running in close proximity toward home plate. For some reason we playing by a rule that if you hit someone with the ball while they were running off of a base, they were considered out. And so I knew what I had to do.
From my position out in the outfield about 100 feet from home plate, I saw how quickly the children were running and tried to judge the proper trajectory to use to pick off one of them. I knew I had a bit of a margin for error since two of them were running so closely together. I did the almost instantaneous mental calculation and I lofted the ball into the air.
The ball drifted into the air, seemingly taking an eternity to reach its apex. As the ball descended back down toward the ground, the mouths of all were agape as we all slowly tracked the progress of the red round object. The little boy was fortunate to escape the ball's wrath, but the little girl was not so lucky. Bam! She was drilled in the head and sent down to the asphalt.
What happened next? Well, my memory is a bit hazy on this matter. I'm going to guess that we were up by one run prior to the ball coming out to me and that the boy and the girl running the bases represented the tying and winning runs. Since the girl was knocked out before the boy crossed home plate, we won. I think that all of the six-year-olds on my team came and mobbed me and lifted me onto their shoulders as we celebrated our victory. I do kind of wonder what became of that little girl though...
Good times...
Back in the summer of 1996, my younger brother and I had the misfortune of working as counselors at a summer camp. Well if it was such a misfortune, you might ask, then why does this story bring a smile to my face? That's a very good question, and I certainly will answer it before long.
This was a miserable summer because the pay was incredibly low; we were basically indentured servants. And we were not happy to be there - in fact we hated being there. And I'm pretty sure most of the kids hated being there as well. Who could blame them really? Though I was eighteen at the time, I knew for a fact that all of the activities that they had the kids doing sucked. I mean seriously, they had these children dancing to that stupid Macarena song, they had them doing arts and craft, and a whole host of other stupid activities that an eighteen-year-old certainly would not enjoy, and six to twelve-year-olds should not enjoy either. Six to twelve-year-olds should be more interested in winning foot races and solving complex mathematical problems and not these sort of trite activities that should be reserved for four and five-year-olds.
Now since I hated these activities, and believed that deep within themselves all of the children did so as well, I didn't feel obligated to force the kids to do any of them. This decision on my part did not necessarily go over so well with my fellow counselors, but I decided that since many of them seemed to have an inability to pronounce my name correctly (one even going so far as to add additional syllables), I was going to be of as little help to them as possible. And I must admit that the children adored me all the more for not making them do stupid, boring stuff.
But alas the goal was not to have the children love me, but to hate me, and in so hating me, love me all the more. So I had to be a jerk to the kids. I know from experience that once kids get to be about ten, eleven, twelve, that's when they start developing jerk-personae. Some of those kids in the camp that year might have been very adept at being jerks for their age, but they could not hope to compete with one such as I who had had several years head start in honing my jerk skills.
But I've kind of been meandering a bit, or rambling, if you will, and have yet to come to the incident that occurred while I was working at that camp that summer that still brings a smile to my face. I was in the midst of a kickball game involving a group of mostly six-year-olds, and I happened to be standing on the portion of asphalt that would be considered left-center field. I believe that there were two runners on base, a boy on third and a girl on second. Well, the ball happened to make it through off the bounce to me and as I scanned the "field" (the blacktop), I could see that somehow there was a mix-up and the boy and girl were both running in close proximity toward home plate. For some reason we playing by a rule that if you hit someone with the ball while they were running off of a base, they were considered out. And so I knew what I had to do.
From my position out in the outfield about 100 feet from home plate, I saw how quickly the children were running and tried to judge the proper trajectory to use to pick off one of them. I knew I had a bit of a margin for error since two of them were running so closely together. I did the almost instantaneous mental calculation and I lofted the ball into the air.
The ball drifted into the air, seemingly taking an eternity to reach its apex. As the ball descended back down toward the ground, the mouths of all were agape as we all slowly tracked the progress of the red round object. The little boy was fortunate to escape the ball's wrath, but the little girl was not so lucky. Bam! She was drilled in the head and sent down to the asphalt.
What happened next? Well, my memory is a bit hazy on this matter. I'm going to guess that we were up by one run prior to the ball coming out to me and that the boy and the girl running the bases represented the tying and winning runs. Since the girl was knocked out before the boy crossed home plate, we won. I think that all of the six-year-olds on my team came and mobbed me and lifted me onto their shoulders as we celebrated our victory. I do kind of wonder what became of that little girl though...
Good times...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
