Via Big Orange, Samuel L. Jackson has had it with that muthafuckin' proposition on his muthafuckin' ballot.
In other news, Jackson should become the liberal Chuck Norris.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
My Votes, My Explanation.
OK, so I bit off way more than I could chew with that "Election 2008" post series I was planning. It didn't help that I ended up having to do a lot of prepping for the AIChE Conference Of Doom next month. But I'll just briefly go over my votes for the big races here, along with some stupid platitudes about why I chose them.
One note. I suddenly find myself living in a battleground state (Really? North Carolina? Who knew?), and I feel for you Floridians and Ohioans who have to deal with this dreck on TV every four years. Of course, if I had the time or inclination I could have gone to see all three major presidential candidates and two of their running mates (Wayne Allyn Root, you're slacking, dude), so that's kinda cool.
President: Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat. I was tempted to vote for Bob Barr, even though I spent most of my adolescence throwing up in my mouth whenever I heard his name mentioned. Barr's the only candidate that might actually have the inclination to rein in the absurd reach of executive power we've gotten ourselves into the past few decades. But I chose Obama because in the most important area in which the President is supposed to act - foreign policy - he's clearly the best. McCain, for all his supposed experience, doesn't get diplomacy as well as I had hoped, and his failure to understand who pulls the levers in Iran (hint: not A-Train), among other things, hurts him there. Temperament is also, ahem, an issue. I don't want him suspending his presidency if there's a war somewhere or something. Barr's foreign policy is way too far the other direction - isolationism isn't an option for a superpower.
My wish was for a candidate who understood the limits of the presidency and campaigned accordingly. Wish not granted, however, I get the sense that Obama would at least respect the Constitution and some of the limits it places on Presidential authority. The same could not be said for McCain, who seems to believe that the President should be able to do whatever.
Senate: State Sen. Kay Hagan, Democrat. See the next post down.
House: B.J. Lawson, Republican. What the hell? I'm voting for a Republican? How did this happen - especially given my professed approval of his opponent, Rep. David Price? Well, two things. One, Price isn't losing this seat. It's a pretty Democratic seat in a Democratic year. But he has made some horrible votes over the past few years - the bankruptcy bill, the bailout, gutting FISA, the Patriot Act... I could go on. (And yes, I recognize Obama cast many of the same votes. I'll get to the difference in a second.) He's been cruising to re-election this whole time - a little shock from an opponent could do him good, as would two years back in Chapel Hill reading the Constitution. Two, Lawson's basically Ron Paul without the crazy. He's anti-war, pro-civil rights for gays, and a budget hawk. He opposes corporate welfare (of course, he probably opposes welfare in general) and earmarks. And most importantly, he's running as a defender of civil liberties. A Congressman with a spine in the face of Presidential power-grabs? I'll bite.
Governor: Michael Munger, Libertarian. The major-party candidates, Democratic Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and Republican Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, aren't particularly objectionable. But they're both panderers... and Munger is decidedly not that. The rare LP nominee who has his head screwed on straight, Munger presents remarkably coherent views on education (public school choice, expanding charter schools) and immigration (once they get here, we kinda have to treat them like everyone else). Munger opposes tax breaks for companies that relocate here, which is good since those kinds of giveaways have plagued our budget for most of Crash Easley's administration. Overall, he's the best candidate. Here's hoping he can get over the 5% mark so NC's ridiculous ballot access laws don't decertify the Libertarians again.
There you have it. My prediction is that Obama will hold on to win by the skin of his teeth, and Price, Hagan, and McCrory will win the other races. Of course, the Presidential election will be decided on Monday night when the Steelers come to Washington for the 'Skins' last home game before the election. So considering that I voted for Obama, do I sacrifice my fanhood and root for the Steelers? Or do I root for the 'Skins, knowing that a victory guarantees a McCain win?
Fuck it. Go 'Skins.
One note. I suddenly find myself living in a battleground state (Really? North Carolina? Who knew?), and I feel for you Floridians and Ohioans who have to deal with this dreck on TV every four years. Of course, if I had the time or inclination I could have gone to see all three major presidential candidates and two of their running mates (Wayne Allyn Root, you're slacking, dude), so that's kinda cool.
President: Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat. I was tempted to vote for Bob Barr, even though I spent most of my adolescence throwing up in my mouth whenever I heard his name mentioned. Barr's the only candidate that might actually have the inclination to rein in the absurd reach of executive power we've gotten ourselves into the past few decades. But I chose Obama because in the most important area in which the President is supposed to act - foreign policy - he's clearly the best. McCain, for all his supposed experience, doesn't get diplomacy as well as I had hoped, and his failure to understand who pulls the levers in Iran (hint: not A-Train), among other things, hurts him there. Temperament is also, ahem, an issue. I don't want him suspending his presidency if there's a war somewhere or something. Barr's foreign policy is way too far the other direction - isolationism isn't an option for a superpower.
My wish was for a candidate who understood the limits of the presidency and campaigned accordingly. Wish not granted, however, I get the sense that Obama would at least respect the Constitution and some of the limits it places on Presidential authority. The same could not be said for McCain, who seems to believe that the President should be able to do whatever.
Senate: State Sen. Kay Hagan, Democrat. See the next post down.
House: B.J. Lawson, Republican. What the hell? I'm voting for a Republican? How did this happen - especially given my professed approval of his opponent, Rep. David Price? Well, two things. One, Price isn't losing this seat. It's a pretty Democratic seat in a Democratic year. But he has made some horrible votes over the past few years - the bankruptcy bill, the bailout, gutting FISA, the Patriot Act... I could go on. (And yes, I recognize Obama cast many of the same votes. I'll get to the difference in a second.) He's been cruising to re-election this whole time - a little shock from an opponent could do him good, as would two years back in Chapel Hill reading the Constitution. Two, Lawson's basically Ron Paul without the crazy. He's anti-war, pro-civil rights for gays, and a budget hawk. He opposes corporate welfare (of course, he probably opposes welfare in general) and earmarks. And most importantly, he's running as a defender of civil liberties. A Congressman with a spine in the face of Presidential power-grabs? I'll bite.
Governor: Michael Munger, Libertarian. The major-party candidates, Democratic Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and Republican Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, aren't particularly objectionable. But they're both panderers... and Munger is decidedly not that. The rare LP nominee who has his head screwed on straight, Munger presents remarkably coherent views on education (public school choice, expanding charter schools) and immigration (once they get here, we kinda have to treat them like everyone else). Munger opposes tax breaks for companies that relocate here, which is good since those kinds of giveaways have plagued our budget for most of Crash Easley's administration. Overall, he's the best candidate. Here's hoping he can get over the 5% mark so NC's ridiculous ballot access laws don't decertify the Libertarians again.
There you have it. My prediction is that Obama will hold on to win by the skin of his teeth, and Price, Hagan, and McCrory will win the other races. Of course, the Presidential election will be decided on Monday night when the Steelers come to Washington for the 'Skins' last home game before the election. So considering that I voted for Obama, do I sacrifice my fanhood and root for the Steelers? Or do I root for the 'Skins, knowing that a victory guarantees a McCain win?
Fuck it. Go 'Skins.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"Godless" Bullcrap
About the only moment I remember from the 2004 RNC is my oh-so-wonderful senior senator Elizabeth Dole repeating the bizarre, ridiculous canard that "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion," as if everyone in America should be forced to join a religion or something. Anyway, fast-forward to this weekend. Dole faces a hell of a race against Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan, and she puts out what could be the worst advertisement in the history of politics. Here it is (first video).
There's so much wrong with this ad that I can't even type a coherent blog post on how awful it is. Is it the fact that it indulges heavily in America's last socially acceptable bigotry? Is it the fact that it tries to hang the atheist label on someone who is incredibly active in her church, which is kind of like an anti-black racist going after Tony Bennett? Is it the fact that she's implying that Hagan's part of some sort of bizarre atheist conspiracy? Or is it the fake Hagan voice saying "there is no God" at the end that just puts the whole thing waaaaay over the top?
Caveat: I haven't actually seen this ad air. I'm guessing Dole knows that that crapola won't play in the Triangle, which is more culturally progressive and probably more accepting of atheists. But Dole's ads this year have been singularly awful. Check out this clunker. Note to the Dole camp: any ad that ends with the phrase "that dog won't hunt" probably sucks.
There's so much wrong with this ad that I can't even type a coherent blog post on how awful it is. Is it the fact that it indulges heavily in America's last socially acceptable bigotry? Is it the fact that it tries to hang the atheist label on someone who is incredibly active in her church, which is kind of like an anti-black racist going after Tony Bennett? Is it the fact that she's implying that Hagan's part of some sort of bizarre atheist conspiracy? Or is it the fake Hagan voice saying "there is no God" at the end that just puts the whole thing waaaaay over the top?
Caveat: I haven't actually seen this ad air. I'm guessing Dole knows that that crapola won't play in the Triangle, which is more culturally progressive and probably more accepting of atheists. But Dole's ads this year have been singularly awful. Check out this clunker. Note to the Dole camp: any ad that ends with the phrase "that dog won't hunt" probably sucks.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Picture That Lived
The Slant might be a shadow of its former self nowadays, but it's good to know that one of the funnier things we ran is still cruising the Intertubes (even if I had to do some rumorbusting regarding the pic having been taken at Matthew Shepard's funeral). This picture is almost six years old, and it's still out there. That's pretty awesome. I wish I could say the same for my Missy Elliott song analysis.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It's Not All About The Anti-Muslim Bigotry...
Let's hear some props for these guys - a handful of McCain-voting Muslim-Americans and one conservative Christian who confronted and chased off some people passing out anti-Obama literature with significant anti-Muslim bigotry. The world needs more people like you.
Note - this occurred at a rally in Woodbridge, VA, about 45 minutes from my hometown of Herndon.
Note - this occurred at a rally in Woodbridge, VA, about 45 minutes from my hometown of Herndon.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ah, Fox News
This headline is journalism at its finest:
"Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama:
Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president."
The article doesn't explain the connection, either. But I suppose all my friends who are fans of '30s and '40s-style swing dancing will be voting for the old white dude, right?
"Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama:
Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president."
The article doesn't explain the connection, either. But I suppose all my friends who are fans of '30s and '40s-style swing dancing will be voting for the old white dude, right?
A Couple of Debate-Related Thoughts
Apologies to Matt for stealing his format.
Right now, I'm waiting for the "True Joe the Plumber Facts" Internet meme to start.
- Joe the Plumber has more electoral votes than the entire Mountain time zone.
- Candidates don't campaign in Ohio. They beg Joe the Plumber for mercy.
- Joe the Plumber is the one man, and he has the one vote.
- Palm Beach County won't design its ballots without first talking to Joe the Plumber.
And so on. (Go look up the Chuck Norris Facts if you have no idea what I'm talking about.)
Update: A few more I dropped in the comments here...
- Joe the Plumber is, in fact, registered to vote… three hundred times. Legally.
- Joe the Plumber survives on a diet of pure PVC.
- Joe the Plumber writes your state’s voter lists.
- Joe the Plumber rebuilt New Orleans’ levee system with only a single pipe fitting.
And some from Matt in the comments:
- Joe the Plumber has had his taxes increased and decreased 837 times in this election.
- When Joe the Plumber visits his friend he calls it "Hanging w/ Chad".
- Joe the Plumber breaks up clogs with a real live snake.
And from Ben:
- Joe the Plumber's Law: Any presidential candidate who tries to look like he's blue collar when he's not, inevitably looks incredibly silly and deserves mockery....from Joe the Plumber.
- Joe the Plumber's Corollary: Godwin and Murphy are sissies. When they wanted to make laws, they first had to ask Joe the Plumber.
I think we might have enough for a website now. Anyone got a domain name? Basic HTML skills? This needs to be started, people.
Apparently you have to go south of the Rio Grande in order to be qualified to be president. Unless you're a hot chick.
No one will ever discuss the real reason why our education system is lagging - our ridiculous culture that brands anyone who is good at math or science as a social outcast, and that calls anyone who uses a four-syllable word an "elitist." The CNN talking heads were going on about how Obama sounded professorial - and apparently that's a bad thing. Don't we want a president who sounds smart and in command?
Either no one understands the idea of the oil market, or the candidates think we're too damn dumb to understand it. You can't choose the origin of your oil, idiots. Prices are set by global supply and global demand. Deal with it.
Sarah Palin has a kid with Down's syndrome; therefore, she is an expert on special-needs education. In other news, I just made spaghetti, therefore I am Mario Batali. Oh, and at one point McCain conflated Down's syndrome and autism. Real expertise there, hotshot.
I think the most intelligent portion of all the debates was during the beginning of this last one, when the candidates discussed their plans to bail out homeowners who took out bad loans. McCain, as Matt pointed out, wants to help everyone with negative equity reset their mortgages so they don't owe more than their house's value. Obama countered, saying essentially that this plan comes dangerously close to rewarding banks for making those bad loans in the first place, and would end up being just a big old bank giveaway that wouldn't help anyone with their payments. This proposal is the only substantive thing coming out of the McCain campaign these days, and both candidates make good points. I lean towards agreement with Obama here - negative equity is a temporary phenomenon, after all, and by the time the loan is paid off the house will probably have a good deal of positive equity. If you want to stave off foreclosures, direct aid to struggling homeowners is a better way to go - though part of me thinks that if you made an investment and the value of that investment declines, that's not the government's problem.
Either way, no one addresses the cult of homeownership that's at the center of this whole boondoggle. But that's not a votegetter, I guess.
I got Bingo this time around. My prize: A yard sign for this guy.
I'm working on the rest of those election issue posts. I'll probably dump them all at once in a week or so.
Right now, I'm waiting for the "True Joe the Plumber Facts" Internet meme to start.
- Joe the Plumber has more electoral votes than the entire Mountain time zone.
- Candidates don't campaign in Ohio. They beg Joe the Plumber for mercy.
- Joe the Plumber is the one man, and he has the one vote.
- Palm Beach County won't design its ballots without first talking to Joe the Plumber.
And so on. (Go look up the Chuck Norris Facts if you have no idea what I'm talking about.)
Update: A few more I dropped in the comments here...
- Joe the Plumber is, in fact, registered to vote… three hundred times. Legally.
- Joe the Plumber survives on a diet of pure PVC.
- Joe the Plumber writes your state’s voter lists.
- Joe the Plumber rebuilt New Orleans’ levee system with only a single pipe fitting.
And some from Matt in the comments:
- Joe the Plumber has had his taxes increased and decreased 837 times in this election.
- When Joe the Plumber visits his friend he calls it "Hanging w/ Chad".
- Joe the Plumber breaks up clogs with a real live snake.
And from Ben:
- Joe the Plumber's Law: Any presidential candidate who tries to look like he's blue collar when he's not, inevitably looks incredibly silly and deserves mockery....from Joe the Plumber.
- Joe the Plumber's Corollary: Godwin and Murphy are sissies. When they wanted to make laws, they first had to ask Joe the Plumber.
I think we might have enough for a website now. Anyone got a domain name? Basic HTML skills? This needs to be started, people.
Apparently you have to go south of the Rio Grande in order to be qualified to be president. Unless you're a hot chick.
No one will ever discuss the real reason why our education system is lagging - our ridiculous culture that brands anyone who is good at math or science as a social outcast, and that calls anyone who uses a four-syllable word an "elitist." The CNN talking heads were going on about how Obama sounded professorial - and apparently that's a bad thing. Don't we want a president who sounds smart and in command?
Either no one understands the idea of the oil market, or the candidates think we're too damn dumb to understand it. You can't choose the origin of your oil, idiots. Prices are set by global supply and global demand. Deal with it.
Sarah Palin has a kid with Down's syndrome; therefore, she is an expert on special-needs education. In other news, I just made spaghetti, therefore I am Mario Batali. Oh, and at one point McCain conflated Down's syndrome and autism. Real expertise there, hotshot.
I think the most intelligent portion of all the debates was during the beginning of this last one, when the candidates discussed their plans to bail out homeowners who took out bad loans. McCain, as Matt pointed out, wants to help everyone with negative equity reset their mortgages so they don't owe more than their house's value. Obama countered, saying essentially that this plan comes dangerously close to rewarding banks for making those bad loans in the first place, and would end up being just a big old bank giveaway that wouldn't help anyone with their payments. This proposal is the only substantive thing coming out of the McCain campaign these days, and both candidates make good points. I lean towards agreement with Obama here - negative equity is a temporary phenomenon, after all, and by the time the loan is paid off the house will probably have a good deal of positive equity. If you want to stave off foreclosures, direct aid to struggling homeowners is a better way to go - though part of me thinks that if you made an investment and the value of that investment declines, that's not the government's problem.
Either way, no one addresses the cult of homeownership that's at the center of this whole boondoggle. But that's not a votegetter, I guess.
I got Bingo this time around. My prize: A yard sign for this guy.
I'm working on the rest of those election issue posts. I'll probably dump them all at once in a week or so.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Failout
The Senate passed the bailout bill today, and a quick look through the text (not sure how any of these links will work - if they don't, go to the Thomas website, type in H.R. 1424, and you'll find it there) reveals some things that, well, aren't related to the bailout. Things like...
- A renewable energy tax credit.
- Alternative Minimum Tax cuts.
- Hurricane Ike disaster relief.
- An extension of tax credits to mine safety trainers and for mine safety equipment.
- Some sort of tax credit for car racing facilities.
- Tax incentives for investment in Washington, D.C.
- Some sort of tax breaks for movie producers, I think.
- Tax breaks for kids' wooden arrows, as long as they meet certain criteria. Better not be crazy and design an arrow shaft 3/8" in diameter...
- Settling part of the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation... from 1989.
- Relaxing the tax standards on farm equipment. Gotta have the farm subsidies in there somewhere.
- More money to reclaim abandoned mines. Robert Byrd, is that you?
(Hat tips to Dave and Andy for pointing out some of the goofy bits of this bill.)
I'm not saying this is all bad stuff. I happen to like alternative energy tax credits. But shouldn't all this stuff be in separate bills?
The bill was originally titled the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007." Wellstone died in 2002 - it's unlikely that he's sponsoring a bill in 2007. It then became "An Act - To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes." That's a mouthful, and it's still the working title of the bill. The Senate, realizing that the House has to pass revenue measures first, basically hollowed out this House bill and put its bailout bill inside, so that technically the Senate wasn't introducing revenue measures, just amending them. That's an end run around the Constitution that would make Santana Moss proud.
Instant update: Bloomberg reports that the wooden arrow provision was specifically designed by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) to benefit Myrtle Point, OR-based Rose City Archery. Somehow, Bloomberg reports that this big load of targeted tax breaks is supposed to woo House Republicans, who apparently have abandoned fiscal responsibility once and for all.
- A renewable energy tax credit.
- Alternative Minimum Tax cuts.
- Hurricane Ike disaster relief.
- An extension of tax credits to mine safety trainers and for mine safety equipment.
- Some sort of tax credit for car racing facilities.
- Tax incentives for investment in Washington, D.C.
- Some sort of tax breaks for movie producers, I think.
- Tax breaks for kids' wooden arrows, as long as they meet certain criteria. Better not be crazy and design an arrow shaft 3/8" in diameter...
- Settling part of the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation... from 1989.
- Relaxing the tax standards on farm equipment. Gotta have the farm subsidies in there somewhere.
- More money to reclaim abandoned mines. Robert Byrd, is that you?
(Hat tips to Dave and Andy for pointing out some of the goofy bits of this bill.)
I'm not saying this is all bad stuff. I happen to like alternative energy tax credits. But shouldn't all this stuff be in separate bills?
The bill was originally titled the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007." Wellstone died in 2002 - it's unlikely that he's sponsoring a bill in 2007. It then became "An Act - To amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment, and for other purposes." That's a mouthful, and it's still the working title of the bill. The Senate, realizing that the House has to pass revenue measures first, basically hollowed out this House bill and put its bailout bill inside, so that technically the Senate wasn't introducing revenue measures, just amending them. That's an end run around the Constitution that would make Santana Moss proud.
Instant update: Bloomberg reports that the wooden arrow provision was specifically designed by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) to benefit Myrtle Point, OR-based Rose City Archery. Somehow, Bloomberg reports that this big load of targeted tax breaks is supposed to woo House Republicans, who apparently have abandoned fiscal responsibility once and for all.
College Football, Week 5: Better Late Than Never
#19 Vanderbilt, idle: Boy, we sure pissed Ole Miss off, didn't we? The week after losing to us in a madcap game in Oxford, the Rebels turn around and beat then-#4 Florida in Gainesville. The SEC: No easy games for anyone. Except maybe Arkansas, this year.
(Postscript: I asked a Razorbacks fan I know if she's missing Houston Nutt yet. She said that she's still glad that Nutt's gone. God only knows why - Nutt seems to be doing pretty well with the smoking crater left by Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss. And Arkansas has decent players that are suffering under Bobby Petrino.)
Virginia Tech 35, Nebraska 30: I don't care who you are or how crappy Nebraska has been the past few years. Lincoln is a damn tough place to get a victory. The sign that the Hokies we know and love might be back: they opened the scoring with a safety off a blocked punt. They forced two costly turnovers - one that set up a touchdown, and the other that killed the Huskers' final drive.
And yeah, I didn't realize that Tech could score 35 points either.
#17 Utah 37, Weber State 21: This score includes 14 Weber State points in garbage time against Utah's scrubs, so it's not as close as it looks. But this was still not a good week for Utah, since they had to watch their next opponent knock off the #1 team in the country. Oregon State's for real, folks, and if Utah continues to play 30 minutes out of every ball game they'll be in for a rough ride. The good news? The Utes can actually make some noise by beating the Beavers. Without that USC win, Oregon State would have been a classic no-help game. Now they can get a little boost out of it.
BCS buster watch: TCU got embarrassed by Oklahoma, so that leaves Utah, BYU, and Boise State. And until idle BYU gives up a point - they've gone almost a month without doing so, and they go to Logan to take on woeful Utah State, so they could continue that trend this week - they're still the prohibitive favorites. After this week gave us 2007 flashbacks, I heard some mumblings that should a major-conference meltdown occur, BYU could end up being the ultimate BCS party-crashers... and get to play for a national championship. Is it possible? The Cougars are #8 now. Four Big 12 teams and two SEC teams are in front of them, plus Penn State (which still has away games against Wisconsin and Ohio State left). The chances for self-immolation up there look pretty good, really. It's worth noting that an undefeated South Florida team (currently #10) would probably get the nod over an undefeated BYU team, even though the Big East is far weaker than the Mountain West. Life's not fair, folks.
(Postscript: I asked a Razorbacks fan I know if she's missing Houston Nutt yet. She said that she's still glad that Nutt's gone. God only knows why - Nutt seems to be doing pretty well with the smoking crater left by Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss. And Arkansas has decent players that are suffering under Bobby Petrino.)
Virginia Tech 35, Nebraska 30: I don't care who you are or how crappy Nebraska has been the past few years. Lincoln is a damn tough place to get a victory. The sign that the Hokies we know and love might be back: they opened the scoring with a safety off a blocked punt. They forced two costly turnovers - one that set up a touchdown, and the other that killed the Huskers' final drive.
And yeah, I didn't realize that Tech could score 35 points either.
#17 Utah 37, Weber State 21: This score includes 14 Weber State points in garbage time against Utah's scrubs, so it's not as close as it looks. But this was still not a good week for Utah, since they had to watch their next opponent knock off the #1 team in the country. Oregon State's for real, folks, and if Utah continues to play 30 minutes out of every ball game they'll be in for a rough ride. The good news? The Utes can actually make some noise by beating the Beavers. Without that USC win, Oregon State would have been a classic no-help game. Now they can get a little boost out of it.
BCS buster watch: TCU got embarrassed by Oklahoma, so that leaves Utah, BYU, and Boise State. And until idle BYU gives up a point - they've gone almost a month without doing so, and they go to Logan to take on woeful Utah State, so they could continue that trend this week - they're still the prohibitive favorites. After this week gave us 2007 flashbacks, I heard some mumblings that should a major-conference meltdown occur, BYU could end up being the ultimate BCS party-crashers... and get to play for a national championship. Is it possible? The Cougars are #8 now. Four Big 12 teams and two SEC teams are in front of them, plus Penn State (which still has away games against Wisconsin and Ohio State left). The chances for self-immolation up there look pretty good, really. It's worth noting that an undefeated South Florida team (currently #10) would probably get the nod over an undefeated BYU team, even though the Big East is far weaker than the Mountain West. Life's not fair, folks.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Minority Report
OK, does anyone else think this is a really, really bad idea?
Or more interestingly - does anyone think that using a machine to try and read someone's secret terroristic thoughts is a good idea?
Or more interestingly - does anyone think that using a machine to try and read someone's secret terroristic thoughts is a good idea?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Ruminations On A Revived Rivalry
This afternoon, at around 3:00, I walked into my neighborhood Harris Teeter for a quick pre-game grocery run. I was wearing my Art Monk practice jersey that I got after the 'Skins won the Super Bowl some seventeen years ago. Approaching the door of the store was a man, about my age, wearing a Troy Aikman jersey. He spotted me and immediately started booing loudly. A little amiable jawing ensued - we laughed, and he went for the beer while I veered into the produce section.
It's tough to capture the full meaning of a rivalry, especially one as intense as the 'Skins-Cowboys rivalry, and explain it to someone who isn't a sports fan, or is a fan of a team that doesn't really have a rival. It's "us vs. them" to the extreme. It's the Apocalypse, good vs. evil, and you're a part of it two weeks per year.
But a rivalry is a relationship, and it needs constant contribution from both fan bases and both teams to keep the passion alive. It needs fans to boo at each other, it needs teams to play spirited, interesting contests, it needs characters to keep us engaged. And for too long, neither the Redskins nor the Cowboys were doing their part. The 'Skins lost 14 of 15 contests to the Cowboys, which threatened to turn the rivalry into Tennessee-Vanderbilt. But more worrisome than that was the complete and utter unhateability of the late '90s-early '00s Cowboys. I mean, who can really say they hate Chan Gailey? Or Dave Campo? Or Clint Stoerner? You're in trouble when keeping up the rivalry means ginning up an honest hatred for Joey Galloway. So eventually the rivalry became, well, less interesting. The 'Skins, battered as they were, began to get a wandering eye - some fans even suggested cheating on the 'Boys with the Santa-haters up I-95 in Philly.
And just when things were at their worst, wonderful things began to happen. Bill Parcells - someone actually worth hating - showed up in Dallas. Terrell Owens soon followed. Terrence Newman joined the Cowboys, as did Roy Williams. The Cowboys had people to hate again.
And then the spark that reignited the flame - Redskins 14, Cowboys 13, the Santana Moss double-bomb game where the 'Skins scored two late touchdowns in Dallas to come back and steal the game. The rivalry was officially back. Several instant classics have followed since. Modern fans can recall the Sean Taylor blocked field goal game, the Jason Campbell pick game. And today's game - 'Skins 26, 'Boys 24, Campbell's coming-out party.
I remember how great this rivalry was growing up - how I cheered for Art Monk and Gary Clark and Earnest Byner and Joe Gibbs against characters like Aikman and Emmitt and Michael Irvin and Leon Lett and Jimmy Johnson. And now? We have iconic, likable guys like Clinton Portis, Campbell, Chris Cooley, Moss. They have iconic, dislikeable guys like Newman, Williams, future reality TV star Tony Romo, and Owens. The Apocalypse is back, and for fans of both teams, that's a wonderful thing.
It's tough to capture the full meaning of a rivalry, especially one as intense as the 'Skins-Cowboys rivalry, and explain it to someone who isn't a sports fan, or is a fan of a team that doesn't really have a rival. It's "us vs. them" to the extreme. It's the Apocalypse, good vs. evil, and you're a part of it two weeks per year.
But a rivalry is a relationship, and it needs constant contribution from both fan bases and both teams to keep the passion alive. It needs fans to boo at each other, it needs teams to play spirited, interesting contests, it needs characters to keep us engaged. And for too long, neither the Redskins nor the Cowboys were doing their part. The 'Skins lost 14 of 15 contests to the Cowboys, which threatened to turn the rivalry into Tennessee-Vanderbilt. But more worrisome than that was the complete and utter unhateability of the late '90s-early '00s Cowboys. I mean, who can really say they hate Chan Gailey? Or Dave Campo? Or Clint Stoerner? You're in trouble when keeping up the rivalry means ginning up an honest hatred for Joey Galloway. So eventually the rivalry became, well, less interesting. The 'Skins, battered as they were, began to get a wandering eye - some fans even suggested cheating on the 'Boys with the Santa-haters up I-95 in Philly.
And just when things were at their worst, wonderful things began to happen. Bill Parcells - someone actually worth hating - showed up in Dallas. Terrell Owens soon followed. Terrence Newman joined the Cowboys, as did Roy Williams. The Cowboys had people to hate again.
And then the spark that reignited the flame - Redskins 14, Cowboys 13, the Santana Moss double-bomb game where the 'Skins scored two late touchdowns in Dallas to come back and steal the game. The rivalry was officially back. Several instant classics have followed since. Modern fans can recall the Sean Taylor blocked field goal game, the Jason Campbell pick game. And today's game - 'Skins 26, 'Boys 24, Campbell's coming-out party.
I remember how great this rivalry was growing up - how I cheered for Art Monk and Gary Clark and Earnest Byner and Joe Gibbs against characters like Aikman and Emmitt and Michael Irvin and Leon Lett and Jimmy Johnson. And now? We have iconic, likable guys like Clinton Portis, Campbell, Chris Cooley, Moss. They have iconic, dislikeable guys like Newman, Williams, future reality TV star Tony Romo, and Owens. The Apocalypse is back, and for fans of both teams, that's a wonderful thing.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Subprime Meltdown Explained
Here's a good summary of the financial crisis that I got from, of all places, Fark. It's definitely worth a read, even if he does get a little bit jargony at times.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Ebert: Not A Creationist.
So apparently Ebert posted this somewhat ham-handed attempt at satire on his website poking fun at creationists. Of course, pretty much everyone mistook it for being serious, and so Ebert had to publish this explaining himself and then ranting about how gullible Americans are. (For added awesome, check the URL.)
The first thing I thought of is how this will probably remind my Vanderreaders of a certain incident.
The second is this - how accurate is Ebert? Are we really losing our capacity to think critically? Or are satirists and hyperbolists simply not sensing the amount of absurdity already present in our culture, and failing when they attempt to go over the top? And what can be done about it?
The first thing I thought of is how this will probably remind my Vanderreaders of a certain incident.
The second is this - how accurate is Ebert? Are we really losing our capacity to think critically? Or are satirists and hyperbolists simply not sensing the amount of absurdity already present in our culture, and failing when they attempt to go over the top? And what can be done about it?
The Extreme Southeastern Corner of NC Devolves
Brunswick County, which is the part of Myrtle Beach that doesn't want to be in South Carolina, is thinking about teaching creationism in schools. School board member Jimmy Hobbs brings the crazy:
Mr. Hobbs, that could be the dumbest sentence ever uttered. What law, exactly, says that we can't have Bibles in schools? Look, I have no problem with creationists. I don't care whether you accept science or not. But I do have a problem with idiots who don't know what the separation of church and state means.
Oh, and the link includes the requisite "it's just a theory" argument. Standard rant #42 applies.
"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists." (emphasis mine - J)
Mr. Hobbs, that could be the dumbest sentence ever uttered. What law, exactly, says that we can't have Bibles in schools? Look, I have no problem with creationists. I don't care whether you accept science or not. But I do have a problem with idiots who don't know what the separation of church and state means.
Oh, and the link includes the requisite "it's just a theory" argument. Standard rant #42 applies.
College Football, Week 4: Revenge of the Nerds
Q: How awesome is the SEC this year?
A: The SEC is so good that even Vanderbilt is ranked.
Of course, Vandy isn't the only top academic school exceeding expectations in football this year. There are 13 Div I-A (FBS, for those who like the new notation) schools in U.S. News' top 30 colleges. (Let's forget the fact that these rankings are mostly pointless.) Of these, five are already known for their football (Notre Dame, Cal, UCLA, Michigan, and USC). But all of the schools that are known for being highly ranked academically and awful football-wise - Stanford, Vandy, Wake Forest, Rice, Northwestern - are doing pretty well. Wake and Vandy are ranked. Northwestern is receiving votes in both polls. Rice is 2-2 with both losses coming to ranked teams on the road. Stanford is 2-2, both losses coming to very good teams on the road.
Your Mountain West watch: three ranked teams (BYU, Utah, TCU). That's more than the ACC, the Big East, or the Pac-10. (The WAC has two, BSU and Fresno State.) Yeah, the MWC is totally a minor conference undeserving of an auto BCS bid.
Anyway, on to the review...
Vanderbilt 23, Mississippi 17: Good win despite the weak road performance. Ole Miss isn't the punching bag they had been under Orgeron - say what you will about Houston Nutt, but Arkansas is sure missing him right now. I didn't get to see the game, but it looks downright bizarre. One offensive touchdown? Eight turnovers, six by the Rebels? Apparently this game was decided on a play when an Ole Miss running back fumbled at the one-yard line and a Vandy player jumped on the loose ball in the end zone. That kind of crap just doesn't happen to Vandy. Someone from our team NEVER falls on a loose ball in those situation. What the heck is going on?
Anyway, we'll see what Vandy's made of in two weeks when Auburn comes to Nashville...
Virginia Tech 20, North Carolina 17: The Hokies find some bizarre ways to win lately, don't they? Their offense couldn't move a knife through butter, yet they somehow put 20 points on the board and played some solid second-half D to win. I still don't trust this team to put up any points, but there are a couple of things that make the Hokies' outlook look good. First, their defense is great as always. Second, they don't play another ranked team the entire way. The only ranked team they would have to face on a BCS run would be Wake Forest in the ACC championship. The Hokies aren't a great team, but they are fortunately in a crap conference.
#20 Utah 30, Air Force 23: The Utes were absolutely, positively god-awful in the first half here. The only thing that even kept them in the game was a great defense - they only gave up 53 rushing yards to Air Force, which was roughly 300 yards under their season average. And fortunately, they woke up in the second half, outscoring USAFA 21-7 after the break. And it seemed like Utah sucked up Air Force's power Peter Petrelli-style: the Utes got almost 200 yards on the ground, including three second-half Darrell Mack touchdowns.
Only three road games the rest of the way, against Wyoming (bad), New Mexico (pretty good), and San Diego State (awful). This is good because the Utes look awful on the road, squeaking by a horrible Michigan team and almost losing to an admittely pretty good Air Force team. The game in Albuquerque will be tough - it's probably the game the Utes are most likely to lose before TCU comes to town.
BCS buster watch: Well, so much for ECU. I know it's harsh to disqualify someone from the elite post-season after laying one egg, but if you can't beat NC State, you don't deserve it. (I say this as a current NCSU grad student.) That leaves the three undefeated MWC teams and Boise State. Of these, BYU established itself as the class of the non-BCS conferences with a 44-0 pounding of Wyoming. Bad news for the Cougs - only three home games left, and road trips to Fort Worth, Colorado Springs, and Salt Lake loom. Good news for the Cougs - the defense looks pretty darn good. They haven't allowed any points since leaving Seattle.
A: The SEC is so good that even Vanderbilt is ranked.
Of course, Vandy isn't the only top academic school exceeding expectations in football this year. There are 13 Div I-A (FBS, for those who like the new notation) schools in U.S. News' top 30 colleges. (Let's forget the fact that these rankings are mostly pointless.) Of these, five are already known for their football (Notre Dame, Cal, UCLA, Michigan, and USC). But all of the schools that are known for being highly ranked academically and awful football-wise - Stanford, Vandy, Wake Forest, Rice, Northwestern - are doing pretty well. Wake and Vandy are ranked. Northwestern is receiving votes in both polls. Rice is 2-2 with both losses coming to ranked teams on the road. Stanford is 2-2, both losses coming to very good teams on the road.
Your Mountain West watch: three ranked teams (BYU, Utah, TCU). That's more than the ACC, the Big East, or the Pac-10. (The WAC has two, BSU and Fresno State.) Yeah, the MWC is totally a minor conference undeserving of an auto BCS bid.
Anyway, on to the review...
Vanderbilt 23, Mississippi 17: Good win despite the weak road performance. Ole Miss isn't the punching bag they had been under Orgeron - say what you will about Houston Nutt, but Arkansas is sure missing him right now. I didn't get to see the game, but it looks downright bizarre. One offensive touchdown? Eight turnovers, six by the Rebels? Apparently this game was decided on a play when an Ole Miss running back fumbled at the one-yard line and a Vandy player jumped on the loose ball in the end zone. That kind of crap just doesn't happen to Vandy. Someone from our team NEVER falls on a loose ball in those situation. What the heck is going on?
Anyway, we'll see what Vandy's made of in two weeks when Auburn comes to Nashville...
Virginia Tech 20, North Carolina 17: The Hokies find some bizarre ways to win lately, don't they? Their offense couldn't move a knife through butter, yet they somehow put 20 points on the board and played some solid second-half D to win. I still don't trust this team to put up any points, but there are a couple of things that make the Hokies' outlook look good. First, their defense is great as always. Second, they don't play another ranked team the entire way. The only ranked team they would have to face on a BCS run would be Wake Forest in the ACC championship. The Hokies aren't a great team, but they are fortunately in a crap conference.
#20 Utah 30, Air Force 23: The Utes were absolutely, positively god-awful in the first half here. The only thing that even kept them in the game was a great defense - they only gave up 53 rushing yards to Air Force, which was roughly 300 yards under their season average. And fortunately, they woke up in the second half, outscoring USAFA 21-7 after the break. And it seemed like Utah sucked up Air Force's power Peter Petrelli-style: the Utes got almost 200 yards on the ground, including three second-half Darrell Mack touchdowns.
Only three road games the rest of the way, against Wyoming (bad), New Mexico (pretty good), and San Diego State (awful). This is good because the Utes look awful on the road, squeaking by a horrible Michigan team and almost losing to an admittely pretty good Air Force team. The game in Albuquerque will be tough - it's probably the game the Utes are most likely to lose before TCU comes to town.
BCS buster watch: Well, so much for ECU. I know it's harsh to disqualify someone from the elite post-season after laying one egg, but if you can't beat NC State, you don't deserve it. (I say this as a current NCSU grad student.) That leaves the three undefeated MWC teams and Boise State. Of these, BYU established itself as the class of the non-BCS conferences with a 44-0 pounding of Wyoming. Bad news for the Cougs - only three home games left, and road trips to Fort Worth, Colorado Springs, and Salt Lake loom. Good news for the Cougs - the defense looks pretty darn good. They haven't allowed any points since leaving Seattle.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Bail Yourself Out, Creeps
I'll use my 600th post to say this:
Worst. Idea. Ever.
I guess I have one question. If a rich person loses a million dollars at Vegas on a blackjack table, am I expected to pick up the cost?
Why is the government intentionally making bad investments with my tax money? Do we really need to? Why not just let the investments sour? (Okay, I had more questions.) We can bail out some smaller investors who stand to lose from investment house bankruptcies via the FDIC - that's what it's there for, after all - but bailing out the houses who knowingly took a risk and lost is just a horrible idea. It's their fault for making stupid investments.
And so what if AIG fails? Market vacuums don't last long - someone will take their place. Like I said earlier - insure some of the individual investors via the FDIC, and let competitors who didn't make dumb choices fill the gap.
Here's what this bailout makes me think of... a bunch of suits walking around on the street with a "The World Is Coming To An End" sandwich-board on and their hands out. Although beggars have more dignity than this.
Update: Hey look, the market's already responding. Morgan Stanley (where I usually invest) and Goldman Sachs are planning on getting into retail so they can have a larger capital pool to draw from in case investments go pear-shaped. The Fed will force them to lower their debt-to-equity ratio, but will give them access to cash if they need it. Oh, and all the investments in other places were all bought up by other banks.
So if the market and the Fed can deal with this okay, and it looks like they can... what's the point of the bailout again?
Worst. Idea. Ever.
I guess I have one question. If a rich person loses a million dollars at Vegas on a blackjack table, am I expected to pick up the cost?
Why is the government intentionally making bad investments with my tax money? Do we really need to? Why not just let the investments sour? (Okay, I had more questions.) We can bail out some smaller investors who stand to lose from investment house bankruptcies via the FDIC - that's what it's there for, after all - but bailing out the houses who knowingly took a risk and lost is just a horrible idea. It's their fault for making stupid investments.
And so what if AIG fails? Market vacuums don't last long - someone will take their place. Like I said earlier - insure some of the individual investors via the FDIC, and let competitors who didn't make dumb choices fill the gap.
Here's what this bailout makes me think of... a bunch of suits walking around on the street with a "The World Is Coming To An End" sandwich-board on and their hands out. Although beggars have more dignity than this.
Update: Hey look, the market's already responding. Morgan Stanley (where I usually invest) and Goldman Sachs are planning on getting into retail so they can have a larger capital pool to draw from in case investments go pear-shaped. The Fed will force them to lower their debt-to-equity ratio, but will give them access to cash if they need it. Oh, and all the investments in other places were all bought up by other banks.
So if the market and the Fed can deal with this okay, and it looks like they can... what's the point of the bailout again?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
AAA Ball
For a while there I was keeping my panic down over the fiscal crisis (all the while being pissed at government decisions to bail out private companies that do stupid crap). Then I read this Reuters article: (h/t: Agitator)
But wait, there's more:
As many people have pointed out, there are a ton of reasons why we're in this mess right now, but I figure I'll rant a little about one of the hidden reasons for this fiscal crisis. For a while the left has been in high dudgeon over executive pay, and I'm not sure I agree. I don't really care if a CEO gets $30 million a year as long as they're doing their job well. But what bugs me is the fact that if the CEO screws up and costs his/her company billions, the executive will get fired - with an absurd severance package. For example, Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal left a smoking crater that required Bank of America's largesse to clean up, and he left with $161 million in exit pay. Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld literally destroyed the company, and gets $65 mil for his services. AIG chief Robert Willumstad leaves a pauper by those standards - he gets a mere $12.8 million.
That's absurd. At least Fannie and Freddie's CEOs don't get squat, but that's because they're government-run enterprises whose very existence probably contributed to this whole thing.
What these severance packages do - and don't for a minute think that the CEOs forget their existence when they're in office - is depersonalize the risk that comes from executive choices. Now imagine that you were an executive, and that you were guaranteed a lifetime of luxury even if you completely screw up. Would you take some reckless chances? Of course you would. After all, there's no personal risk to you - you're set either way. If you succeed, you're a visionary, the very definition of success. If you fail, no biggie - you go home to your family with a few extra million in your pocket while your shareholders and the government pick up the pieces.
And so risks are encouraged, which can be a good thing up to a point. But the severance packages are so bloated that they encourage stupid risks, and this entire crisis was based on a lot of companies taking a lot of stupid risks on these subprime mortgages. If the executives knew that a failed risk would cost them something significant personally, they might have thought twice about these securitized mortgages and our crisis would be a lot smaller.
My point is this: Adam Smith's system was based on "enlightened self-interest." The problem with these severance packages is that they distort self-interest to the point where reckless risks and prudent risks appear the same.
Now I'm not 100% confident that government can regulate severance pay well. Hopefully other companies will leave the financial sector saga with the understanding that their massive severance packages are hurting them in the long run, and will scale back on severance pay in the case of disgraceful termination. The problem is that companies' boards of directors set their own pay, and they're not likely to give themselves severance pay cuts. So barring that, I'm all for a shareholder rebellion. To the barricades, stockholders!
Pressure is building on the pristine "AAA" rating of the United States after a federal bailout of American International Group Inc, the chairman of Standard & Poor's sovereign ratings committee said on Wednesday.Awesome.
But wait, there's more:
Potential upfront costs to the government of maintaining financial stability could reach 24 percent of gross domestic product in the case of a "deep and prolonged recession," the S&P report said.Which means that taxes will have to go up and spending will have to go down if that's going to fit into our budget. And if we lose our AAA credit rating, borrowing will get even more expensive.
As many people have pointed out, there are a ton of reasons why we're in this mess right now, but I figure I'll rant a little about one of the hidden reasons for this fiscal crisis. For a while the left has been in high dudgeon over executive pay, and I'm not sure I agree. I don't really care if a CEO gets $30 million a year as long as they're doing their job well. But what bugs me is the fact that if the CEO screws up and costs his/her company billions, the executive will get fired - with an absurd severance package. For example, Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal left a smoking crater that required Bank of America's largesse to clean up, and he left with $161 million in exit pay. Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld literally destroyed the company, and gets $65 mil for his services. AIG chief Robert Willumstad leaves a pauper by those standards - he gets a mere $12.8 million.
That's absurd. At least Fannie and Freddie's CEOs don't get squat, but that's because they're government-run enterprises whose very existence probably contributed to this whole thing.
What these severance packages do - and don't for a minute think that the CEOs forget their existence when they're in office - is depersonalize the risk that comes from executive choices. Now imagine that you were an executive, and that you were guaranteed a lifetime of luxury even if you completely screw up. Would you take some reckless chances? Of course you would. After all, there's no personal risk to you - you're set either way. If you succeed, you're a visionary, the very definition of success. If you fail, no biggie - you go home to your family with a few extra million in your pocket while your shareholders and the government pick up the pieces.
And so risks are encouraged, which can be a good thing up to a point. But the severance packages are so bloated that they encourage stupid risks, and this entire crisis was based on a lot of companies taking a lot of stupid risks on these subprime mortgages. If the executives knew that a failed risk would cost them something significant personally, they might have thought twice about these securitized mortgages and our crisis would be a lot smaller.
My point is this: Adam Smith's system was based on "enlightened self-interest." The problem with these severance packages is that they distort self-interest to the point where reckless risks and prudent risks appear the same.
Now I'm not 100% confident that government can regulate severance pay well. Hopefully other companies will leave the financial sector saga with the understanding that their massive severance packages are hurting them in the long run, and will scale back on severance pay in the case of disgraceful termination. The problem is that companies' boards of directors set their own pay, and they're not likely to give themselves severance pay cuts. So barring that, I'm all for a shareholder rebellion. To the barricades, stockholders!
Moron A and Moron B
So let me get this straight. These people are choosing to deny legal recognition for their marriage because the wording on the form isn't what they want it to be? I don't think they thought this cunning plan through. As a protest against gay marriage, this is singularly ineffective.
Quote of awesomeness: "'We just feel that our rights have been violated,' [Ms. Bird/Mrs. Codding] said." Um, what right would that be? The right to a gender-specific form?
Quote of awesomeness: "'We just feel that our rights have been violated,' [Ms. Bird/Mrs. Codding] said." Um, what right would that be? The right to a gender-specific form?
Monday, September 15, 2008
College Football, Week 3
Each week this season, it seems like one conference has a day where it just gets embarrassed. Week 1 saw a bunch of ACC teams lose games they shouldn't have lost. In Week 2, the Big East looked flat awful. This week, it was the Pac-10's turn. Sure, USC laid the wood to Ohio State at home, but that was about the only bright spot. Oregon struggled with middling Big Ten team Purdue. Cal got beat by Maryland, a bottom-tier ACC team. Washington got embarrassed at home by Oklahoma. Arizona State got beat by UNLV (who got killed last week by Utah)... in Tempe. Arizona got beat by New Mexico. Stanford lost - badly - to TCU. And UCLA was supposed to lose its road game against BYU, but this is just ridiculous.
Speaking of the Pounding in Provo, here's a few stats that are even more fun than 59-0...
- BYU quarterback Max Hall threw seven touchdowns... and didn't play the fourth quarter.
- UCLA had six rushing yards.
- The Great Depression was just starting the last time UCLA lost this badly.
Which brings me to my annual anti-BCS rant. This week, four Mountain West teams played Pac-10 opponents. The MWC was 4-0 in those matchups. Out of nine teams in the conference, six (the Utah teams, Air Force, TCU, New Mexico, and UNLV) are either legitimate threats to beat good BCS conference teams, or have already done so. The Big East and ACC can't claim that kind of quality. The Pac-10 and Big Ten can barely claim that. Now, it has long been my contention that the MWC is the best of the non-BCS conferences, even though the WAC gets all the press. (The WAC is pretty much a three-team league - four if Nevada decides to play.) And the smart money is still on one of the Utah teams to win the MWC and end up in a big bowl. But answer me this - why should an undefeated MWC winner be passed over for a shot at the championship over a one- or two-loss major conference team, especially if the major conference is weaker than, or just as weak as, the MWC? And why should a one- or two-loss MWC champion be banished to the Las Vegas Bowl even though they played a difficult conference schedule?
We need a 16-team playoff featuring each of the 11 conference champions and five at-large bids. It's only fair to give conference champs a shot.
Anyway, on to my games.
Vanderbilt 38, Rice 21: Before you say "whoopdecrap, we beat Rice," recognize this: Rice was 2-0 before this game, and they're serious competition for Tulsa for the C-USA West crown. Even better news: the traditionally anemic Vandy offense has scored 96 points in three games. I don't think we scored that many all last season. Even better: Vandy has outscored opponents 45-10 in the second half this year. I'm still not buying a bowl game - there are four games against top-20 opposition coming up, plus Tennessee and Kentucky, so to get to six wins we'd pretty much have to win both road games in Mississippi and the home game against newly halfway-decent Duke. And the offense is still suspect - that 38 points disguises the fact that we only had 71 passing yards and were outgained overall by a pretty good margin. We'll re-evaluate after this week's game at Mississippi...
Virginia Tech 20, Georgia Tech 17: I watched part of this game, and I didn't see the ball go into the air once. Then I checked the stat sheet... the teams combined for 22 pass attempts the whole game. Pretty amazing. I'm impressed by Paul Johnson's ability to apply the crazy option offense that worked at Navy in a major conference, even if the ACC barely deserves the label "major conference." They ran all over the Hokies all day, but VT still made the plays when it mattered.
#22 Utah 58, Utah State 10: Sure, this was a good old-fashioned butt-whoopin', but it kind of worries me that USU led early on. Also, three turnovers are bad. Against a bad team like USU, that gets disguised - USU gained 116 yards the whole game. But Utah gets its first real test against a good team (no, I don't count Michigan as "good") in Colorado Springs this week. We'll see what this team is really made of there.
Speaking of the Pounding in Provo, here's a few stats that are even more fun than 59-0...
- BYU quarterback Max Hall threw seven touchdowns... and didn't play the fourth quarter.
- UCLA had six rushing yards.
- The Great Depression was just starting the last time UCLA lost this badly.
Which brings me to my annual anti-BCS rant. This week, four Mountain West teams played Pac-10 opponents. The MWC was 4-0 in those matchups. Out of nine teams in the conference, six (the Utah teams, Air Force, TCU, New Mexico, and UNLV) are either legitimate threats to beat good BCS conference teams, or have already done so. The Big East and ACC can't claim that kind of quality. The Pac-10 and Big Ten can barely claim that. Now, it has long been my contention that the MWC is the best of the non-BCS conferences, even though the WAC gets all the press. (The WAC is pretty much a three-team league - four if Nevada decides to play.) And the smart money is still on one of the Utah teams to win the MWC and end up in a big bowl. But answer me this - why should an undefeated MWC winner be passed over for a shot at the championship over a one- or two-loss major conference team, especially if the major conference is weaker than, or just as weak as, the MWC? And why should a one- or two-loss MWC champion be banished to the Las Vegas Bowl even though they played a difficult conference schedule?
We need a 16-team playoff featuring each of the 11 conference champions and five at-large bids. It's only fair to give conference champs a shot.
Anyway, on to my games.
Vanderbilt 38, Rice 21: Before you say "whoopdecrap, we beat Rice," recognize this: Rice was 2-0 before this game, and they're serious competition for Tulsa for the C-USA West crown. Even better news: the traditionally anemic Vandy offense has scored 96 points in three games. I don't think we scored that many all last season. Even better: Vandy has outscored opponents 45-10 in the second half this year. I'm still not buying a bowl game - there are four games against top-20 opposition coming up, plus Tennessee and Kentucky, so to get to six wins we'd pretty much have to win both road games in Mississippi and the home game against newly halfway-decent Duke. And the offense is still suspect - that 38 points disguises the fact that we only had 71 passing yards and were outgained overall by a pretty good margin. We'll re-evaluate after this week's game at Mississippi...
Virginia Tech 20, Georgia Tech 17: I watched part of this game, and I didn't see the ball go into the air once. Then I checked the stat sheet... the teams combined for 22 pass attempts the whole game. Pretty amazing. I'm impressed by Paul Johnson's ability to apply the crazy option offense that worked at Navy in a major conference, even if the ACC barely deserves the label "major conference." They ran all over the Hokies all day, but VT still made the plays when it mattered.
#22 Utah 58, Utah State 10: Sure, this was a good old-fashioned butt-whoopin', but it kind of worries me that USU led early on. Also, three turnovers are bad. Against a bad team like USU, that gets disguised - USU gained 116 yards the whole game. But Utah gets its first real test against a good team (no, I don't count Michigan as "good") in Colorado Springs this week. We'll see what this team is really made of there.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Italy, You're Doing It Wrong
So apparently in Italy it's a crime - punishable by five years in jail - to insult the Pope. Granted, the insult was pretty harsh (provided anyone knows what a "poofter" devil is), but still. Didn't know Benny-boy was so brittle.
Anyway, when I read this article I thought of my kid. She's starting to learn to crawl, but right now she launches herself along the floor with both legs, and she flops down on her belly a lot and the whole thing is just really cute. Italy's actions with regards to free speech kind of make me feel that way about them. Here you have a cute little toddler democracy trying so hard to have freedom of speech, but just falling down on its face a lot. This story would make me angry if it were in America. As it is, this just makes me want to pick Italy up, hug it, say "it's okay, you can get this free speech thing," and put it back on its feet again.
Anyway, when I read this article I thought of my kid. She's starting to learn to crawl, but right now she launches herself along the floor with both legs, and she flops down on her belly a lot and the whole thing is just really cute. Italy's actions with regards to free speech kind of make me feel that way about them. Here you have a cute little toddler democracy trying so hard to have freedom of speech, but just falling down on its face a lot. This story would make me angry if it were in America. As it is, this just makes me want to pick Italy up, hug it, say "it's okay, you can get this free speech thing," and put it back on its feet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)