OP's World

A Friendly Reminder

2010-11-18T11:54:00.001-08:00

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sensitive: The right to not be offended does not appear in the Constitution, Bill of Laws or Declaration of Independence. So there.

End of story.

This Site is Big, I Tell You

2010-11-12T09:56:00.000-08:00

4 comments since June.

Sigh.

Northwest Profile #12: Chicken Little Food Fear Monger*

2010-11-11T14:55:00.000-08:00

Roughly 2, maybe 3 times a year, I get the following near-dizzy-with-lust call from My Bestest Friend in the Whole Wide World:

"Dude. Friday night. Steak. Beer. MLB 2010. I'm coming over."

I swear I hear the saliva seeping from the corners of his mouth over the phone.

What's transpiring is this: His strict-vegetarian wife is going out of town for X days and he's about to free himself from his Vegetarian Concentration Camp world, if ever so briefly.

I laugh every time!

Now I think the world of my Bestest Friend's wife. She's a fantastic, well-read and gregarious woman who has raised two beautiful and intelligent and really awesome kids. We got along quite well, too. She's just a little, well, nuts when it comes to meat.

I've had time to let this braise in my brain, and it's come down to this: She's been sucked into the rhetorical vortex by the Chicken Little Food Fear Monger.

The Chicken Little Food Fear Monger is easier spot than an expiration date. Fast Food Nation? Read it. Multiple times. Super Size Me? Better than Citizen Kane. Jamie Oliver? The Second Coming of Christ. Facebook posts? "(Blank) just had the most wonderful Hummus Pot Pie" or links to articles and declaring that The Smiths' "Meat is Murder!" is at the top of their Desert Island Discs.

But I got to thinking, what is it about this fear of meats like ground beef and chicken and pseudo-meats like McNuggets that bothers me? Luckily, I was able to figure it out.

Chicken Little Food Fear Mongers are hijacking the minds of intelligent and thoughtful people who are being duped and scared into believing this "science" based on the misrepresentation and distortion of facts and specious, unscientific connections to elements that appear in our foods (ex: “That McNugget has the same element in it as Silly Putty!”). Logic and common sense are also put on the back burner.

Now it’s one thing to object to the eating of animals—some people, like my Bestest Friend's wife, really don’t dig the idea and I get that, and that’s perfectly fine. (Hey, more juicy T-bones for me!) But it’s quite another to base one’s culinary aversions based on misrepresentations, misinformation (or is it disinformation?), distortions and fear mongering. And to complete Chicken Little's Recipe 'O Fear, we might as well add a dash of anti-corporate propaganda and rhetoric in there, too.

Now if I were Penn Gillette, right now I would be saying into the camera, "And it's all bullshit!" So pardon me if I get a little Penn from here on out with the language.

Here's an example: “Oh my god! Have you seen the way they make and what goes into ground beef? I’ll never eat it!”

True, store-bought ground beef is generally made from many parts of the cow—skeletal tissue (not bones), blood vessels, nerve tissue, etc., none of which sounds terribly appetizing. So the fuck what? Why is this bad? Are we not supposed to use the whole animal as to not waste it? Yes. It would make Sitting Bull and other Native Americans very fucking happy. Again, it’s a little gross to think about, and I would certainly rather eat ground chuck (aka: steak meat), but that shit is expensive and Joe Average Income likes to feed his family, so let's provide him with some food that he can afford too. How fucking careless and thoughtless of us. Again, is there any thing wrong in eating those things? No, there's not.

Then there’s “mad cow” disease and other animal-related illnesses like e.coli, salmonella, etc.—really awful stuff if you were to catch any of it. And I do mean fucking if (from US News *& World Reports):

“According to the Centers for Disease Control , in 2006 there were 27,634 people who fell victim to food borne disease outbreaks, and 11 deaths from those outbreaks. Only a fraction of those outbreaks were caused by beef—in fact, it's not even in the top three causes, surpassed by poultry, leafy vegetables, and fruits and nuts.”

Of the millions pounds of ground beef and chicken consumed by the ground-beef and chicken-eatin’ public, those who got sick is less than one half of one percent, if that. And of that figure, those who died is practically immeasurable. Fuck.

“Well, I don’t want to take that chance. Do you want to take that chance with your child!?”

Sure, why the fuck not. God forbid, he has a better chance of being hit walking out to my car. Or crossing the street. Or, hopefully, winning the lottery. Fuck it, I should just lock the little guy in the basement and hope he doesn't get hit by a meteor while am I am it. Nonsense.

And over what? Over one or two elements like tertiary butylhydroquinone and dimethylpolysilicone that appear in trace—trace!—levels in Chicken McNugets and that have been deemed safe by the FDA and European Health Administration, and that have tested and deemed safe by the World Health Organization and that, well, do not pose one iota of a health threat to humans. But let's be scared about it anyway. After all, long words are scary!

Using logic and reason, let's ask a simple and honest question: Of what benefit would it be to the raisers and sellers of beef to knowingly poisoning their target market? Ah, it’s for profit and to meet (pun!) demand, so the rhetorical argument goes. I see. Poisoning your target market is good for business. I bet they don't teach that at Harvard. So why pump (supposedly bad) hormones into chickens and cattle just to make a profit? To feed an increasingly hungry world faster? Oh the humanity. Are the levels of those hormones harmful? Potentially, yes. If they were put in by the fucking vat, which doesn't fucking happen.

Look, it’s good to raise question about what goes into our food supply. The problem is too many uneducated (aka: NOT experts) are chiming in and spreading misinformation faster than a rotting McDonald’s Happy Meal cheeseburger** about how bad ground beef, chicken, etc. are. They provide little context based in science and make too many assumptive and, ultimately wrong, conclusions. Truth is, they’re the epitome of what happens a lot in this Golden Age of the Internet: “a little knowledge in the wrong hands can be a dangerous thing”. Thus, they end up needlessly scaring the living McNugget shit out of a lot of people.

And if you see or hear Chicken Little Food Fear Monger bemoaning that the sky is falling because X ingredient appears in your KFC Double Down and might cause you to grow a golden retriever head off your neck, break out the meat tenderizer, flatten him between two sheets of wax paper with common sense then deep-fry 'em at 350º for 30 minutes.

Me? I'm going home and having a steak.

*With apologies to PEMCO's great ad campaign.

**The latest bullshit internet "experiment."

For All of You Who Bought Into That Hopey Changefulness Nonsense

2010-11-08T14:52:00.000-08:00

It's funny because it's true

2010-10-21T15:07:00.000-07:00

Negative Capability

2010-10-12T23:43:00.000-07:00

Here it is.

My big moment.

The chains are off. No agendas to meet, not a one.

Do as I imagine. Do as I think we could be.

I can blow it all up and re-create it.

So why not!

And I will.

What's the answer?

There's the middle of the river.

Calm. Meandering.

Ripple free.

Never, ever reaching one shore or the other

And being in content that there are waters without answer.

Moderately Representin'?

2010-09-03T14:41:00.000-07:00

Let me be clear about something: The hateful rhetoric runs both ways. It's maddening, discouraging, distasteful and juvenile.

In viewing the recent video made by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that appears on YouTube, I decided to read through the comments. The more I read, the more aghast I became. The comments were of the most vile and despicable in nature. NC-17 stuff, honestly.

Two things started to pop out at me as I read. One, the majority of hate speech was running decidedly in favor of those coming from—wait for it—leftists. (This can't make reasonable and fair-minded liberals proud. But the right-wingers shouldn't be puffing their chests, either.)

And two, not one moderate voice from either side step in and denounced. That, to me, is the more disturbing part. More on that after I subject you to NC-17 comments.*

"why cant she just die... i mean i dont really wish death on anyone but if i did, you know... just die!"

"30 miles from the Capital??/ What capital is 30 miles from the border...this WORTHLESS CUNT NEEDS TO BE DEPORTED TO SWEDEN...FUCKING DUMB BLONDE."

"fuck u hoe racist bitch"

"This imbecile's popularity is based soley on being anti-Mexican, so her being a drugged out zombie is ok... pathetic"

"She is mad, cuz her crack pipe broke..lol.. she looks a real crackhead hooker..she looks like freddy krueger. Go Play Bingo Stop on Hate.KKK,Nazi Bicth"

Racist Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! coming from an immigrant family her self....DO I SEE A NEXT HITLER......I THINK I DO!!!!!!! THATS WHY ARIZONA IS AS BROKE AS IT IS....lame ass governer who doesnt know SHIT!!!!

And from the right:

"go take back your own country shitass.....where in a depression, we don't need your sorry ass here!!!"

"Fuck you chicken shit! You ILLEGAL? Watch and see how BIG she wins in Nov you Fucking Pocho!"

I honestly believe what needs to be done—and it matters not a whit whether you're a right-winger, left-winger or in between—is to denounce people like this. (Or, in the case of Muslims, denounce and openly call for an end to the violence that blasphemes their religion.)

The idiots from above are easy to spot. Yet it's people who we think are smart, like the WaPo's Eugene Robinson or NYT's Paul Krugman, that subtly cast and brand those who oppose the current party in power as 'racists'. They are more dangerous because they wield such tremendous influence due to their medium. The same can be said Fox's Glenn Beck who called Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor a "racist" and accused Obama being a "racist." Really? Seriously?

Look, people like this are sharp impediments on the road to truth. They flatten the tires on the issue(s) and make it impossible to get anywhere near a solution or to engage in rational and studied disagreement and debate.

The solution? Kick them out of the road every time you see it, moderates. And then maybe, just maybe, we might get back Reasonable Discourse-ville. If we were ever there at all.

*The thread was hijacked by about 4 rather bizarre individuals flaming one another, so I kept my selections apart from them.

What I Owe

2010-08-23T00:34:00.000-07:00

Debts.

Some are bigger than others.

Mine?

Insurmountable.

I cannot repay except in prayer.

Losing Choices Isn't Losing Liberty?

2010-08-06T16:06:00.000-07:00

Oops! Headline missing a key word.

At the height of the health care debate, an old colleague of mine and me were discussing the issue. I asserted that there would economic consequences to gov't undercutting private insurers and forcing them to take on high-risk clients. I argued that this would force small-to-medium insurers out of business, thus shrinking the insurance provider market place, resulting in fewer choices, eventually forcing people to go with the least expensive option—Obamacare. This, I said, is a loss of liberties.

I was dumbfounded by his reply and didn't know how to answer:

I'm also not quite sure how fewer choices equals losing liberty. Choice is not the same thing as liberty. If Skippy goes out of business and I can only choose between Jiff and Safeway brand, have I lost liberty?

Now I do. Mostly because I don't know want to reach through the screen and punch him in the face for being so patently smarmy and ignorant.

First, I'm glad he inadvertently acknowledged that insurance is a private commodity, which has been one of my arguments: the federal government cannot fine or tax you for not buying a private commodity, which health insurance is and ObamaCare does fine/tax. It is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. Obamacare tries to sneak around that by allowing insurers to compete across state lines, which is good, but there's a big problem:

His example is flawed, however, because he failed to acknowledge that the State is one of competitors—and one that is arbitrarily and artificially setting and capping the market price for insurance. This will drive many insurers out of business, thus resulting in fewer choices, not because a product or service naturally failed in the marketplace.

Eventually, as large insurers will be forced to take on greater and deeper risk pools, they will be forced to drive up prices just to remain solvent. Then, instead of people making insurers compete for business, one will be forced to go with ObamaCare because it's the most affordable. (Wouldn't you go with the lower price too if you weren't wealthy? I would.)

What happens? Only the wealthy and elite will be able to afford private insurance, with millions of Americans forced to pay for the only one available: ObamaCare.

Being forced by the government to take a government service? If that ain't a loss of liberty, brother, than I don't know what is.

One Hand

2010-08-03T12:46:00.000-07:00

The tournament at Roxy's has changed slightly since the last time I played back in January. Now it's a $40 buy-in and 10,000 in chips with blinds starting at 100/200, making for an ever slightly faster paced game where aggression is rewarded in the right spot.

Like with my first hand last night.

There are 8 players at my table (16 total) and I'm in the big blind (BB).

The second player to act puts in a minimum raise of 400 (minimum raises are a tell tale sign of a a weak player who doesn't understand proper bet sizing). The small blind calls for 300. I look down at Kh-Qh. A good hand, but not exactly one I want to raise with out of the BB, especially when I have no reads on my opponents. Better off just calling and taking the flop, I think. I call.

The pot: 1200.

The flops comes: Qc-10h-8h.

This is a really, really good flop for my hand, so I want to be aggressive with it to disguise its strength. And why is it strong? For a simple reason: outs. And what is an "out?" It's any unseen card that could potentially improve my hand and is likely to win. So here are my outs (and I can do this really quickly in my head before betting):

9 hearts to a flush (there are 13 in the deck and we know about 4)
3 kings for two pair*
2 queens for trips
3 tens to make 2 pair
3 eights to make 2 pair

Total: 20 outs, or cards that will improve my hand. Using the Rule of 4 and 2, I multiply the number of outs x 4 on the flop. (On the turn you multiply by 2.), which gives me a roughly 80% chance of winning this hand. There's a little dance going on in my head.

Now of course I don't know what cards my opponents are holding, but there's one way to find out: bet.

So I bet 1000. The 2nd player pops it to 2500, a good and slightly fishy raise indicating a couple of things: a) He's protecting AQ, b.) he has a set of 10s or 8s, c.), he has AA or KK or d.) he has a straight draw he's protecting (like KJ). I plan on calling, but let's see what the SB does.

Pot count: 4700

SB re-pops it 5000. Whoa, I didn't expect that! Very interesting.

Now it's on me.

Pot: 9700

My pots odds are roughly: 2.5:1. Expressed as a percentage, 30%, if I call. (13,700 divided by 4000 I'd have to call=29%)

Since the expected value of my hand is on the positive (I'm 2.8:1 favorite against any pair and the pot is laying me 2.5:1) When the odds of drawing a card that wins the pot are higher than the pot odds, it's a near instant call. If I'm up against 2 pair, I'll lose at least 5 outs, making it 15 outs, or 60%.

I really think the SB has either a.) flopped two pair or b.) he flopped a straight (highly unlikely). AQ isn't likely, but possible and would be a slight underdog against my draw.

Calling isn't an option here really as it will cost me more than half of my stack, thus committing to make a call to see the river no matter what card comes on the turn.

"This is a really, really good hand," I say to the SB. "And I'm fairly certain I know what you have." I look at the original raiser, I'm not sure about you, but I have an idea, I think to myself.

"There's really only one right move here, and folding isn't one of them. I'm all in," I say, pushing my chips into the middle and show my Kh-Qh. The original raiser calls. Hmm, I wasn't expecting that. He shows Kc-Jc giving him only 6 "clean" outs (the Ah and 9h are "dirty" outs for him). The SB shows Qd-10c, and has only 4 outs; his hand takes away 8 of my outs (the 10s, 8s and Qs=8), leaving me with 12 outs, or 48%.

I'm in good shape despite the SB's two pair as we're a virtually coin flip for a huge pot. Then:

Turn: 6s

River: 2d

One hand.

I'm out.

"You gotta be kidding me," I mutter to myself. "12 outs and I miss every one. Fucking standard."

No regrets, though. It was unquestionably the right play in every way, mathematically and strategically.

Funny thing is, I don't know it yet, but my night's about to get a whole lot worse.

One Tired-Ass (and Heartless) Meme

2010-07-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

Meme.: A concept that spreads swiftly via the Internet.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

And I'll emphatically add: a concept that, more often than not, ain't necessarily true the deeper one looks.

Take for example this recent meme: "Heartless and hateful Republicans don't want to extend unemployment benefits! Bastards!" If not those exact words, pretty darn close.

A liberal friend, who happens to be unemployed, said to me recently, "it scares me that so many republican politicians carelessly brush aside our (at this point) absolute dependence on unemployment money." That's quote for quote.

This bothered me.

So, I asked my heartless self: Was I a member of the heartless party heartlessly denying hearty unemployment insurance (UI) extension to millions of hearty Americans.

Turns out, um, no, not really.

The then-proposed UI extension, some $34 billion, was a part of a larger $200 billion stimulus (Swindle Us) bill, per the WaPo:

The extension was first introduced in a nearly $200 billion package of economic measures sought by the Obama administration, including fresh aid to state governments and extended health insurance subsidies for the unemployed.

$200 billion? Shoot, that means that not even 1/4 of the money was going to go to UI. So, naturally....

Republicans blasted the spending plan, and conservative Democrats revolted, demanding that the package be scaled back.

So it was:

Democratic leaders spent the next two months tossing various items overboard until nothing was left but the least controversial bit of spending: income support for unemployed workers. Democrats downsized even that program, dropping a $25-a-week bonus for all jobless workers* that had been enacted under last year's stimulus package.

Two months. (Or, if you're unemployed, that's better said, "Two fucking months!")

Yet, our dear President made strong allusions to it being all the GOP's fault, saying that it was just partisan tactics "that unconscionably held up unemployment insurance."

On really?

If extending UI was such an "emergency" as was argued by liberals, why didn't the Democrat-controlled Congress propose a straight-as-an-arrow UI bill?

Well, first of all, UI extensions have been a part of stimulus packages before, so that's no surprise. And it's no surprise that there was opposition to the first version wanting an additional $166 billion in spending—particularly in light of the $800 billion in TARP that isn't working as advertised. Basically, what the GOP said was, "Hey, we're fine (sort of**) with extending UI bennies, but you've got to cut the rest of this crap out of here. And explain how we'll pay for this while you're at it."

That took 2 months. The ball was in their court for 2 months.

Yes, "Those heartless and hateful Republicans!" "brushing aside" the unemployed.

Grab your hip waders, the memes are deep and plentiful. On both sides.

*What? What is this?
** Another $34 billion borrowed from our Chinese buddies. Oye. And yes, with a vote 272 to 152 there was still GOP opposition to the bill. For good reason.***
***At 99 weeks, when do the extensions end? At 9% unemployment? 8%? 6%? At some point, there has to be a cutoff. Having the political cajones to do so, is another question

OP's Summer of New

2010-07-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

Last summer, I purchased new golf clubs for the first time in 12 years. Up until 6 weeks ago, I loved them! (I still love them; I'm just deflecting responsibility for my shitty swing on to them because, as we all know, it's the clubs' fault, stupid.)

Anyway, this summer is featuring even more new goodness for me!

Recently, I purchased my first-ever pair of prescription sunglasses, plus a new pair of regular old glasses. (I look sharp in them, too.) I also got a stylish and sinister looking PokerStars hoodie after cashing in some bonus points. (Look out fish!) Then I received a new set of fake teeth. (Sigh.) And, finally, this past Monday, I purchased my first-ever—insert drum roll, please—iPhone!

The 4, to be exact. The one with the antenna issue. Oye gavult.

Leave it to me to finally succumb to technology's siren song only to be thwarted by a glitch. Temporarily, anyway.

Now the sunglasses are pretty awesome as I can drive in bring sunlight without squinting like a 85-year old at the poker table trying to figure out if that's a diamond or a heart on his hole cards. But it's the iPhone that I preordered that's got me jazzed.

The thing is, I'm about as tech savvy as I am handy around the house, so I hope I can make the darn thing work to the best of its ability. I'm sure I will. Hell, it is made by Apple, only the world's most tech-friendly company, I should be fine!

Now watch me end up downloading the "Human-Ending Plague" app, accidentally pressing "Send Plague Now" and being solely accountable for the end of mankind.*

Just thought I should warn you.

*This is why the world is the way it is in Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." App user malfunction. And here you thought his post-apocalyptic world was because of a limited nuclear war or global warming.

My Unmanly Confession

2010-07-06T13:20:00.000-07:00

My poor wife. She did not marry a handy man. She married a Guy Who Can Do Some Things, Just Don't Give Him a Nail Gun or Miter Saw for Christmas kind of guy.

Projects where manual labor is required (ex: rebuilding the back on our fence or rerouting the spouts for the gutters) or a job where a particular skill set needs to be involved (ex: replacing a light fixture in our guest bedroom) or where patience is required (ex: hanging new closet doors) around my house usually go undone for months. And in some cases years. Is it laziness? Lack of skill? Lack of time? Lack of tools?

While it's true that I don't have the skills or the tools to do these projects, I have to say this: I'm not interested in trying to tackle them in the first place. Really, I'm not interested. At all. In fact, I have about as much interest in talking about projects and how to do them as I do in listening to Stephen Hawking give a lecture in quantum physics. Or listening "How to Macrame" on NPR.

Part of the lack of interest stems from losing my Dad when I was 17. Man, he could build stuff. He built my sister's doll house. He also built my wickedly cool train set that folded out from the wall like a Murphy bed. We also completed our walkway and retaining wall shortly before he died. However, he never showed me how to lay down bricks or how to measure posts and so on. Not his fault entirely as I don't recall asking to learn how to do them. But I also remember not being interested in the first place.

This causes me some embarrassing and uncomfortable moments when socializing with my fellow dudes. When they get talking about doing X, Y and Z to their houses, I just nod politely and try to maintain interest. This is problematic as it can cement my feet in to a conversation for untold minutes. (Good thing beer is usually on hand to get me through such conversations.) For example, I know a guy who's worked on his house going on 2+ years now. He's remodeled the kitchen and all of the rooms, plus done all the wiring on the house. It looks great! But to hear him talk about it all I keep thinking is, "You've spent 2+ years of your life doing this? Holy hell, you missed a lot of sunny golf days." And then I try to finish my beer so I can slink off for a new one.

Part of my lack of interest lies in patience, mostly because I lack it—particularly when things don't go as planned as projects have a way of doing.

To me, spending an entire Sunday installing a door like my friend Andy did over at Dipso Chronicles just doesn't sound like a hootenanny. Yet that's what he did. By about the second or third hour I would've turned to my wife and said, "Honey, I hope you're okay without a front door for the next couple of nights because, fuck it, I'm fucking done with this shit right fucking now." Then I would have kicked the pile of shit door for not cooperating then stormed off to find the nearest beer.

And I'm not kidding about that level of frustration either.

Hell, you should have seen me try to put a new spool of cord on to my Weedwacker recently. The wacker is still spool-less. A door? You gotta be kidding me. Why bother.

Yet there's always been this little Tim The Toolman inside me who wants to get out and at least try.

My friend, Sean, made himself a poker table once—padded rails, velvet top, and he even put his own funky logo in the middle of the table. Fantastic piece of manly man that he built. I wanted one too. So I asked him how he did it. He said it was easy, all he did was blah, blah, blah, did blah, blah, blah, then did blah, blah, blah afterhe did blah, blah, blah, but he had trouble with blah, blah, blah when blah, blah, blah didn't attach to blah, blah, blah so he blah, blah, blah and was done.

He was the teacher in Peanuts to me. I couldn't relate. I asked him how much it cost. He said about $350 for all the materials.

I wanted to double it to $700 to cover his cost in labor for building me one as well.

Also, when we first bought our house, I had interest and verve in doing various projects. I gladly engaged in painting, installing a lock on the front door, patching holes. putting up the mailbox and so on.I even bought a Home Depot book on how to do every imaginable house project. Then I remembered who brought the toolkit into our family unit: my wife.

I even did one major house project that required a great deal of help: Building our fence. I'm glad we hired Matt otherwise our fence would have been as useful as the Maginot Line in keeping the then-alive dog in the yard and unwanted critters and people out.

I feel sorry for my son in all this, too. Daddy's never going to teach him how to build a deck, or lay a walk way, or tile the bathroom, or fix a pipe, and so on. If he's interested in learning, well, that's why there are technical courses at the local junior colleges. And I'll be happy to pay for them too.

These days, my wife now knows that if she wants to get something done that we'll need to hire some one. New doors? New can lights in living room? New tile on the fireplace? If you can do those things, buddy, you're hired.

Look, in the end, I get the whole pride in doing it yourself idea, or that feeling accomplishment. Or that doing projects is a way of relaxing and so on. I get all that. Those are all well and good, and bully for you!

Me? It's "No, Lowe's, let's not build something together. You do it. I've got better things to do." Like play golf. Or take a nap. Anything but measuring or pounding and remeasuring and repounding.

I Approve This Message

2010-06-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

From David Boze's blog at KTTH.

More Poking Fun at Soccer

2010-06-22T09:45:00.000-07:00

So, an old friend on Facebook was "looking for suggestions on where to watch the USA-Algeria match* tomorrow."

I replied: "On Sportscenter, skipping the 89:55 minutes of inaction?"**

This is too easy. And far too fun!

*Even soccer fans dare not call it a "game."
** To my friend's credit, he replied, "That's how I watch golf."

Confirming What We Already Knew About Soccer

2010-06-21T20:20:00.000-07:00

It's really gay.

Big hat tip to Andy on this one.

Soccer Officially Announces It Is Gay

Three Keys to Shaving Strokes in Golf

2010-06-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

There is one big way to shoot low score in golf: avoid blow-up holes. That means no double or triple bogeys, and definitely no snowmen.

By no means am I there yet. I took a 9 on the par 5, 525-yard 4th hole on my home course; and a double at the second. I took a triple on a 435-yard par 4 last Saturday to go with two doubles. The former—if I had just bogeyed each hole—prevented me from shooting a 77; the latter cost me money.

So these tips are as much for me as they are you!

The Most Dreaded Shot in Golf

Last Saturday, on a 310-yard, uphill par 4, my playing partner Sanders and I hit our drives right next to each other—literally just 3 feet apart. We were both looking at an uphill 55-yard pitch shot.

"I hate this shot," he grumbled as we came up to our shots, expressing a sentiment of many golfers.
I was first to hit and knocked mine right of the hole, but pin high to 14 feet (yeah, I walk off my putts). Sanders hit his shot, yanking it long and left and leaving himself a good 30-footer for birdie. I liked my chances at birdie. His? Not so much. (Sanders made a slippery 4 footer for par. Me? My bird finished 2 inches to the right. Damn.)

While I'm no Tiger Woods at an 8.3 handicap, I know why golfers like Sanders hate these pitch shots: They don't practice them enough, if at all! (Sanders negativity didn't help, either.)

How important is this shot to average to above average player?*
Guess how many times I faced shots in that 55-105-yard range last week? 9. My previous round, 6. The round before that, 8. The round before that, 7.

Clearly the 55-105 shot has to be in my bag if I want to score low, so I make sure it is. That's why when I go to the range, my first 15-20 shots are with my 52º and 56º wedges. I also end my session with 7-10 of these shots.

The more I practice it, the more comfortable I am with it. (This is not to say that I've mastered these shots, I'm just less intimidated by them.)
Here's my tip: The next time you go to the range, get a small bucket of roughly 50 balls and use the entire bucket to hit shots in the 50-110 yard range. Yup, leave the driver and irons in the bag and use the entire bucket for these shots.

"But that's wasting balls!" my friend Natalie protested the other day.

"Would you rather "waste" range balls or strokes on the course, Nat?"

"Shut up."

That's what I thought. Enough said.

Laying Up: When to Recognize Trouble and Eliminate a Big Score

A couple of times a week I pass my home course's difficult 13th hole. It's par 3 that plays 182 to 191 yards (depending on where the tees are) over a ravine and is ever so slightly downhill. There's a bunker short and right of the green; and another long and back left. To the right is a grove of tall pines with low-hanging branches, and a chain-link fence next to the road. Short and to the left of the hole is wide open. The green slopes from back to front and has a false front. And the hardest part of the hole is prevailing wind, which is either coming straight at you or from the left, thus adding more yards to the hole. Par is a great score; bogey, while obviously not ideal, is acceptable. Here's a view of the hole (though this is shot considerably "up" in front of the tees.):

So how do I approach this hole? First, I identify the trouble. Right is obviously no good. The less obvious trouble is long; it'll be hard to get it close with the green sloping away from me. Left is fine (look at all that room!), but it leaves me with a long and more difficult pitch shot that has to carry the false front. Then I consider my club yardage. I hit my 5-iron off a tee anywhere from 180-190 yards. My 22º 3 hybrid I hit 200-215. So, I'm between clubs.

My strategy is clear then: Aim for the blue spruce, take a 5-iron and play for a lay up.

What? Lay up on a par 3?

Absolutely, and for several reasons. With a good chip, I can get up and down for par—and, at worst, 2-putt for bogey. Two, I virtually eliminate double or even triple bogey from the scorecard. Three, thinking "lay up" puts less pressure on me to make a perfect swing, thus relaxing my muscles and allowing me to make a better swing. (What I'm doing here is fooling my body a bit. I know darn well that I can put it dead center on the green, but putting artificial pressure on myself to do so usually results in a hurried swing with a less-than-ideal result.)

How has this approach worked out? 5 out of the last 7 times I've parred the hole! The other two were bogeys. A fella can really fall in love with those results.

The lay up is a powerful shot; and it can be used in numerous situations around a course with a positive effect on your scorecard. There are just a couple of rules to follow.

First, recognize where potential trouble lurks on a hole. Second, keep your ego in check. (Can I really make this shot? If no, pick a club that gets you to wedge yardage or a spot where you'll be comfortable.) Finally, as I pointed out in my above example, be creative. Defy conventional wisdom. Maybe on a long 450-yard par 4 you lay up your second shot

Keep Your Penis in the Bag and Take More Club

The penis. It costs golfers more shots than any other club in the bag—and that includes women. Nowhere does the penis play a more sinister role than on approaches.

The thinking goes something like this, "Hmm, okay. I have 135 yards to the hole. That's a 9-iron for me, so 9-iron it is." And they end up 10-15 yards short of the hole.

Thank you very much, Mr. Penis.

Had the golfer put the clubhead cover on Mr. Penis and gone with a smooth 8, they would be pin high and tight.

Case in point. A guy I'm playing with, carrying the exact same handicap as me (8.3), steps up to his shot. He has 132-yards to the hole that plays steeply uphill. He breaks out his range finder.

"Well, 132 yards. That's my 9."

We had become friendly during the round, but not so much that I felt like dispensing advice. Take one more club or you'll never get there, sport.

Guess who ended up short. If you said Mr. Penis, you win a dozen Pro V1s.

Meanwhile, just prior to that, yours truly put the clubhead cover on Mr. Penis, broke out the 7-iron—a club I normally hit 148-155 yards+—and from 141 yards put my shot 12 feet above the cup. Par for me**, bogey for him.

The trouble here is that golfers are counting on making their best shot. A good positive state of mind, for sure, but it puts too much pressure on you and your swing to make a perfect shot.

Look, golf isn't about "I hit that 7-iron 165 yards" and then failing to tell everyone that you bogeyed the hole; it's about making accurate shots to give yourself a chance at par or better.

There's no dishonor in clubbing up, so do it.

Do those three things and I guarantee you'll lower your scores for sure!

Here endth the lesson.

*The average golfer is an 18 handicap!
** Damn, I need to start making these. Missed four from within 15 ft for birdie last week.

M.Y.O.F.B., Part 2

2010-05-27T15:25:00.000-07:00

Just a little while ago in a galaxy very close to home....

Again, I go to the kitchen to pour out the last inch of warm and flat Diet Coke so I can deposit it in the recycle bin. This time, another female co-worker is just finishing up washing a dish.

"May I?" I ask, pointing to the sink and the bottle.

"Oh yeah, sure, sure," she says quickly. "Go right ahead."

I begin pouring.

"I can't drink that stuff. All those bad preservatives. I don't know how you do it." she chortles.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Again? Really?

"See this word here?" I quickly reply, smiling and pointing to the last ingredient of caffeine. "That's why I drink it." I gloss over my real reason: I like the stuff. So fuck you.

"Uh, yeah, it still has those preservatives. So bad for you," she again chortles.

Just shut up, OP. Don't say a word. You've gotten in enough trouble with your mouth lately. Dump your bottle and walk away.

"I'm sorry, I shouldn't be a busy body....I do that."

No, you shouldn't. But you couldn't help your sanctimonious eco-weenie liberal self, could you, you....

"No problem...."

I really need to do a recon mission next time. Nah, screw that. Next time, I make a spectacle of dumping it out. And I'm gonna smile when I do it too. I swear.

Flirting During a Disaster

2010-05-24T09:38:00.000-07:00

On April 20, BP and Transocean wanted their deepwater rig to explode and sink and send 11 workers to meet their maker.

Now BP wants to take their own sweet time stopping and cleaning up the disaster. Yes, those Earth-hating, greedy bastards really enjoy losing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and sales, spending billions in clean up, while accumulating hundreds of millions more (likely) in fines. Most of all, they really enjoy losing untold billions in negative PR. And worse, if BP doesn't hurry up and stop the leak, the government, with neither the means or know how, is going to "push them out of the way appropriately" and really fix the problem.

If you're waiting for the punchline, grab a seat, it's going to be a while. That's not a joke.

There are people out there, including friends of mine, who actually believe this present line of horse hockey. Worse, the Obama Administration is toting this line too. And the more bluster and bloviation the Administration spouts and touts, the worse and more desperate they appear as the days go by.

It's "Nice job, Brownie" idiocy, only strung over weeks instead of a soundbite. And all they're trying to do is distance themselves from their recent endorsement of increasing off-shore drilling.

It's all political grandstanding and kow towing to one's base. During an on-going disaster that is to sink to the lowest of new lows. The truth is, nobody in the Obama Administration, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, has the first fucking clue of how to stop the leak. Instead, they think the next best thing they can do is to stand on the sidelines criticizing and admonishing BP and making empty rhetorical threats so they can look good in the eyes of their anti-corporate, hate-Big-Oil base.

Well, gee, that's helpful. Thank you very fucking much.

For all the admonishing liberals do to conservatives when they pander to their base on issues, they're utterly oblivious when they're engaging in shameless pandering themselves.

Look, there is only one appropriate and winning response that should be coming from the government and the Obama Administration: Shut up, step up and help out where one can. Point fingers—Obama being the World Fingerpointing Champ, especially toward the previous administration—have investigations, call for regulations and hearings and sub-committees of sub-committees, do it all. Just do it all later.

Now That's Grocery Store Customer Service! (Sort Of.)

2010-05-20T13:53:00.000-07:00

Lately at my local grocery shopping establishment, a new phrase has replaced the "I'm not really interested but I'm forced to ask 'How are you today?" policy.

It's "Did you find everything you were looking for today?".

Normally these types of pleasant but ultimately disinterested customer phrases pass by us like a fly. We duck and dodge it with equally pleasant yet ultimately disinterested responses of "Good" or "Great, how about you?", with neither of us really giving a shit about the other.

This one stopped me, though.

Did I find everything? Hmm....

I didn't know how to respond. Should I say how I couldn't find the creme fraiche? After all, I didn't. I could respond with a flat "no", embarrassing her (and myself), but that seemed mean. Or, I could be kind and lie by replying yes. Or, I could just laugh it off and say, "Well, I was looking for Mickey Mantle's '52 rookie card, but you didn't have it. What gives?"

Yet given the honest nature of the question, I decided to respond in kind.

"Well, no, actually. I couldn't find creme fraiche."

She seemed slightly stunned that I was actually answering her. She gracefully recovered, however, and replied, "I'm sorry to hear that. It wasn't with the fine cheeses?"

Fine cheeses? It's really more of a dairy product, closely related to sour cream, cottage cheese, etc. Shouldn't it be the milk portion of dairy?

"I didn't think to look there. I was looking in the dairy section." I turned to head to the fine cheeses before she stopped me.

"That's okay, we'll get it for you. How many do you want?"

"Um, just one. Thanks."

With that, she sent the young bagger who hustled off and hurried back with creme fraiche in hand.

Of all the feigned-interest customer phrases thrown at us throughout our lives from "Can I help you?" ("I don't know, can you?") to "How are you doing today?" ("My day was positively fucked, hence the 12-pack.") to "Will that be all?" ("No, I forgot about 22 things. Can you hold my place in line while I get them?"), this one works because there's at least a half measure of genuine interest in delivering customer service and providing items that I want or need.

I felt happy. I felt like an important customer as she handed my change back to me.

"You saved $6.43. Thank you, Mr. Fish....Feis...Fizz..."

And to think, before you started butchering my last name here, you were actually winning.

"That's okay," I smiled, stopping her. "You have a great day!"

M.Y.O.F.B.

2010-05-07T09:56:00.000-07:00

Me emptying out two, half-empty and stale Diet Coke containers in the sink.

Co-worker standing at microwave watching me, "Tsk, tak. So wasteful!"

Me: "Yeah, yeah, here we are. I'm pained."

Can I Get a Witness in the Eco-Congregation Here?

2010-04-22T13:32:00.000-07:00

Roy Spenser is a climatologist and former NASA scientist:

I have to wonder: Is Earth Day being used to teach our children the way the natural world works, or is it being used to indoctrinate them into performing rituals that will help absolve them of their eco-sins?

I am not opposed to cleaning things up. If there are things we can do that help reduce our impact on the environment without causing human suffering, then I am all for it. But it is that human-suffering part that those of us in more prosperous countries tend to forget about. For instance, there are no economically viable — or even practical — replacements for carbon-based fuels that can be deployed on a sufficient scale to substantially reduce our CO₂ emissions. It will likely be decades before we do have such technology. And when we force people to use energy sources that are more expensive, it is the world’s poor who are hit the hardest.

Amen.

A Time of Hyper Gratitude

2010-04-09T14:19:00.000-07:00

I have a friend and former coworker with a couple of kids, one whom happens to be just a month or so younger than my son. She's vivacious, athletic, incredibly funny, humble and self-effacing, whip smart, and a gifted writer. She's one of those people who was 632 friends on Facebook and knows something intimate and/or funny about each one. Heck, she'd even "friend you up" if she half liked you.

She's also the last person, at age 35, that you'd expect to have stage 4 colon cancer.

Now her disease makes it easy for anyone to call into account her own mortality and to be grateful for life. Yet I contest that that state of 'being there' is momentary and fleeting for most, particularly for the healthy or those who have never walked down that path with Death. This is not to say that the healthy don't appreciate their lives, no, they most certainly do! Yet there is a hyper state of awareness or consciousness that my friend is experiencing that I too have experienced, and it's nearly indescribable. But let me try.

Ever paid attention to every little ache in your chest? ("Was that from working out, or is something happening?") Have you ever been conscious of your moment-to-moment breathing? ("Is it normal to be winded going up this hill or 3 flights of stairs?" "How long should it take to catch my breath?") Ever wake up with your shoulder noticeably stiff? ("Is that from sleeping wrong, or worse?") Who will take care of the dog?

Lights and colors are intense. Sleep seems unnecessary. You listen intently. Heck, one time on the way to work, I started crying on the bus because the morning light was so beautiful and bright and jaw-dropping brilliant as it streamed through buildings that I couldn’t. I got to work, tears still in my eyes, and I just sat at my desk and sobbed because I was so overwhelmingly grateful. (I felt foolish when a co-worker asked what was wrong, so I lied and made up some BS about being mean to folks.)

Today, my friend is going through the same thoughts and experiences. Every word on her blog is filled with a deep sense of appreciation and hyper awareness, dusted with her brand of slightly dark but lighthearted sense of humor.

Then I think about my health compared to my friend's.

My cholesterol is fantastic. A recent nuclear stress test revealed no blockages. And my Berkeley Heart Labs came back better than they were 2 years ago. I could stand to lose 10-15 pounds of extra blubber around the belly to bring down the glucose levels, sure, but God's renewed my lease for the time being. Unless a bus comes along, or a pack of pit bulls attacks whilst I'm mowing the lawn, I'm going to be A-okay for a while!

The word "grateful" falls woefully short.

Of course, the natural, guilt-laden reaction is, "that's not fair" and "what did she do to deserve this?” as if we all have some cosmic comeuppance coming to us for own perceived transgressions against God.

But I've grown to ask a better question, one that's helped me to cope with these times in life: "What's God trying to teach me here? What lesson does He want me to learn?" For now, the answer is simple and clear: ‘Be grateful for the life I've given you. Love me, and take care of yourself.’ I’m sure there’s more, but for now this is all I hear.

So I've been swimming in that deep pool of hyper awareness again. I look at my son and see how intimately he takes in every little thing, the joy he derives from every little touch (even the stuff he's not supposed to touch). I breathe in his hair and hold it in deep. I cherish his breathing as he falls asleep in my arms, and how he slurps on his thumb. Even his poop smells great! (Okay, sort of.) I look at my wife and feel overwhelming blessed to have fooled someone into loving me! I have a house! I have new golf clubs! Oh sure, I get lost in the trivial and mundane and I let small, stupid stuff bother me still (like hooking the damn golf ball!), but it’s only temporary and fleeting and I let them go. *

God's opened my eyes (again), this time through a very sick friend. I don't know what he wants me to do next, but I'm doing my best to listen. And I hope He's hearing my prayers for my friend. I'm certain He is. After all, He's heard them before.

*Mostly. Hitless hitters in fantasy baseball drive me nuts!

Look, My Fellow Americans! No Grandpa Jeans!

2010-04-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

Many props for donning the White Sox cap! Very funny!

But Jimney Christmas, learn to throw less like a 10-year old girl and more like the president of the country where baseball was born, will ya? Sheesh.

A Few More Thoughts (and a Correction) on the 2010 Mariners

2010-04-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

Correction first.

1. The M's record as 85-77 in '09, not 82-80 as I had said. But I still stand by my prediction of 82-80.

2. The M's were an incredible 35-20 in 1-run games in '09, which was by far the best in the AL. I don't see a repeat of that.

3. The most recent issue of ESPN cited how great the M's defense is and how that will translate into a post-season run. I don't have the issue in front of me but the stat they cited was something along the lines that 7-8 teams in recent years that lept into the top 1/3 in defense rankings ended up in the post season, and they cited the '08 Tampa Bay Rays as a prime example of that. Great! However, they failed to mention that the bats of Evan Longoria, Carl Crawford, BJ Upton, Carlos Pena. The M's do not have that kind of pop in their lineup.

4. Ryan Rowland-Smith and Justin Vargas have had good springs. While I didn't state his '09 ERA, I thought Rowland-Smith's was worse than what it was (3.96). I thought it was in the high 4s.

Why Couldn't I Have Said It This Way?

2010-03-30T14:32:00.000-07:00

From a letter in today's Washington Post regarding Tea Partiers and the accusations of racism:

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then racism is the first charge of the intellectually lazy. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly liberal columnists scream "racism" at those challenging their beliefs. It is an easy way to avoid the merits of arguments they oppose and inadvertently dilutes legitimate charges of racism. We as a nation will never reach a point of civil discourse if this highly charged accusation continues to be recklessly thrown about.

Your 2010 Seattle "Iffy" Mariners!

2010-03-25T15:59:00.000-07:00

Let me get this out of the way, so there's no confusion: I'm genuinely excited to see the 2010 M's at the Safe this year. After seeing the team up close and personal in my first-ever Cactus League visit, there was a cool buzz around the players and an upbeat vibe coming from the fans.

Heck, even baseball pundits are raving about their rotation and potential to be a contending team.

Um, yeah. I don't get it. Do they see the same team I do?

I know what you're thinking: Here comes Mr. Gloomy Gus.

No, no! I'm excited to see the M's, all right, but the expectations on this team to contend are out of proportion to the one that's going to take the field.

Every team comes with ifs this time of year, of course, but the M's have quite a few—and a lot more than the average Mariners fan is willing to admit, I'm afraid. Given that, and that everyone is ready to hand Jack Z. the keys to the city for the moves he made over the winter, I think an honest assessment is in order.

The good thing is that Jack Z has set the M's up to win even if they fail. So that's a very, very good thing for the future. If the M's falter to before the break, they'll get great prospects/players for Lee and deepen the franchise's talent pool in the minors—something former shit-for-brains GM Bill Bavasi managed to fuck up beyond reproach.

Let's look at the key areas where the iffy issues arise.

The Rotation:
Remember "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain"? Well, nothing weather related rhymes with Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee, and The Safe has a retractable roof, but the concept holds: The M's have suspect and inconsistent starters after these two.

The 3, 4 and 5 starters are going to have to chew up some innings to keep the 'pen from getting worn down. If Ryan Rowland-Smith and Ian Snell can post .500 records or just below, and keep the ERA in the low-to-mid 4s, then this team will compete. But I don't see it. Rowland-Smith is a serviceable #4 starter, but his stuff isn't dazzling and he wears down after 5 innings. Snell has a great arm, and all kinds of talent. If he can get his head straight and apply himself while coming off an injury, then he's a semi-breakout candidate. That's a big if, though.

After that, and like most teams, the struggle is to find a starter from the pool of Justin Vargas, Doug Fister (love the last name, not the game), Luke French (pitching like a Frenchmen this spring, all right—Jacques Pepin, to be precise) and Oriole-castoff Garrett Olson. And waiting in the wings is the oft-broken Eric Bedard (commonly referred to around these parts as Erica), who might back in June after he recovers from shoulder surgery.

This is not good news. The argument goes that this team is built around speed and defense. Being that, the pitching must play a significant role in keeping the score close. These back-end starters will keep the bullpen busy, likely too busy. This will put additional pressure on Felix and Lee to go deep into their games just to give the 'pen some rest. If those two can do that (and that's now an even bigger if now with Lee starting the season on the DL), then the wear and tear on the 'pen is slightly mitigated.

The Key Trio:
First base, third base and left field are the traditional power positions in baseball. At the very minimum, teams want 70 HRs from these 3 positions. Projecting Milton Bradley in LF, Chone Figgins at 3B and Casey Kotchman at 1b, and using their career highs in HR, they'll produce just 44, if we're lucky. Ouch. Not good.

True, the HR isn't the end all be all stat. So, if we have rabbits like Ichiro or Figgins on base, or both, and with The Safe's spacious and deep power alleys, then what the M's need are hitters with gap power. Kotchman and Bradley have that kind of power. Trouble is, both of them have only surpassed 30+ doubles in a season three times between the two of them. The rest of the time, both averaged under 25 two baggers during their careers, and there's nothing to suggest these two will produce bigger numbers. If they do, the lack of HR power is less of a concern.

One of the key pieces of the offense is Franklin Gutierrez. If Gutierrez, at the breakout age of 27, can produce a season along the lines of .298/25HR/93RBI/302B/20SB, then this minimizes the lack of power. However, if Gutierrez's numbers are on par with last year's (as fine as they were), the offensive production will be slightly worse than last year. Yes, worse.

This team produced just 640 runs while giving up 692. Without Russell Branyan's 31 HRs, and given Kotchman's career high of 14, that's already 17 runs less—at least. Figgins will be lucky to hit 6 HR. Bradley might be able to make up for that loss, if he can't keep his head straight and stay healthy. (The Mother of All Ifs.) So, the onus is on Guti to show some pop. If he can do that, then they'll repeat 640, which, honestly, ain't that great if you're spotting all your opponents at least 52 runs over the '10 season like they did in '09.

This is why I was disappointed with the M's failing to sign Jason Bay. Putting up numbers around .280/34/110, Bay would have put huge pressure on opposing pitchers to keep Ichiro and Figgins off base. Now, without that legit 3-hole power threat, not nearly as much.

To me, the additions of Bradley, Byrnes and Mike Sweeney, is like taking a handful of darts, putting on a blindfold, being spun around and then chucking them at a wall. Bay was a near bull's eye. We won't rue the day or anything, but it sure would've been nice to have Bay's bat in the 3-hole. But I digress....

The Bullpen:
I really, really like what's been done here. Bullpens are like offensive lines in football—thankless, unheralded but absolutely essential for winning games and contending. The addition of Brandon League is very solid as a 6th and 7th inning reliever. I really like Mark Lowe and David Aardsma to close games. They can both deal heat with great movement. I urge caution in thinking Aardsma can produce like he did in '09 because he's never had that kind of success before, but let's call him good with 35 saves. If not, there's Mark Lowe to close. And Kanekoa Texeiria is having an excellent spring. If he continues as he has, then the 'pen is one of the best in the AL.

I'm less enthused by Sean White, Shawn Kelley, Jesus Colome and Chad Cordero. If 2 of these 4 can have solid years, then I'm more optimistic. For now, I'm less so, and I won't be disappointed if they disappoint.

Again, I caution that the back end of the starting rotation will potentially cause each of these middle relievers to be in 45 games+ each. That's too many, and it doesn't bode well for keeping games close.

Jose Lopez:
Why do people in Seattle hate on Jose Lopez? Because he lacks range on defense? Who cares. He plays 2B. Oh wait, the M's are shifting him to 3B. Hmm, okay, maybe I do care a bit more. Sort of. I'm no sabermatician, nor do I care to be one, but dollars to doughnuts says Lopey wins more games with his bat than he loses with his glove.

He's the Mariners only near-guaranteed threat to hit 20, and possibly 25+HRs. However, Lopez has a glaring weaknesses at the plate: an utter lack discipline, best displayed by just 24 BB in 653 plate appearances. That's horrific. (Which didn't scare me from drafting him because I'm an idiot.) But aside from Ichiro, he's the M's best and most dangerous hitter.

Yet the Mariners and their fans would like to see him go in a trade. Trade a power-hitting, 26-year old second baseman? Sorry, I don't get it.

If Lopey hits in the three hole, and he's not too distracted by his new duties at 3B and starts off quick, he'll be key in keeping the M's a contender before the July deadline.

As for the rest of 'em....:

Junior: Oh please, only overly sentimental Mariner ideologues thought he should come back. He'll be lucky to hit .210 with 13 HRs.

Eric Byrnes: If he can come close to producing like his '07 season, it'll be the happy end of Milton Bradley.

Ryan Garko: If he can hit lefties while coming off the bench, he'll be a valuable asset. Just don't count on it. The one-time blue chipper has underachieved throughout his career.

Matt Tuisasosopo: Very intriguing to see if he'll make the club, which is looking better and better each day. Tremendous potential. If Bradley or Byrnes fails to produce, the M's could shift Figgins to left, put Lopez back at 2B and start Tui at 3B. And don't be surprised if that happens, perhaps as early as late May.

Catcher: There is no "if" here, just pure suckage, offensively speaking. Defensively, they're passable.

Okay, so what do I predict? 82-80. Or 78-84. Somewhere in there, anyway.

Yup, no better, but no worse, either. Just probably not what M's fans are expecting given their breathless adoration for Jack Z.'s moves.

This summer should be fun, entertaining and put some butts in the stands—mine included.

So If i'm Presently a Card-Carrying Member of "The Party of No"....

2010-03-16T12:08:00.000-07:00

....I guess that means the Democrats/liberals were "The Party of No" from 2000-2008, too.

My, my, my. What short little memories have if we're buying this demonization attempt.

Summed Up Perfectly.

2010-03-13T16:03:00.000-08:00

Cactus League Sights

2010-03-11T11:02:00.000-08:00

"This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come."

I'm getting all tingly for baseball again. Must have something to do with my first-ever Cactus League Spring Training trip with my close friend, Aaron.

Junior and Ichiro. (Dear Friends, you were right. Ichiro does have the ability to hit 15-20 homers every year. Now only if he would.)

King Felix (looking at the devilishly handsome cameraman, no doubt). And trailing behind him? King TradeBait. Better known as Cliff Lee.

Ocuh, always ouch.

Milton Bradley, perplexed by his bat and what to do with it. Ugh. Watching him play makes you miss Carlos Silva. Double ugh.

Crazy kids living a crazy dream. Lucky bastards.

Traditional Brewers Weiner race! Sweet! (I rooted for the chorizo in the hat.)

That's right, Mariners fans. It's John Halama-LaLa-DingDong!

Creepy Obama Idolarity, Or Oddball Sense of Humor?

2010-03-11T09:13:00.000-08:00

Help me out here.

This is the picture one of my coworkers has up as his screensaver at the moment. The portrait has been around since the '08 campaign, and I've never quite known whether or not to take it seriously, or as an intended joke. Given my place of employment and the predominant ideological leanings of my coworkers, I'm inclined to say the former. On the other hand, the latter is entirely possible too—mainly because the portrait is so over-the-top tacky and cheeky. (The white horse behind Obama is hilarious!)

I'm really split: I so want to say some quippy remark in passing (ex: point at the screen and say "Now that's funny!"); but this is work, and work and politics should never mingle.

I think I'll go with the latter.

I really believe he's got it up as a joke, but I'm so tempted to find out!

Lead me not into temptation, Lord....pardon, Obama.*

*I'm sure people are wondering why I'm chuckling at my desk, but they'll just have to keep wondering. :)

Pelosi Channels Jim Jones

2010-03-10T14:19:00.000-08:00

Flashback, November, 18, 1978, Jonestown, Guyana: 'Drink the mixtue, children. We're doing something special. I'll tell you what's in it later.'

Subjection to power. It's a dangerous thing. Yet, in a soundbite, that is precisely what Speaker Pelosi wants when it comes to the health care bill: 'Just pass the plan, we'll tell what's in it later.'

Yes, Madame Speaker, pass it to me now. Gulp, gulp, gulp! Ahhhhhh!

Good God.

May I remind my dear 2.5 Readers that this is from a prepared speech. Not off the cuff. Not a slip of the old windbag's tongue. A prepared speech. And she's deadly serious.

Since I'm not big on soundbites as a means of formulating one's world view or opinions or, possibly worse, partaking in "shitty shorthand," here's her shitty speech in its entirety*.

Finally, if Sarah Palin said this—and it's entirely possible she could say something so demonstrably stupid—the entire op-ed page of the NY Times, as well as DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, Democratic Underground and every other liberal editorial board in the country would be all over this in a bitch-like heat.

What do we get instead? Unquestioning and accepting silence. No words of denouncement. Not even so much as a peep.

Gulp, gulp, gulp, gulp......

*Oh, and it is truly a shitty speech. Here's another doozy: "Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon." But only if we nod our heads and say "Yes, we can."....

MLB The Show: 2010—Quick Review

2010-03-04T09:15:00.000-08:00

What better way to kick off my first ever trip to the Cactus League than by picking up "MLB The Show 2010" yesterday!

After taking the annoying 20-25 minutes to update my PS3 software and upload the game's data, I got to play a game—Indians vs. Twins. And here are a couple of things that immediately stood out, graphically and in the play.

Graphically, it's a sweet upgrade from the '09 version. Players move more fluidly; player faces more closely resemble those of that player (Justin Morneau is spot on good); shadows are more ambient and defined, as are dirt stains; and players don't "go through" each other with as much frequency.

One very cool thing was this: I played under partly cloudy conditions, and throughout the game cloud shadows would fade in and out of field of play—some parts of the field would have shadows, others not. It really gives the feeling of playing under those conditions. A very sweet, subtle touch.

Also, from about the 7th inning on, shadows from the stands started to creep across home plate and over the third base line. Another nice touch.

You can also see when a pitcher is getting tired and winded as his shoulders move up and down.

Oh, the fans aren't "repeated" nearly as often—in fact, it's darn hard to find the same fan doing the same gesture in the same section.

On to the play.

So much better! Far more realistic. Infielders no longer seem to have incredible ranges, and their Hoover-esque like ability to snare any ball in their vicinity seems to be gone as well—as is the ability to make off-balance or deep-in-the-hole throws. Example: I hit a ball to short with Nick Punto that the SS had to backhand and I was able to make it first.

The speed of the players more closely matched their real-time speed. Example: I drag bunted twice. With Denard Span, I was able to put one down short and to the left of the mound and beat it out. (No silly-great jumps off the mound by the pitcher and then firing a pea over to first like the '09 version.) On the second drag bunt, I laid one down up the 1B line and was able to beat that out as well.

Double plays are also harder to turn for the computer—and for the player as well.

It was easier to make errors, too. I made an error with Mauer on a steal attempt by the CPU when I overthrew it and the ball skipped into center. I made a second error when I needlessly fired the ball to second with my cutoff man. (This is good. You shouldn't be able to just will-nilly throw the ball wherever.)

Outfielder ranges more closely resemble those of the real player. Example: Jason Kubel is slow to the ball. In the '09 version, Kubel's fat ass could catch balls headed to the alley or he could sprint back to the ball. Not now. Grady Sizemore put one over his head for a triple.

Of note: Games are actually sponsored by real-time businesses, I think. As announcers were doing the pre-game, they said 'today's game sponsored by State Farm Insurance'. Product placement in video games? An interesting tact. As a marketer, I kind of like the idea.

While playing one game doth not a review make, there were a lot of noticeable and excellent upgrades and you'll be very happy with your purchase!

P.S. On a real-time baseball note, just what in the Sam hell was the city of Minneapolis thinking in building an open-air stadium? April and October—and hell, even more so late October—have the potential to be bitterly cold, worse than even Colorado. And while I've never been to the Twin Cities, I get the impression that the summers are sickly hot, ungodly humid and rampant with bugs—especially mosquitoes. Then again, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised about the questionable decision to have an open-air stadium since this is the same state that elected Jesse Ventura for Governor and Al Franken to the House.

I'm a Racist (Part 3 or 7 or 8 or...Oh Hell, I've Lost Count)

2010-02-28T21:18:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the continuous updates. It was late when I wrote this and wanted to refine it a bit. Not that anybody reads this site. Sigh.

I'd say I'm speechless, but I'm not.

Leonard Pitts' column is so shitastic that we must take it paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence if necessary.

A few words on the meaning of tea.

They are occasioned by a recent commentary from Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.

You should stop reading right here given the reference, but we're just 2 sentences in. Let's give it a little more time.

The commentary — you can find it on YouTube — scores the tea-party movement as the outcry of people who haven't yet made peace with the fact that their president is black.

Another trusted source: YouTube. And scores? Really? Where are these "scores" if they're so prevalent?

Everything else, said Olbermann, is euphemism. Taxes? Socialism? Budget deficit? No, he argued, when you strip away the pretenses and rationalizations, "it's still racism," and they hate the president only because he is black.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Does Pitts really believe this shit?

One is reminded of the 2008 campaign in which many of Barack Obama's opponents insisted people only "supported" him because he was black.

Um, and many did just that. 96% of black people and 92% of Hispanics voted for Obama. Think they all did it based on his eloquence and "record?" Horsesheet.

It was an offensive claim, in that it assumed black was black was black and that people were so imbecilic that skin color — alone and of itself — was sufficient to win their votes. As if you could sub in rapper Flavor Flav and they would not care.

See above. Plus, they hated Bush.

The truth, it always seemed to me, was more nuanced. People liked Obama's policies, his eloquence, and his fierce intelligence and the fact that he was black....

Wait? I thought you just strongly stated that it was offensive that people voted for him because he was black. So now Pitts is saying people did vote for him based on his skin color. Nice.

....that his election would turn history on its ear, was a desirable bonus, but only that — icing on the cake, but not the cake itself.

Yes, it was, so just say it: Because he was black.

I submit that a rough inverse of that dynamic now helps define the tea-party movement.

What? What dynamic?

Ask yourself: Would we even be having this discussion if Condoleezza Rice were president? If Rice, Republican stalwart, conservative icon, and black woman were chief executive, would the first pot of tea ever have been brewed?

No, because people like you and the kind folks over at HuffPo, Daily Kos, Harry Belafonte etc. would have been too busy calling her an Uncle Tom like they did Colin Powell. (At least until he bit back at Bush, then he was your bosom buddy.)

One suspects the average tea-party participant would tell you emphatically, "no," and that this "no" serves as his personal shield against charges of racism. How can I be racist, he would demand, when I know in my heart that I would've supported Condi to the max?

Shield us against racism? No, get it straight, asshat. We (a strong majority of GOPers) didn't like Obama's fucking policies then, and we still don't like his fuck-America-any-way-I-can policies. If Condi had done the same as Obama has done (ridiculously doubtful), her ass would be a in political sling, too. So suspect your ass off, but you're dead wrong.

If you concede him that, then you have to ask yourself what it does to Olbermann's contention that racism is the whole raison d'être of the movement.

Olbermann is a glorious fuckwit of an individual.

The answer leads us back again to nuance, albeit in mirror image. The tea-party people distrust Obama's policies, his eloquence, his fierce intelligence and the fact that he is black then becomes the final straw, the difference maker and deal breaker. To put that another way: I doubt most of the tea-partiers hate Obama strictly because he is black, but it sure doesn't help.

Holy shit. Could Pitts be more confused—nay, fucked in the head? He, like most loony liberals who make this shit-ass claim, confuse even themselves. (And to the nice, amiable liberals, I hope you're a bit embarassed at the moment.)

My point is not that Olbermann's argument is wrong but, rather, that it is incomplete.

Yes, race is obviously a component, and a major component at that, of the reaction against the president. The recurring use of racist imagery and language, the attendance at tea party events of a racist group like the so-called Council of Conservative Citizens, settles that definitively.

Wait, Pitts is going to paint an entire movement based on the participation of one racist group? One, very small group equals a "major component." Wow.

But ultimately, people seem moved by something even bigger than race. This is race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, "culture," and the fact that those who have always been on the right side, the "power-wielding" side, of one or more of those equations, now face the realization that their days of dominance are numbered.

Wait until November, buddy boy. This is going to be 2006 in reverse.

There is a poignancy to their responsive fury because one senses that the nether side of it is a choking fear. We are witness to the birth cries of a new America and for every one of us who embraces and celebrates that, who looks forward to the opportunity and inclusiveness it promises, there is another who grapples with a crippling sense of dislocation and loss, who wonders who and what she will be in the nation now being born.

I think they call that nation "America.". Other than that, this is a gushing piece of meaningless tripe.

Oh, and by the way, if you can still follow his logic and reasoning, can you pass whatever your smoking. I'd like a hit too.

One hopes they will find answers that satisfy them because the change they fear will not be turned back. No one ever volunteers to return to the rear of the bus.

We don't fear; we don't like it. Not one bit. It's selling out our Constitution, our liberties, our rights, our personal freedoms and robbing us blind.

No one is telling anyone to get to the back of the bus. We just don't like where the driver is taking us. And by the way, isn't disssent patriotic? Isn't that what liberals cried between 2000-2008? I'm thinking yes here.

So for all the frustration the tea-party movement engenders among the rest of us, one also feels a certain pity for people like the woman last year who cried, plaintively, that she wanted her country back.

As if she didn't realize that it is already, irrevocably, gone.

Pitts, we are judging Obama by the content of his character. We are repulsed by what he proposes and what he's "accomplished". But get this one thing through your thick-as-concrete skull: None of the opposition has had to do with Obama's good goddamn race. And it never has, you clueless, race-baiting turd.

I'm truly sorry for being off-the-charts mad, but sick to death of this "opposition to Obama means you're a racist." It's thoughtless, cowardly, mean, ugly, sickening and desparate.

* I'm sure the use of the word "boy" would be racist here.

Domestic Violence Explained in a Nutshell

2010-02-27T23:52:00.000-08:00

The Evil Fox News

2010-02-26T09:58:00.000-08:00

"How does that channel call itself news by the way?"

This was a question posed to me last night by an Old Liberal Family Friend. (I had cited a number that he just assumed that it came from Fox News because I'm a Republican—never mind that the figure actually came from a CBS/NYTimes poll. But I digress.)

Like most Republicans, I hear this screed time and time again. And I wonder, "What is the obsession with bashing Fox News? Is it because the channel airs conservative viewpoints under the slogan "Fair and Balanced? Is that it?"

I think the repulsion starts with the name. Fox News is owned by Fox Entertainment Group which is a subsidiary of News Corporation, the second largest media conglomerate behind Disney (source: Wikipedia). In short, Fox News is a brand of FEG and NC. Within that group, it distinguishes itself both externally and internally from Fox Sports, Fox Radio, Fox Network and others, by calling itself Fox News because—not to be smarmy and condescending—the predominant programming on the channel is news. Pretty clear. Or so one would think.

But this is lost on my Old Liberal Family Friend, apparently. Why? I believe it's because Fox News has both news programming and shows.

Like too many liberals, my Old Liberal Family Friend apparently can't seem to make the distinction between a news program and a show. Along with with other "Faux News" bashers, my Old Liberal Family Friend seems to believe that anything airing on Fox News constitutes "news" given that the channel's name is Fox News. So, the logic goes, when Sean Hannity is on it's "news." Glen Beck? News. Greta Vansustren? News. Bill O'Reilley? News.

In any circle, that's called a sweeping generalization. And it's an uneducated and ignorant one at that.

Sorry, but none of those are news programs; those are shows on Fox News, just like Keith Olbermann, Hardball, Rachel Madow and Mad Money are shows on MSNBC. Or the Today Show or Good Morning America are shows on NBC and ABC. They are not news programs; they are shows, period—much like opinion columns in newspapers.

Just like the Big Three, Fox News does have hours devoted to just news. In fact, on a daily bias, they devote more to their news programming than do ABC, CBS and NBC combined. This, however, does not register with my Old Liberal Family Friend.

But goes the reply, ' But that makes those views representative of the channel at large!'

Yeah, so what's your point? This is true whether one is speaking about Fox News or the New York Times.

Do those shows have a conservative bent? No doubt. Hannity, Beck and O'Reilley are clearly conservative. (Though Beck and O'Reilley have claimed otherwise.) The political shows (or round tables) on Fox News indeed feature the likes of Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, etc. So yes, Fox News does represent the conservative viewpoint on their shows.

And what is the matter with that?

Given that Fox News is an island in sea of liberally slanted TV news—ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and even CNN to some extent—that makes them a 4.5: 1 underdog. Is that fair? Is that balanced? No, it's not. (And that ratio holds true in major city editorial boards as well. On average, liberal columnists routinely outnumber conservatives 4:1 on most ed. boards.)

I watch little in the way of political shows or round tables. I also rarely watch cable news programs as I prefer to read my news. Yet, in my limited observations tuning into Fox News shows, I've always been impressed to see that the guest panels are routinely peppered with folks from NPR, the Democratic Nat'l Committee, Free Republic, NYT, WaPo, progressive think tanks and so on. The ratio runs at least 3:2, if not greater in some cases.

I can also say with confidence that I've tuned in to Olbermann, Matthews and Madow and that they cannot make such a claim.

Yet Fox News is still unfair and unbalanced.

I'm amused by the attention liberals give to Fox News, ranting about how conservatively biased it is, or how it's an arm of the Republican party, while at the same time they give scant attention to the repeated liberal bias of MSNBC and the Big Three; in fact, I would contend (by example*) that turn a blind eye to it entirely as long as it fits their world view. (This is not to say that conservatives don't do the same, they do. I think they're aware of it too. The difference being that conservatives don't put on airs or speak about being open minded and tolerant when, in fact, they're not.)

Ultimately, liberals are threatened by Fox News; their views and agenda are being brought out into the open and challenged, so I understand the motivation to attack and discredit. And because no media outlet has ever openly done that before, Fox News is being quite fair and balanced.

* "Fake, but accurate", anyone?

Being Wrong (Part 4,531 in a Series)

2010-02-24T10:04:00.000-08:00

Right after the Haitian quake, televangelist and all-around asshat Pat Robertson claimed that Haitians were victims of the horrific quake because their ancestors had made a pact with the Devil to secure their freedom.

Word of what Robertson said spread like H1N1 across Facebook. Friend after friend linked and commented about what he said.

What bothered me wasn't so much their condemnation of Robertson but this all-too predictable reaction: When a Christian makes a mistake, an immediate opportunity is seen to pounce and waggle one's irreligious and secularist finger at said Christian—as if this one person were a microcosm of all that is wrong with the Christians and religion at large.

This kind of righteous grandstanding from these folks gets under my skin.

Yet instead of letting it go, I tried to turn the tables a bit by pointing out that Robertson's international relief agency, Operation Blessing, was one of the first on scene in Haiti and that that was something people should consider. Of course, being hot under the collar I was none too subtle in making my "point".

What ensued was a maelstrom of comments from friends who couldn't believe I was offering a defense of Robertson, and one who thought I shouldn't "go there."

Oops. Not what I had intended. I tried to elaborate on my point that perhaps if you're going to judge the man then judge the whole man and not just his brainless words.

However, given the context of the situation, this was wrong. I was wrong. There remains no excuse for Robertson's historically nuts, ill-timed, heartless and, worst of all, un-Christian words. My attempt to steer away from that fact was ill advised. For that, I apologize.

And next time I feel so offended by the irreligious and secular condemning Christians for being un-Christian, I'll give my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them to pluck off the hair: I'll hide not my face from torrents of shame and spitting....

More Luge....

2010-02-14T21:27:00.000-08:00

I thought I was being a bit dickish in my mild ambivalence to Friday's tragic luge accident; perhaps too callous and too cold-hearted in my judgment.

Sadly, I was somewhat right. Fear played a big role.

Luger David Kumaritashvili was terrified of the track.

Much (as I pointed out) as are many other racers.

And fear, in these kinds of sports, is a killer.

Again, is the track built by humans at fault, or is the racer?

That's very difficult to say. However, and again, I would say it ultimately comes down to the luger's better (or lack thereof) judgment on whether he can make it down the track. Athletes are arbiters of their own fate; as in life, they chose the tracks they go down. If Kumaritashvili was so terrified, it was only his ego to compete that killed him. (Granted this would take a tremendous amount of fortitude and introspection, something that most 21-year olds lack, but it's possible.)

In a related note, Yahoo News reported on the "insensitive remarks" (nice objective journalism, by the way*) of a German female luger who said the following:

It’s not a woman’s start (officials moved the starting point down), it’s a kinder (German for children’s) start. The rest of the track is OK, but it's not as fast as from the proper start. It's the same for all the athletes, but I don't like it. I felt very good, but now because of the new start it's not fun."

Hear that? "Not fun?" The track isn't fun for her because it's not fast or dangerous enough now; for Kumaritashvili it was a very different kind of "not fun."

I do not wish to come across as callous, so please know that I believe Kumaritashvili's was tragic. Let's not forget that athletes do things that put themselves in grave and mortal danger at every turn and that that is by choice.

* Who made you judge of what's insensitive and what's not, you faux journalist.

Huh? Luge? A Dangerous Sport?

2010-02-12T15:01:00.000-08:00

Today's terrible luge accident before the Olympic Games even start, casts a terrible shadow over the usually joyous Opening Ceremonies. It even has officials talking about canceling the luge.

If there's something flawed with the track, it's a good idea to fix it. Then get on with the Games.

The Winter Games are loaded with inherent danger. The downhill. Super G. Ski jumping. Boblsed. Hockey. Speed skating. Biathlon (athletes use .22s, for Cris sakes). Skiing cyclocross. Freestyle aerial skiing.

And, of course the luge.

Just you laying on your back on a tiny sled, going down a sheet of ice at 80MPH+.

What could possibly happen?

Hmm, I'll take 'Death' for $200, Alex.

Sorry to be flippant, but death did happen. And death might happen again.

Every single Winter Olympic athlete participating in one of aforementioned sports knows that the Games are about testing an athlete's limits.

Except maybe one.

“I think they are pushing it a little too much,” Australia’s Hannah Campbell-Pegg told the Associated Press on Thursday after she nearly lost control in training. “To what extent are we just little lemmings that they just throw down a track and we’re crash-test dummies? I mean, this is our lives.”

If I were to meet her right now, I might say something like the following:

"Well, sweetie, if you were that concerned about your life you wouldn't be a luger in the first place, so there's that. Second, if you shit your polyester suit over a near crash and it's got you thinking that you might lose your life, here's an idea: quit. And quit now. A little fear is good; a lot of fear is God shouting in your ear and you should listen. Third, if you're operating under the illusion of safety, or you think you're entitled to a certain expectation of safety, you're placing your faith in the wrong being. The technology to protect you is only as great as the being that created it; since that thing is made by humans, and humans are terribly flawed but beautiful and well meaning creatures, it's possible for shit to happen. If you're uncomfortable with all or even just part of this, then get out. Stay alive. If not, well, best of luck. And God be with you."

And if she won't listen to me, maybe she should heed the words of a fellow slider:

"This track is fast and you definitely have to be on your game...." said 5-time Olympian Mark Grimmette.

Being on your games at the Games?

Seems reasonable.

Incredible Deal on Golf Shoes!

2010-02-10T17:45:00.001-08:00

Incredibly bad proofreading.

Click to enlarge and cringe.

OP's Super Bowl XLIV Drinking Game*

2010-02-05T11:41:00.000-08:00

This Sunday, every time you see one of these things you must take a healthy swig of beer.

Pete Townsend doing windmills. (Maybe you shouldn't watch the half time show.)

GoDaddy soft-core porn TV spots.

Shannon Sharpe saying something unintelligible. (Careful....)

Stories about New Orleans still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

"Who dat!?" (Again, careful....)

Shots of the entire Manning clan in a luxury suite.

References to Colts WR Pierre Garcon being from Haiti.

"Baba O'Reily/Won't Get Fooled Again" medley.

Snowy scenes from Indianapolis.

President Obama saying "the previous administration" during his Katie Couric interview before the game.†

Anyone being carted from the field.

Spotting Drew Brees' birthmark.††

Pete Townsend sliding on his knees.

People rushing onto the field to see The Who up close.†††

Talking animal spots.

How much a Saints win would mean to the city of New Orleans.

How Peyton Manning grew up close to New Orleans.

How all Americans really are New Oleanders at heart.††††

Live shots of Bourbon St.

A snow-covered Indy 500 race track.

The paddles being used on Pete Townsend.†††††

P Diddy/Beyonce/Alicia Keys/Rhinna in a Pepsi spot.

Trailers for shitty movies, including the next Harry Porter movie: "Harry Potter and The Alzheimer-Addled Wizard"

Live shots of shrimp gumbo.

Reggie Bush's girlfriend Kim Kardashian sitting with Paris Hilton.††††††

Up-close shots of Drew Brees' birthmark.

Live shots from an Olive Garden in Indianapolis.

Phil Simms' saying "they need a turnover to stop them."†††††††

Carrie Underwood holding a note entirely too long.

Any pro or anti-abortion spot.‡

You should be pleasantly bombed halfway into the 1st quarter....

*I reserve the right to make my posts better. If only slightly.

†Hmm, your liver will hate you even before the game starts.
†† Get an operation already.
††† Enough to make you want to drink.
†††† If you're not blindly corrupt and incomptent, no need to drink. But be honest.
††††† Oh, you laugh now, but you could be drinking.
†††††† Sitting in Section Ho.
††††††† Could apply to Saints or Colts.
‡Stay off my TV, both of you.

For Old Times' Sake

2010-01-29T13:43:00.000-08:00

'Twas chatting with my buddy Wilson today about what a pussy A-Rod is when the subject turned to baseball fights. We naturally agreed that Nolan Ryan's pummeling of then rising-str Robin Ventura was the best ever.

To this day, I'll never understand what Ventura was thinking. Of course, thinking after being plunked by a 96-mph fastball is never really top of mind, so in that regard I understand his rush to the mound. But this was Nolan Ryan. Fireballer. A rancher. A Texas folk hero. A ferocious competitor. He was Crash Davis, Davy Crockett and John Wayne rolled into one and then some. You take your welt and go to first like a good little boy.

And every time I see this video, I can clearly hear a calm yet stern 46-year old Ryan saying to Ventura in his Texas drawl, "Boy, don't you come out here...get on down to first now, hear me?...Ah I reckon not...all right then..."

And wham! Ventura goes down in baseball history as the youngster who got his whoppin'. Good stuff.

Robin Ventura Charges Mound Against Nolan Ryan from CoasterNick3157 on Vimeo.

Sums Up The Past Year, Nicely

2010-01-24T22:33:00.000-08:00

Although a tear or two should be added under the exclamation mark.

At Least it Rhymes

2010-01-23T20:07:00.000-08:00

From the "Stay Out of My Womb, But When it Comes to ObamaCare, I Willing Give You The Rest of My Body" crowd:

"Get off our ovaries, keep your rosaries!"

I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice. And always pro-exposing hypocrites.

Gitmo On My Mind

2010-01-22T14:32:00.000-08:00

One year ago today, a then-newly crowned President Obama signed the executive order to close the illegal combatant detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within one year.

That's happened. Sort of. Kinda. Well, not really.

We'll get there, but first, let's hit the rewind button.

Ever since Gitmo opened for business in early 2002, the prison has acted as a symbol for hyperventilating liberals and antiwar protesters who bellowed that that the prison sullied our moral reputation around the world, was Bush's and Cheney's personal den of torture and inhumanity and has been used as a recruiting tool to create more terrorists simply by its mere existence.

Every last bit of which is unquantifiable hogwash and (even more) hateful liberal rhetoric. And it hasn't been liberal and antiwar/anti-US pundits who've made such outlandish claims with no basis in reality. President Obama himself has said, "Make no mistake, we will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda....In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.*"

Newsflash for The Commander in Chief: Al-Qaeda will say and make up any excuse to justify their attacks. How Obama doesn't know this as CIC is disturbing. Osama bin Laden himself changed his reasons for attacking the US and US targets multiple times: first, it was our support for Israel; then it was because President Clinton bombed Iraq; then it was because we had an air strip in Saudia Arabia. And this was all before Gitmo was even a twinkle in George Bush's evil eye. So when it comes to making up excuses for conducting their attacks, that's what AQ does: make shit up.

Second, Islamofacsicts watch what pushes our buttons. They are masters of exploitation. So it should be no surprise then that the AQ asshats in Yemen would cite Gitmo as a reason for their attack.

How otherwise normally intelligent people in the West buy into this game is....stupefying.

Next, there is absolutely no way to measure how Gitmo's existence has acted as a recruiting tool. It's unquantifiable; there is no way to measure it. Worse still, the logic is strained. Saying Gitmo acts as a recruiting tool is like saying that by having POW camps for Japanese soldiers (or even the west coast concentration camps during WWII) that those places "created" more soldiers. Well, duh. When you run out of people to fight, you need to find more. Believe it or not, this happens whether you kill or capture them. Funny that. But that doesn't mean the camp itself is the primary or even a minor recruiting tool.

But wait, Gitmo is more of a moral recruiting tool. Oh, please. Morals? Jesus H. Christmas, al Qadists kill innocent women and children without remorse. They strap bombs to the retarded, send them into markets, then detonate them. They've flown planes into buildings. Cut heads off on posted them on the net. Morals? That's laughable. In comparison, the fact that the vermin at Gitmo are alive alone speaks to our humanity as a culture. It's pseudo moralizing and unintelligent.

For all of the alleged horror stories that have come out of Gitmo, one might think the mere thought of potentially ending up in such a torture hell would be a deterrent. And maybe it has. Who knows, there's no way to measure that either.

I won't even address the juvenile claims that Bush and Cheney got off on waterboarding the likes of Khailid Sheik Mohammad. Those claims are sick and moronic on infinite levels.

Anyway, back to the present. On December 15, 2009, Obama issued an official memo to move the prisoners to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois. When that happens is largely open ended at this point.

Now if there's one thing consistent about AQ's numerous and ever-changing reasons for attacking the United States, it's this: They fucking hate us. Period. And I believe them.

Now, dear 2.5 readers, I ask you this: Let's take Obama's belief that Gitmo is a recruiting tool. How is changing the title and address to the middle of the country (at least it's in home state of Illinois) going to keep the "people safe and secure?" By his own deeply and dangerously flawed logic, why would he do this!? To make us more of a target. I have no idea.

Now, instead of this tiny and hated prison tucked away in the Caribbean, he's put it on American soil. Fab-u-lous. Maybe Obama should put a big Post-It on a Thomson water tower that reads "kick me!" while he's at it.

In the end, this is what happens when you start believing your own righteous and simplistic campaign rhetoric: You act hastily during your second day in office to please the fringe base that helped lift you to power, and raised the threat of another attack.

And that is very, very dangerous to us all.

* Why can't he just say "Yemen" if that's what means? Unless he does mean the entire Arabian Peninsula because, geographically speaking, the Arabian Peninsula consists of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Baharain, UAE, and Oman. It's an important distinction to make because in the context of what he's saying, Obama makes it sound like the very formation of AQ happened because of Gitmo, which is completely and utterly false. AQ was formed in the early 1990s.

Mr. 57 States is about as much of whiz with geography as Sarah "I Can See Russia From My House!" Palin, so he probably means Yemen and was just trying to come across as worldly.

"She's a Horrible Woman"

2010-01-12T20:08:00.000-08:00

Yes, Mr. Caffertry, she is.

Dear 2.5 Readers....

2010-01-12T15:00:00.000-08:00

Work. Nuts.

Ability to blog. Minimal.

Must go.

Back soon.

I promise.

Not that anyone cares....

Worthless West Seattleites

2010-01-07T09:00:00.000-08:00

I love where I live. We have fantastic restaurants, stores and shops and quiet, rolling streets to take strolls down.

The place, however, is filled with elitiest, pseudo-intellectual, anti-military/business/American, eco goose-stepping liberals that annoy me to the nth degree.

Take for example "lina" who left this grating comment on the West Seattle blog regarding a report about 2 Blue Angels who were in the sky over our fair hamlet yesterday:

i do love summer, but i do hate the blue angels. no doubt the feats they perform are totally amazing but in this economy and time of war- the excess, noise and visuals of planes flying low over a major metropolitan city make me feel ill. thanks for the providing the date though- i now know when i need to get out of town for the weekend. sorry to be a party pooper.

There are about a 137 comments I could have left to put loony lina in her place, but I chose her last sentence because it cheesed me off the most. I responded thusly:

lina, if you were actually “sorry” about being a party pooper you would have kept your negative and worthless comment about our military to yourself. Don’t be sorry for something you’re clearly not.

Pardon the crappy grammar of my last sentence. I was, as I noted, cheesed off.

Oh, and lina, please do all of us a favor: Get the fuck out of town. Not just for summer, but permanently.

Story Time

2010-01-06T13:52:00.000-08:00

From the West Seattle blog: Delridge Library adds something new: Vietnamese Story Time.

Whatever happened to assimilation?

If I moved to Phon Phom, I'd feel surprised and more than a little awkward that the local Vietnamese library felt compelled to have an English Story Time—the kind of story my parents should be reading to me at home.

So what bugs me about this seemingly little half-hour? It's this: It doesn't help a minority group feel a part of a new society. On a grander scale, it's another step in the glacial, but perceptible dissolution of English as being the official language of the United States, which is something so-called progressives in this country have little issue in diluting.

Given the political makeup of where I live, I have little doubt this class was organized by some English speaking, do-gooding liberal local politician who proudly proclaimed it was "for the children!" and founded the class. They mean well, of course. But like too many liberals, they fail to see (or possibly could care less about) the trouble with their good intentions: the unintended consequences.

It is well-known that traditional Vietnamese families, like many Asian families, are fiercely loyal when it comes to speaking their native tongue. This is fine at home. However, outside the home, what motivation is there to learn a language when local government entities are reinforcing the notion that you don't need to learn the official language outside the home. That's a problem because it slows the assimilation process, which in turn creates a barrier to that family/group's success. That is the unintended consequence.

But it's just a reading class, you say. What harm can come from a little old reading class? Plenty, because it won't stop there. And it hasn't stopped there.

Ever been to certain sections of California and see the street signs if English and Spanish? How about a voting ballot or pamphlet?

Lest you think I'm being "hateful" (the courteous liberal's catch word for what they really want to call you: "a racist/bigot right-wing douchebag"), I fully support teaching languages in school and for businesses to be bilingual or multilingual. If banks want to have language choices on their ATMs or recordings, no problem. Banks are private entities (at least until the Obama Administration took many of them over) and if they have research that shows a cost/benefit to having multilingual ATMs, then fabulous—have multilingual ATMs.

But a local, state or federal government entity actively yet silently promotes the notion that it's okay not to learn English or immerse oneself into American culture—and by God you bet your ass we have one—that is 100% unacceptable.

Capice?

My Top 5 Most Memorable Golf Rounds: #4: "The Round of My Life”, August 23, 2001

2009-12-21T10:28:00.000-08:00

No one shot stands out in my mind. There was no stunningly long drive. No dart that I threw to within inches of the cup. No long, curling putt that I made for birdie. In fact, I’m pretty certain I didn’t even make a birdie all day. And I don’t even remember what I shot, I really don’t.

What I do remember are the walks between the holes and to my shots. Which isn’t too hard to understand given that Kayak Point is a beautiful and hilly layout, surrounded by large loge pole pines, dense Douglas firs and aspens—and where eagles can be seen perched in the tree and deer and foxes routinely dart across the fairways. It’s quiet, too, with only tee shots echoing off the canyon of trees. Each hole meanders up and down—sometimes sharply up or sharply down. Heck, going up the 18th you need to be part mountain goat just to reach your tee shot. And the 10th would be an intermediate run at most ski resorts. (Shown below: the beautiful and tricky par 5, 3rd.)

Between those holes are tranquil paths, draped over by the trees with deep green underbrush and berry vines. The paths are quite long and eerily quiet and, at times, rather steep between holes. They’re the kind of paths where you can hear yourself breathe and hear your heartbeat, it’s just that quiet. So that’s what I did. I filled my lungs as deep as I could, and listened to my heart thumping away as I made my way between holes. And there were moments when I thought it was pumping too fast or I was breathing too hard.

Yet I refused to ride a cart. I refused to use a pull cart too. I was going to carry my bag no matter what. I always liked carrying my bag anyway. I think it warms up my body during the first couple of holes. Today, during this round, I wanted to carry my bag more than anything. I wanted to feel every hard heart beat as I trudged up a fairway to my ball. I wanted to take, long, deep breaths after feeling little winded. I needed to know it was okay to feel that way again. That nothing was going to happen. I needed not to worry. I needed not to fear that I was having another heart attack the way I had exactly a day to the year before.

This was my first round since the heart attack. And while I had gone skiing with friends just a few months after my “event” and was none the worse for the wear, I had not been alone on the golf course. I’ve enjoyed many wonderful and memorable rounds through the years with just me as player, caddie, gallery and rules official so I had to reaffirm that I could play alone again without fear.

My dad died doing the sport he loved, skiing. I have no such intentions of dying on a golf course. So, in a way, this round was death defying. Besides, dying on a golf course due to a heart attack is such a cliché, and I’m not one for clichés.

2009 was the first year that I haven’t taken off August 23rd to play golf, and I regret that more than a little bit. It makes me think I’m losing a sense of appreciation and gratefulness for life, and even to God—after all, He’s the one that let me keep my lease. Some might find it a bit dark or maudlin that I mark or remember the day at all. I believe they’re wrong. I don’t view the day somberly. Nothing could be more positive, more hopeful and more affirming than walking a golf course under that umbrella.

In 2010, August 23rd falls on a Monday and marks 10 years since my event. I think I’ll make it a 3-day weekend. I don’t think you need to ask where I’ll be playing. And while I always love golfing with friends, I’ll be playing this round solo, too.

Mr. President, Meet Merriam-Webster

2009-12-15T16:11:00.000-08:00

Precipice:

1 : a very steep or overhanging place
2 : a hazardous situation; broadly :

So when President Obama says that we're "on the precipice" of enacting health care legislation he means...well, exactly that.

Finally, the truth—however accidental it may be.

While We're in the Joking Mood....

2009-12-15T16:01:00.000-08:00

So Vladimer Putin, Queen Elizabeth and George W. Bush have all just arrived in Hell. The Devil tells them that they may have one phone call at their expense to their respective countries.

Putin goes first and speaks to his fellow Russians for 5 minutes. Putin comes back to The Devil who says, "That'll be $1,000,000." And Putin hands over the $1,000,000.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls England and speaks to her country for 5 minutes. The Queen comes back to The Devil who says, "That'll be $6,000,000." And the Queen hands over the $6,000,000.

Finally, George Bush calls the USA and speaks to his country for 4 hours. Bush comes to The Devil who says, "You don't owe me anything."

A furious Putin stomps over to The Devil and demands to know why Bush doesn't have to pay anything. "Well," replies The Devil, "seeing how America's gone to Hell since Obama took over, it's a local call so it's free."

I'm a "Whole Foods Republican?"

2009-12-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

There's an excellent article in today's Wall Street Journal on who the GOP should be courting. The author suggests that "a more enlightened approach would be to go after college-educated voters, to make the GOP safe for smarties again."

Now I'm not much for being pigeon-holed into a group, but in this instance Mr. Petrilli does an excellent (if obviously incomplete) job of describing of where I stand politically and culturally:

What's needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate "Whole Foods Republicans"—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work. (Not to mention that its founder is a well-known libertarian who took to these pages to excoriate ObamaCare as inimical to market principles.)

What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There's no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.

He goes on to suggest that the GOP reject the anti-intellectualism of Sarah Palin and W. (I think he's a bit off on Bush. GWB was a voracious reader as evidenced by the annual reading contest between he and Karl Rove. In my opinion, W was intellectually proficient, but was terribly inarticulate when it came to stating his positions verbally to an audience.) While Palin is attractive, well meaning and principled and steadfast in her views, I just can't help but look at her and think "Why aren't you smarter?"

I blame Ronald Reagen for this. He purposefully built his "golly shucks" image for political and brand purposes, yet he was an articulate and intellectual powerhouse that defined the conservative movement as much as William F. Buckley. Since then, Republicans have tried fashion themselves in this Reagan image with lackluster results—of which Palin and Bush are prime examples. That dog doesn't hunt these days, partner.

I'm going to cut myself off at Tangent Pass here and end by saying that Mr. Petrilli is dead on with this article. The GOP has to reach out to people like myself, my wife and assorted others who are in hiding. We are smart and we don't like anti-intellectual people representing the party most in line with our ideals.

So I guess that makes me a "Whole Foods Republican." I'm good with this. Maybe even a little proud.

Now, if you're listening, Michael Steele*, give me more Bobby Jindals or Tim Pawlentys or Mitt Romneys. You can keep your Sarah Palins.

*Since I only have 3.5 readers, probably not.

My Top 5 Most Memorable Golf Rounds: #5: “One Round, Two Shots”, August 1981

2009-12-14T11:33:00.000-08:00

In the summer of 1981 our family hosted an exchange student from Italy. His thin body, fair skin, innocent face and painfully shy demeanor belied his Sicilian Mafia-like name of Alessandro Sassi. He was 17 and would be staying with us for a month before going back east to stay with another family.

Alessandro came to America to study English and to visit some of California’s and America’s most memorable landmarks: The Golden Gate Bridge, Yosemite, Lombard Street, The Lincoln Memorial, The White House and so on. Oh, and he came to buy golf clubs.

In fact, it was one of the first things he wanted to do when he arrived: buy golf clubs. In fact, he couldn’t shut up about it. In fact, he was so worried about spending what he had saved to buy a set that he gave all of it to my parents for safekeeping. The kid loved golf. And he wanted to play in America.

Me, I gave two hoots about golf. I had never picked up a club much less swung one. I liked the putt-putt course at the Montclair Driving Range (I never did get it in the clown’s mouth to win a free round), but that was about it. Golf? Meh. Wake me when ski season starts. Skiing was my true love.

With Alessandro chomping at the bit to get his clubs, my Dad took him into downtown San Francisco to let him buy his clubs. I tagged along. Despite knowing exactly what clubs he wanted, Alessandro was still hesitant to blow such a load. He also thought he had enough money to buy the clubs. Yet those pesky exchange rates and devalued lira got in his way and he had to settle for something less than what he wanted. Overall, though, he was smitten with his purchase.

Armed with his shiny new sticks, Alessandro wanted to play. And play right now. No, more like yesterday. So Dad booked a tee time at Tilden Park Golf Course.

Now my dad was a good golfer. That is, when he played. That is, if he played more than once a year. This wasn’t always the case according to my mom. He used to play, and play quite well before his best golf buddy moved away. Despite his infrequent play, dad always thought he could hit the course cold and shoot lights out. No hitting the range, except for the day of the round and he expected to burn it up. Never happened, she said, and he would come home all pissed off. No surprise there. When you have unrealistic expectations about an outcome or goal, and you don’t meet them, you’re bound to come home a little pissed off. Unjustified as it may be.

And Dad said I would get the honor of being his caddy. Oh joy. So I joined them for the round.

I remember Alessandro’s swing and it was, well, bad. But he was having fun. So was my dad who seemed to be hitting the ball well in my never-played-a-single-shot opinion. The round seemed to take forever, always waiting for someone to tee off or clear the fairway or clear the green before anything happened. But being that it was a warm, beautiful August day in the hills above Berkeley, I didn’t mind kicking back and sitting in the grass in between shots.

On the back nine with Alessandro happily doffing it around, my dad’s round came unraveled. Suddenly, he couldn’t hit a ball. The curse words were flying. He sucked and puffed on his filter less Sherman’s madly. On the 18th, he tugged his drive left. The ball hit a tree and ricocheted back about 30 yards. Dad seethed.

On his second shot, he worm raped the ball and it went skirting and scooting down the fairway maybe 75 yards. That shot was quickly followed by the whoop-whoop sound of dad’s 3-wood making its way after the ball. (Titanium just doesn’t have that great whoop-whoop sound that wood does.)

Dad snatched his pack of Sherman’s from the bag and said, “I’m fucking done. See you two in the snack shack. Go ahead and play my ball Peter.” Alessandro waited for my dad to get down the fairway before he hit.

Things were, uh, uncomfortable.

We didn’t talk until we got to my dad’s ball. I looked down at the ball, then to Alessandro with a “now what?’ face. Alessandro said to me, “You have 110 yards. Try 7 iron.” This meant squat to someone who’d never swung a golf club before. I didn’t even know how to grip it. So I figured that a baseball grip would do just fine.

I doubt my eyes were even open at impact. But they were open when I looked up. And yes, I was looking up at my ball. Way up. Not only was the ball in the air, but it was going straight. And man, that ball was a pretty sight to see flying into the backdrop of the trees. Cue the Vangelis “Chariots of Fire” music.

Thump! On the green. 12-15 feet away. Alessandro turned to me and said, “Wow! Nice shot!”

You did read the part about how I liked putt-putt golf, right? Then it should be no surprise then that I made the putt. Yup, drained the sucker.

Alessandro laughed. I laughed. What was so hard about this game?

Oh, and in case you’re not paying attention that was a par.

We walked off the green and up to the snack shop. My dad stood there and smiled, a shock considering his mood minutes earlier. I don’t recall what his exact words were to me because I was pretty beside myself with my accomplishment, but they were something along the lines that being a golfer ran in the family.

So it was half a hole and two shots, Dad was right: I was genetically hooked.

Prelude: My Top 5 Most Memorable Rounds of Golf

2009-12-09T16:47:00.000-08:00

I’m always leery about doing lists—especially “My Top (Blank) Lists” for a couple reasons.

I find them a bit ominous. You’re looking back on your life and you shudder to think how long ago that certain event or whatever it was took place and that it was far too long ago. Then there’s the notion that the list you’ve compiled is pretty much it and can’t be cracked. That’s depressing. And finally, there was my dad's list. He had guesstimated the number of days he had been skiing in his life and recounted a couple of favorites as we drove to the ski resort. That day would be the last day of his life. A pretty sad thing to recall, I realize, but our minds remember strange small details that are beyond our understanding.

Nerts to all those ominous harbingers, though. Next year marks my 30th year of playing golf and I think that’s something to celebrate! (I think my dad was looking back on all those skiing in the same way.) And I have no intention of shuffling off this mortal coil doing playing a sport I love. Besides, most courses have defibrillators these days. (Relax, I kid.)

The rounds I remembered were diverse, to say the least.

There have been rounds where I’ve flung clubs down the fairway. (I even got my pitching wedge caught in a tree a couple of years ago.) There was the round where I snapped my 5-iron in two over my knee and flung into the bushes. There were several rounds where I walked off the course during the middle of the round in utter frustration. There was a round I played in a steady 45MPH wind; a round played in a steady, wet snowfall; and a round played in the remnants of a hurricane. There was the round where I was hit the temple of my head by an errant drive. And there was the round where I had my first case of the shanks. I remember all these rounds well. But those are only snippets from rounds.

Without sounding too much like Forrest Gump, I also don’t remember a lot of key rounds. I don’t remember the first time I broke 100, or the first time I broke or 90 or even 80. I played Spyglass Hill once, but I don’t remember any one after the 6th. I don’t remember the first round with my dad, or with my long-time golfing buddy Darren. I don’t even remember my first lesson.

What I do remember are these top 5 rounds.

Each one is unique and I think captures what has made golf so enjoyable and fulfilling to me for 30 years, and why I keep coming back to it no matter how frustrating. I remember each of these rounds in great detail—okay, as much detail as possible in #3 (you’ll see why)—and I did my best to capture them without the fog of memory creeping in and taking over. And for the record:every shot recounted happened, and every score is true. No need to lie, or write down a different score, I'd only be cheating my own memory. And heck, only two of my favorite rounds include the score anyway.

I hope you enjoy them. But probably not half as much I enjoyed recalling them.

#5 will post this Friday.

The Anti-War Left is So Not Going to Be Happy About Tonight

2009-12-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

I have zero time to address tonight's important address to the nation on Afghanistan, so I'll let today's comments in the NYT "The Caucus" section speak for their themselves.

But Rich Lowery over National Review pointed out Obama's quandary best:

Prepare for the advent of Barack Obama, neocon. On the Afghan War, he is throwing in with the lying, warmongering running dogs of neoconservatism by ordering a surge of some 30,000 troops....The responsibilities of office separate him from a political base that only sounded stalwart on the Afghan War so long as it was a handy political tool with which to beat George W. Bush about the head and shoulders.

As soon as Obama assumed office, liberals bailed from the war with an almost comical desperation. They professed to have just discovered that Hamid Karzai is corrupt. That al-Qaeda is mostly across the border in Pakistan. That waging a war of counterinsurgency in one of the poorest, most illiterate countries in the world is a trying and complex endeavor.

Consequently, he finds himself in rough alignment with all the same hated people who conceived, executed, and supported the Iraq surge, and against the people who opposed it — and elected him.

And finally:

If Obama weren’t burdened by his office, he might stand with his party’s newly minted Afghan doves and familiar purveyors of defeat. But he can’t. That makes him a conflicted commander-in-chief, ordering the surge, but loading it with conditions and “off ramps,” talking of resolve, but leaving room to maneuver. His head says “win,” his heart says “don’t commit.”

I hope this surge is as successful as the one in Iraq. We all should.

(Unfortunately, experts and analysts aren't seeing an "awakening" (ex: local militia that fought back against Al Qaedists in the Anbar providence of Iraq in 2006/7; a movement that eventually swept across Iraq and is known as the "Anbar Awakening") in Afghanistan. And the Anbar Awakening was a huge key to success in Iraq.)

What Wrong With This Picture?

2009-11-24T12:21:00.000-08:00

Thanks to my golf teacher, Wilson, I've learned a tremendous amount about the golf swing. One of the things he's taught me to do is to look at other players swings and see if I can recognize their faults. This little exercise reminds of my own faults and to correct them if necessary.

Here's what I see here:

The stance is too narrow and his feet are closed to the target line. It's OK to close the feet to the target line if you're trying to hit a draw. (Reminder to me: Go through your setup before each shot.)

He's making a false move for more power by "reaching back" for it with his hands, which is causing his left arm to "break down"/fold. His shoulder turn look good, though. He's just getting too "handsy." (Reminder to me: Make a good, full shoulder turn.)

His hands are way too close to his head. They're practically in his ear. This is putting the club almost on top of his head and way off plane. (Reminder to me: Let the wrists break naturally, and "feel" my stopping point on the back swing.)

Club face is closed and looking down at the ground; his hands should like he's holding a platter, which will open the club face, put it on plane and make it easier to bring it back to square at impact. (Reminder to me: You don't do this now, so don't start.)

Left knee is pointing down and toward ball, causing his weight to shift and tilt left while his right side. Right knee is too straight and should have knee bend or flex. (Reminder to me: Flex the right knee for power, but don't collapse weight onto my right side.)

Oh, and he's wearing a tie.

Only two results are possible here: A weak slice. Or a fat, smothering hook.

Hot Stove Topic: Jason Bay

2009-11-19T09:20:00.000-08:00

Let’s light the lamp oil, put a log in the stove, pour the winter ales and speculate about all things in the world of the red-stringed rawhide….

The second biggest name on the market this off season is Mr. Jason Bay. There are many intriguing places where the 31-year old slugging outfielder could land, but where he does finally call home will depend greatly on where Mr. Holliday ends up.

Boston
The lineup—particularly the power aspect of it—is aging rapidly. With David Ortiz's power rapidly diminishing, there's no one on the team that's a lock to hit more than 25+ homers. (Youkilis hit 27 last year, second to Bay.) If Boston can't sign Holliday—which is entirely possible given that he's expressed his desire to stay with the Cardinals—they will go after Bay hard. In order for Ortiz to possibly bounce back from 2 years of subpar numbers, he'll need the kind of protection Bay can provide. The Red Sox will pay for that.

I think the prospects of Bay getting any more than a 4-year contract are slim given his age and his slump in production during the last half of '09. I firmly believe 4 years, $65-75 million will be what Bay fetches. Which means the Red Sox aren't the only team that can afford him....

Seattle
$48 million. That's what the Mariners have to play around with after freeing themselves from the contracts of Adrian Beltre, Miguel Bautista, Kenji Johjima, Jerrod Washbrun and the oft-injured, clubhouse cancer that was Eric(a) Bedard. And it wouldn't it be nice for the Ms to solve their decades-long left field woes with Bay? Given his Northwest ties, Bay might find Seattle an intriguing destination. This is a franchise that is resurrecting itself in the wake of Bill Bavasi's reign of baseball terror. The Ms have the ability to pay $15-17 million Bay will command, leaving them another $30-32 million to sign Russell Branyan (why he isn't signed yet is baffling) and few Grade B or C starting pitchers.

However, the franchise still has a long way to go. Outside of Cy Young runner up Felix Hernandez, every spot in the rotation seems up for grabs. Which makes the Ms a less desirable choice for Bay if he's looking to get to the post season and a World Series.

Speaking of King Felix, whether or not the Ms sign Bay hinges greatly on what they decide to do with Felix, sign him to a long-term deal or trade him before the season starts. They could do both. The drawback would mean tying most of that $48 million into just 2 players. Under GM Jack Zduriencik, I don't see the Ms doing both. It's Bay or Felix, but not both.

St. Louis
Again, protecting Albert Pujols in the lineup is a top priority for the Cards. If they fail to sign Matt Holliday, they too will go after Bay hard.

Chicago
Again, the same reasons I gave for the Cubs being involved in the Holliday bidding apply here with Bay.

San Francisco
Stranger things have happened, and Lord knows my G-Men need some kind of bat in their lineup, but I just give them a 5% chancc of signing Bay.

New York Mets
Why not Holliday instead of Bay? Bay's cheaper. However, the Mets simply have too much money tied into massive contracts now to sign Bay.

Your thoughts and cheap bon mots?

This is War, Not a Crime

2009-11-18T12:27:00.000-08:00

On September 11, 2001, civilian and government installations were targeted in a covert operation by an international terror syndicate harbored and abetted by a government not recognized by the United Nations.

To anyone with reasonable and rudimentary observational skills, this was an act of war.

Moreover to anyone with reasonable and rudimentary observational skills that had been paying attention since 1991, this was not a random or isolated incident. 9/11 was merely the largest in a series of attacks against military, government and civilian targets, beginning with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing—which was inspired, in part, by al Qaeda's success in the Battle of Mogadishu (aka: Black Hawk Down). Subsequent attacks occur ed on military targets (Khobar Towers in 1996, killing 19 U.S. servicemen and wounding hundreds more*; USS Cole, October 2000, killing 17 U.S. servicemen) and on government offices (African U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 12 Americans and killing 200+ locals).

In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa, declaring war on the west.

Yet despite all those signs and bloodshed, nobody—on either the Western left or right—acknowledged let alone believed we were actively involved in a war.

We know all this. So why does this all bear repeating for umpteenth millionth time? (Believe me, it's boring to repeat so I wonder the same.)

Because to the American left and western liberals, they still believe 9/11 and the other preceding events were not acts of war, but crimes. They were isolated incidences, yet still deliberate and premeditated. To them, the pattern of attacks leading up to 9/11 do not signal war; they are too far apart in terms of years. There is no defined or ongoing battlefield, no city to win, no uniformed armies massing on our borders and no treaties to ever sign.

Yet the naive ideology persists.

Nowhere is this fundamental ideological rift more apparent than in the acts of Attorney General Eric Holder holding trials near Ground Zero , and in the words of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of (D-Vt.), who said, "They committed crimes of murder in our country and we will prosecute them in our country."

This is like describing the Nazis invading Poland as an 'incursion."

Is this fundamental misreading of our enemy out of deliberate ignorance or an unwillingness to accept the obvious, indisputable facts? I believe it is a combination of those two with a dash willful blindness because the events wholly contradict the liberal world view that if we appease and compromise with enemies (even when they've shown no willingness to compromise themselves) we can have a more peaceful world.

This is dangerous not only the United States, but Westerners at large. This lulls people into thinking that this enemy can be rationalized and reasoned with; that compromise is attainable. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And while I fully admit the Global War on Terror is poorly named (you can't have a war against a tactic like terrorism), reducing it down to an "overseas contingency operation" as the Obama Administration has done strongly implies that there is no threat to the homeland and to the world at large.

To criminalize the war and treat the the terror masters like KSM as common criminals as AG Holder and by extension the Obama Administration have done, is in itself the greater war crime.

*The inspiration for the brilliant movie, "The Kingdom."

Hot Stove Toipic: Matt Holliday

2009-11-09T14:39:00.000-08:00

Let’s light the lamp oil, put a log in the stove, pour the winter ales and speculate about all things in the world of the red-stringed rawhide….

Soon, it will be A Very Happy Matt Holliday Season* for some team and their fans. The question is, where will the power-hitting outfielder end up?

In order, from mostly likely to least likely, are the teams who I think will be vying for Young Master Holliday’s considerable skills.

St. Louis Cardinals
The Cards know first hand of Holliday’s value. All he did in 63 games with them was hit .353 with 13 HRs and 55 RBI while compiling a Bonds-like 1.032 OPS. People will point and say, yeah, but look what he did in Oakland and in Colorado his last year. That’s a rookie point. First, he was injured for a third of the year in COL and in Oakland he was protected in the lineup by….Jason Giambi. Oye. That explains everything.

The Cards need somebody other than the streaky Ryan Ludwig protecting Albert Pujols. And Big Al certainly enjoyed Holliday hitting behind him, too. The Cards have the money, too. Will they choose to be a player? Oh, I think Big Al will have a Big Say in the matter.

Chicago Cubs
What a mess Milton Bradley was in right field. Sweet Lou will be happy to see his tired act on another team. However, there’s an overwhelming factor that makes the Cubs a major player: Alfonso Soriano and Aramis Ramirez coming off injuries and surgeries, so the Cubs desperately need an every day power bat in the 3-hole if they want to pass the Cardinals.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Scott Boras pits the Cards and Cubs against each other.

Boston Red Sox
Jason Bay or Matt Holliday? One thing’s for sure: one of them will end up in Boston. Bay’s bat went somewhat silent down the stretch and into the playoffs. Then again, so did the entire Boston lineup. Bay’s older than Holliday, but his glove is superior. David Ortiz’s career is officially on the skid, so his bat will need to be replaced, making Holliday an ideal long-term replacement.

Boston may have other needs, however—particularly at third base. If they blow their wad on Holliday, can they afford an Adrian Beltre?

However, after getting screwed over by Boras in the A-Rod trade a few years ago, Sox management might not be so eager to deal with Boras and Holliday.

New York Yankees
After spending nearly half a billion dollars in free agents last year, are they game for potentially doling out for another 9-figure contract? Maybe. There are two big reasons for the Yanks to pursue Holliday: the need to fill out their aging and mildly punchless outfield and get younger. Holliday addresses both of those issues. However, even the Yanks need to mind payroll, so it’s entirely possible that they could resign Johnny Damon and World Series hero Hideki Matsui to 2 or 3-year deals for far less than what Holliday will cost.

I think they’re out of this race.

Are the other teams in the running? Let's hear them.

*ESPN.com, you can thank me for the “Happy Holliday” pun-y headline later. My apologies if I made you gag, Dear 3.5 readers.

Fire Up The Hot Stove

2009-11-09T14:33:00.001-08:00

Let’s light the lamp oil, put a log in the stove, pour the winter ales and speculate about all things in the world of the red-stringed rawhide….

Henceforth, this will be a regular feature until the sun shines brightly again on the grass at Safeco Field. A little something to distract us from the otherwise dreary and meaningful goings on in the world today. So I encourage you, Dear 3.5 Readers, to join me in the coversation by leaving your thoughts and opinions in the comments section where we can discuss them like the well-informed baseball purists that we are.

Beginning now.....

And #1 on My Christmas Wish is:

2009-11-09T12:18:00.000-08:00

I Just Ate a Trip to Las Vegas

2009-11-06T13:37:00.000-08:00

So the wife arrives home last night after a trying 5-day business trip. And the third thing out of her mouth after “hello” and “I’m exhausted” was the snippy-toned question of, ”Did you go out all week for lunch?”

Now I don’t take kindly to such insta-snarky queries after having watched our 19-month old solo for 5 days. By the time he gets settled down to sleep, and I clean up the kitchen, sweep the floor, possibly do some laundry and get some dinner in my stomach, it’s 9:15pm or so. After that, it’s down time for Daddy. The last thing I’m thinking about is lunch the next day.

Yet I begrudgingly recognize that, despite her bitchy (and still unapologetic*) tone, my wife has a point: Buying lunch is costing us money.

Just how much money it’s costing us is what I wanted to know. So I did some quick and rough calculations.

Let’s start with homemade lunches based on store bought items**:

Bread: $3.5 per loaf
Sandwich meat: $11 per/lb. of Boar’s Head turkey or roast beef (I refuse to eat the cheap meat)
Chips: $3 per bag
Fruit: $3 on average (bananas, apples, etc.)
Drink: water $0
Total: $20.50

Per lunch (divided by 5): $4.10
Per month ($20.50 per week x 4 weeks): $82
Per year: ($82 per month x 12 months): $984

I like to go out to lunch in lovely Kent, WA, every so often to break the monotony just like a normal person. Of course I was “bad” and ate out every day this week. But this week was and is an exception. Yet I know multiple coworkers people who buy their lunch every single day. Let’s look at what it costs them to eat out based on a lunch I might eat, which are typical of the places they go to eat.

Chipotle: $8 (burrito and a drink)
Little David’s Deli: $9.50 (full sandwich, chips and drink)
Company Café: $7.50 (entrée, side and drink)
Little David’s Deli: $11 (hot sandwich, chips, drink)
Company Café: $7.50 (entrée, side and drink)
Total: $43.50

Per lunch (divided by 5): $8.70
Per month ($43.50 per week x 4 weeks): $174
Per year ($174 per month x 12 months): $2,088

The difference? $1,104.

Holy cats!

Hmm, what could I do with an “extra” $1,104?

That’s airfare, 2 nights at a decent hotel in Las Vegas (my first choice), plus a little left over for poker. Or 4 rounds of golf (caddie included) at Chambers Bay. Enjoy 4 to 5 dinners for 2 at El Gaucho steakhouse. Attend at least 10 Mariners games with a friend—even paying for their ticket if you're feeling so generous. Consume 9 bottles of Jose Cuervo Reserve La Familia. Anjeo. Play for 18 $60 buy-ins to the Roxy's double stack tournament. A really new and bitchin' gas grill. A really new and bitchin' set of kitchen knives.

Okay, so those are just my little fantasies, but you get the gist.

Oh, and you know how long it takes you to make a sandwich, throw some chips in a bag and grab a piece of fruit?*** Roughly 6 minutes.

$1,104. And that’s just one person. For the two of us that works out to $2,208 per year.

Now doesn’t it make you want to lose your lunch over how much you’re spending on it?

*I’m waiting.
**I do the shopping every week, so these are accurate numbers.
*** A comment on my laziness this week, for sure.

Don't Mess With The Guvinator

2009-10-28T13:39:00.000-07:00

Making its rounds today is a fantastic albeit unintentionally "coded" veto message sent from Gov, Schwarzenegger to San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano.

Suppossedly this in response to when "Ammiano called the governor a liar and shouted from the audience to "kiss my gay ass" when Schwarzenegger unexpectedly showed up at a Democratic Party dinner in San Francisco on Oct. 7."

Now look down the left hand column and at the first letter in each line of each paragraph to see what all the fuss is about.

That's right. It reads, "I fuck you."

+1 for unintentional awesomeness!

And of Absolutely No Interest to Anyone....

2009-10-28T09:42:00.000-07:00

For the 7th time in 7 tries, I made the final table at the $60 buy-in, double-stack tournament at Roxy's Casino. And for the 7th time in a row, I finished out of the money in 7th. A tad disappointing, for sure. But making the final table 7 times in a row is pretty darn good.

As full of myself as I am in going 7 for 7, I'm equally disappointed. I played really, really well and have nothing to show for it. This frustrates me a bit because the players at this game are genuinely awful. They make basic poker errors, like: raising only 2x the big blind preflop, open limping, overplaying top pair, overplaying pocket pairs on draw-y boards/flops, giving more value to suited pocket pairs than the deserve (AK of spades is only 2%-3% better than AK unsuited), chasing draws when the bet makes in it incorrect and costly to do so, underestimating their hand values and not raising with them, playing "scared" poker (not aggressive and using position) overplaying A-rags (like A-5, A-4) and calling raises with them; and my personal favorite, playing their cards and not their opponents' hands. Oh, and when I've identified the tight-weak players, I bluff the daylights out of them.

So, given all that why am I not making the money? I think they're are a couple of reasons:
1.) I've been running 'card dead' in the middle-late rounds when the blinds are around $400/$800 and $800/$1600. With better hands, I can steal the blinds and maintain/build my stack. But I'm seeing a lot of garbage and my stack simply hasn't been high enough in these rounds to pre-flop steal even with garbage hands. Meh. It happens.
2.) Being hyper aggressive from position. I'm aggressive now, I just need to turn it up a notch. (I did a good job at this last night, I think.)
3.) When I'm short stacked and down to 5 big blinds, I need to open up and shove whenever possible. This is in line with #2.

Do those things and there's no reason I can't money or take down this tournament repeatedly.

Backoff Obama on Afghanistan

2009-10-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

A lot of criticism has been leveled against President Obama for not acting fast enough on Gen. McChrystal's recommendation to send 40,ooo more troops into Afghanistan.

Yesterday former veep Dick Cheney called it "dithering."

These are unfair and unwarranted attacks on President Obama. The attacks are also two-faced and hypocritical and willfully ignorant of recent history on the part of Obama's critics.

The Bush Administration 'dithered' on Iraq strategy while that country spiraled toward a religious and civil war for nearly 2 years. It wasn't until mounting US casualties, domestic pressure, the GOP's defeat at the polls in Nov. '06 and the (mostly worthless) Iraq Study Group Report* forced Bush to get off his ass and find a new strategy. The "surge" strategy wasn't announced to the public until Jan. 10, 2007—more than 2 months after strategy talks began. From start to full deployment, "the surge" took almost 10 months. (The first buildup phases of "the surge" began in Jan./Feb. 2007 , and it wasn't until Jun/July '07 that was fully operational and all boots requested were on the ground.)

Do Obama's critics not realize how foolish they look given these undenible facts?

I understand the need for urgency on Obama's decision. Losing our brave men and women while the Taliban and al Qaeda grow stronger is certainly not what any reasonable and compassionate person wants. However, it has been a little more than 2 months since McChrystal submitted his 66-page report to Sec't of Defense Robert Gates on Sept. 20, 2009, and I sincerely believe that Obama is doing the right thing in taking the time to implement a responsible and hopefully successful and winning decision on strategy. It's his duty as Commander in Chief.

Fortunately, there are a few wise Republicans out there who see the same thing I do, like Sen. Chuck Lamar who said, "President Obama is entitled to take sufficient time to decide what our long-term role ought to be in Afghanistan. I want him to take the time to get it right."

Obama's critics should follow our lead–especially you, Mr. Cheney.

*Not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group, which was charged with finding WMD after the liberation** of Iraq.
**Not occupation, dicks.

Did I Mention That I'm Also Insane?

2009-10-22T16:21:00.000-07:00

Dear 3.5 Readers,

Remember a little while back when I professed that I was a Birther and a Racist?

Now I'd like to inform you that I'm also insane.

According to the WaPo's Dana Milbank, people who repeatedly disagree with President Obama and his unnerving quest for nationalized health care, we're insane.

That's right, I'm cuckoo for CocoPuffs! Off my rocker! The ace of clubs short of a full deck! I'm...oh, you get the idea.

But wait a tic.

If I'm nuts, then what's that make Milbank—and by extension, Milbank's editor who approved such a pointless and juvenile column—who spent (I imagine) a fair amount of time actually counting the number of times Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) repeated certain phrases over the course of 50 or speeches? Wouldn't his time had been better spent actually refuting McConnell's points in a column?

While he was at it, why didn't Milbank sift through the hundreds of speeches where President Obama used "hope" and "change" and "new direction?" I mean, shit, if the tactic worked to get Obama elected, what's so wrong with McConnell employing the same approach to defeat ObamaCare? Is it because McConnell has The Scarlet R attached to his name?

Hmm, those all could be true.

Then again, what do I know?

I'm just insane.

Crazily Yours,
OP

Bull Rush-ed

2009-10-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

Despite my political leanings, and people's predisposed opinions of my associations given those leanings, I don’t care much for Rush Limbaugh. I say this not to as way to add credibility to what I’m about to say, it’s that I just don’t care for him. I simply don’t listen to him very often. But when I do listen I find him to be a bombastic megalomaniac. He's also a bit of "bomb-thrower"—saying outrageous things about his opponents or their ideals. On the other hand, he's an extremely astute political and media observer who makes salient points and arguments, too. He’s also fiercely loyal to his conservative ideals (sometimes to a fault) and whose bomb throwing often nails the target with accuracy.

Rush is also bloody wealthy. The $400,000,000 deal-plus deal he struck last year merely added to his wealth.

So he's got a bunch of money to spend. And what do guys with a lot of money do? They buy stuff. Like football teams. And Rush wants to buy a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams. I have no problem with this. Hell, Keith Olbermann of all people has no problem with this. The NFL, however? They have a problem with this and they’re intent on not letting Limbaugh buy a stake. Why? Well, let's get to the laughably specious reasons.

First, NFL commish Goodell went back into the playbook to dig up Rush's comment about Donovan McNabb ("I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."). The comment got Rush fired by ESPN because many viewed as being racist. How it was racist to any observant and reasonable person who can read or that follows our media and culture is a mystery. Nonetheless, Goodell trotted that one out saying, "I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the N.F.L. — absolutely not" and “the comments that Rush made specifically about Donovan, I disagree with very strongly."

Not to re-hash this, but I have to since Goodell and others are bringing it up: Rush wasn't making a racist comment about McNabb; Rush was saying the media—specifically the east coast media, which plays a huge role in this country—was building up McNabb, not just The Next Great Quarterback, but as the Next Great Black Quarterback. (I guess they missed Warren Moon's career.). More to the point, as Slate’s Allan Barra deftly noted, “Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black.”

Barra goes on to make another fantastic point: “I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s…. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black.”

So Goodell is taking offense to something he clearly doesn’t understand cowardly pandering to the predominantly African-American NFLPA who also took great offense to Rush’s potential ownership.

But the NFL wasn’t finished being stupid. Cue Colts owner Jim Irsay—whose father, Robert, moved the Colts franchise from Baltimore to Indianapolis literally in the middle of the night back in 1983.

Irsay said that Limbaugh’s bid would be met with opposition from the other 32 owners (three quarters of the owners are required to approve the sale). Oh really? Now call me silly, but I’m thinking a majority of those billionaire owners are likely Republicans/conservatives themselves with a few exceptions. So good luck in finding the 8 owners who likely could give a rat’s butt about opposing Rush’s minority ownership role.

Next, if the NFL is so damn concerned about “comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the N.F.L.,” and the integrity of its franchise owners, then why hell doesn’t it do something about Oakland’s Al Davis, Cleveland’s Randy Lerner and the Fords in Detroit, all of who are pile-driving their franchises into the ground? Or what Dallas’ Jerry Jones and his repeated outbursts? Or Washington’s Dan Snyder? Hmm?

Yeah, crickets and tumbleweeds on that one, eh, Commish Goodell?

Finally, does the NFL even know who its audience is? Do they really think the majority of their audience are latte-sipping beat poets and community organizers? Maybe Goodell & Friends need a lesson demographic analysis. It’s more NASCAR than Nescafe, I can assure you of that.

Worst of all, this mindless and baseless opposition to Rush’s purchase reinforces the Saul Alinksy rule that if pick the target, attack and polarize it, you can win. And the frothing liberal left succeeded in doing what it has been trying to do for years: Defeat Rush. So Rush won’t get a part of the Rams. Or any team likely ever.

And the legacy of this “victory” for the Rush-hating left? You can violate every American ideal and free-market principles of ownership and force someone out buying something simply based on his or her beliefs or views.

Congratulations, you pathetic un-American cowards.

Golf Trash Talk

2009-10-14T10:15:00.000-07:00

It so goes against the gentlemanly nature of the game, but when trash talk does happen in golf it's pretty entertaining.

While this won't compare to Tiger Woods' caddie Steve Williams calling Phil "Tits" Mickelson a "prick", it's still got a nice zing factor to it.

The Americans retained the President's Cup over the International team on Sunday, beating them 19.5 to 14.5. During Sunday's singles matches, Anthony Kim was matched against Aussie Robert Allenby.

Throughout the tournament, Allenby called Kim "the current John Daly" and "the loosest cannon" on the U.S. team. No surprise there, really. Kim is just 24 and known for his brash but very cool belt buckles (only in golf would one's choice in belt buckles garner so much attention) plus he has a fair amount of 'hood in him having grown up in inner Los Angeles.

Kim must've used it as motivation because he laid wood to Allenby, 5 and 3.

But Allenby just couldn't take his ass-whoopin' graciously. He accused Kim of getting back to his hotel "sideways" (aka: "shit faced" in our lingo) and that "Maybe we should all take the theory of Anthony Kim. Get home at 4 o'clock [in the morning] and then go shoot 6 under."

I could do that at 24, too. Arrive at the course still semi-drunk from the night before and play, so maybe Allenby has just a bit of age/liver envy.

But Kim had a great response: "I was at the hotel, had dinner with the team, met my buddies for about 20 minutes, then went straight to my room*. I was in tip-top shape**. If Robert had that to say, he maybe needs to practice a little more."

Hoozah! A pretty good, gentlmanly zing for a 24-year old.

And so much classier than telling Allenby to go suck wallaby tool. Which is what I would have said.

* Read: I've never said I didn't get plastered in my hotel room.
** For being slightly powdered.

And Here I Thought I Was a Bad Writer

2009-10-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

I have no idea what kind of news service Associated Content is (or isn't), but this fine piece of, um, writing came up under a news search I was doing on Mike Zimmer, the Cincinnati Bengals defensive coordinator whose wife died suddenly last Thursday.

Mike Zimmer's wife and her cause of death still hasn't been released. But Mike Zimmer's wife's cause of death is naturally mysterious, since her death came out of nowhere. Mike Zimmer's wife, Vikki Zimmer, didn't have any sicknesses or diseases before she was declared dead on Thursday, as far as anyone knows. Since the news shocked everyone, Mike Zimmer's wife's cause of death is taking an extra long time to figure out. But no matter what the cause of death, Mike and Vicki Zimmer served as an extra inspiration to the red-hot Cincinnati Bengals on the field.

Then the second paragraph started:

Before Mike Zimmer's wife died, he was merely best known as the defensive coordinator of the Cincinnati Bengals.

Just one question: Who's wife died again?

Geezus, Write Something Already

2009-10-08T13:51:00.000-07:00

I know! I couldn't agree more, dear 3.5 Readers. I should be writing more, and I'm for not doing, I'm sorry.

Hoenst, I have a bunch of stuff that's almost fit to post and for you to avoid reading! Yeah!

Know Why The 'Hawks Lost to the Bears?

2009-10-02T11:50:00.000-07:00

Why I Worry About My 1-1 Raiders

2009-09-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty jazzed about my Raiders win over the Chiefs yesterday, but I have some issues. Like this one from CBS:

Raiders coach Tom Cable on whether there’s a common theme to QB JaMarcus Russell’s erratic passing. “No, there’s not. That’s the real issue here, just finding out why those things are going on."

Hmm, well, that's a nice, direct answer. But I think he could have better answered it this way:

"Russell is a great kid, I really like him as a person. And admittedly, today was particularly tough for JaMar. I mean 7 for 24 and 109 yards is really, well, my son has better stats in the 10-12 year old division of Pop Warner. This was the same defense that Ravens' QB Joe Flacco torched for 350+ yards and 3 TDs last week, and he was the #18 pick in the draft, not the #1 like Russell. And he went to the University of Delaware, for God's sake.

Anyway, there are a lot reasons for his erratic throws. He locks in on receivers and, in turn, defensive backs lock in on him. What happens? Picksville. Then he forces the ball into traffic and—swat!—there's another pass defended. He holds onto the ball too long. He can't throw on the run, which is really weird for a QB from LSU. He thinks "going through his progressions" means trying different varieties of Progresso soups. And checking down to his backs? Jesus Christ, I know Darren McFadden is a small-ish back, but hell, JaMar is like 6'4" why the hell he can't find him is a mystery. But what am I supposed to do? I can't dumb down the offense to the Special Olympics level. So the whole erratic throwing thing really isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention—which clearly you aren't, reporter man.

Oh, and did I mention Al Davis drafted him because he can huck the ball 70 yards, but he can't hit a 15 yard down and out? Fuck, I really wish I could start Jeff Garcia, but we shipped him to Philly just before the season started. So there's that....next question, please."

Chicks Don't Dig Foul Balls*

2009-09-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

Especially 3 or 4 year olds.

Great reaction by Dad!

*For anyone paying attention, yes, I stole that from my FB post. Self-plagarizing is not a crime.

Dick

2009-09-15T11:03:00.000-07:00

I thought videos and MTV Video Awards died a number of years ago. Good thing they didn't or nobody would know what a classless cockring Kayne West truly is.

Classy move by Beyonce to bring up Taylor Swift (whoever the hell she is) to perform with her afterward the incident.

I'm a Birther and a Racist

2009-09-10T15:53:00.001-07:00

At least according to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen I am.

Why?

Because I'm oppose HR 3200 and the president's relentless attempts to shove it down our throats.

Mr. Cohen thinks he's free to wonder—no, premitted to wonder, in his words—that "if some of Obama’s more hateful critics are not expressing a repressed bigotry -- the feeling that the man up on the dais cannot really be the president of the United States. After all, he does not look like one."

Wait, how do you go from to..um...how does one come to the conclusion that....no, when you rudely yell "you lie!" and that makes you a....

Aw, screw it. I'm a birther and a racist, I guess.

But at least I'm not fucking nuts....

"You Lie!" And The Lying Liars Who Don't Want to be Called Out About Lying (Or, "You Call That Civil Discourse?")

2009-09-10T11:10:00.000-07:00

Disrespectful. Uncivil. Rude. Lacking grace and dignity.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouting "You lie!" during President Obama's speech was all those things. (I was listening to the speech on the way home last night when I heard it and thought, 'Did I just hear that right?'.) Naturally, The Shout Heard 'Round The Country is plastered all over the main pages of media outlets. Columnists and pundits are all in a twitter and waggling their knowing fingers at Republicans.

It all makes me chuckle, really. I feel like channeling the guard from "Cool Hand Luke":

"What we've got here is...failure to remember."

Like when House Minority leader (at the time) Sen. Harry Reid calling President Bush a "loser" and a "liar" to high school kids.

Or when the late St. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-forever-Mass.) accused President Bush of being a liar by “telling lie, after lie, after lie”, in order to go to war in Iraq.

Or when President Obama misrepresented the oppostion last night calling them liars regarding "death panels", health insurance to illegals and use of federal dollars to fund abortions, when he himself is not fully disclosing that there are some truths to those claims*. So he is a liar for calling them liars.

But I think one of the more amusing responses in all this came from House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Queen of San Francisco, CA). Stories and columns today noted that Pelosi looked "visibly stunned" by Wilson's "You lie!"

She was quoted in the New York Times as follows:

Asked if she had considered gaveling Mr. Wilson out of order, she said: “No. Well, the — if he had continued. But the sergeant-at-arms — you know, the parliamentarian passed me a piece of paper that said what the options were, and I said we’re just going to move on.”

Well of course she wanted to move on—lest anyone else in the Chamber call her out on national TV for her baldfaced lies claiming she was never briefed on the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques back in 2002. (Thanks to AG Holder for pulling off the "Triple Ooopsy!" by releasing the EIT documents that a.) prove Pelosi's a liar; b.) undermine CIA agents and future intel gathering operations and; c.) EITs actually do work.)

And where were the stories and columns and calls for apologies on those equally disrespectful and unprofessional remarks?

If you're hearing crickets and tumbleweeds in the Land of Double Standard you're not alone.

Look, no doubt Joe Wilson was way, way, way out of line and disrespectful last night. He's since apologized, and Obama has graciously accepted it.

But before the calls go out for Wilson's resignation—because you know that can't be far away—the feigned indignation over the demise of civil discourse in this country and double standards should be checked at the door.

*This is not to say that those who make such dubious claims regarding "death panels" aren't exaggerating or using hyperbole; they are. But those are discussions for another time.

I Still Have Much Love for My Liberal Friends

2009-09-03T14:53:00.000-07:00

But geez, when did they start drinking the rhetorical Kool-Aid by the vat?

This is all over Facebook today:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Wow. Just wow. The first sentence is demonstrably false, misleading and deceitful that it would be laughable...if so many people weren't posting it on their Walls today.

Which begs a bigger question: In general, when did liberals, who've told us for years to "question authority" and "don't trust the government" or "don't trust anyone over 30", all of sudden find faith in the federal government to run a massively complex health care program, the very same federal government that can barely manage public education, and put decisions about their health care into the hands of bureaucrats? Really?

Moreover, do they just not have the time to investigate the matter? Are they just not that interested? Or are they just trying to be 'right' side of the issue with their friends? Do they not see the slow loss of their personal liberties? I honestly don't know how anyone who has read any critical and objective analysis—or, my God, simply seen the Congressional Budget Office report on the price tag of HR 3200—can feel good about or right in supporting such a poorly constructed and concevied piece of legislation. (And that doesn't even account for the poorly constructed arguments and misrepresentation and poor examples presented by President Obama on why the public should support it.)

Look, these friends are really, really smart people; many of whom I find to be truly incredible people who are much, much smarter than I am on numerous issues.

But I am absolutely, 100% Grade A perplexed by their willfull blindness to accept HR 3200 in any way, shape or form.

I Read Stupid People (And Their Ignorant Slams on Religion Bumper Stickers)

2009-09-02T14:13:00.000-07:00

The anti-religious bumper stickers always tickle my funny bone. I think that's mostly because the people who place them on their vehicles would sooner worship politicians (hint, hint: guess who?) than be caught worshipping an entity they can neither touch or see. What I find belly-jiggling is that they find it all too convenient to use religious symbols or figures or psalms in order to express an opinion about an issue.

For example, in order to chastise and waggle a knowing finger at all religions, there's the "Coexist" bumper sticker:

Clever on the surface, but ultimately ignorant and graphically retarded.

The designer just shrugged their shoulders and thought, 'Ah, who cares if the peace and man/woman symbols aren't really religions symbols, it works in the graphic. Besides I'm too lazy to look up other religious symbols that might make a better 'O' and 'E.' I can still use the Christian cross, the Jewish star and the Islamic moon and star in the same word and still make my point! Whatever that is...'

And is the point of this bumper sticker?

Aside from the graphical inaccuracies, there's the greater inconvenience in acknowledging the fact that it's incredibly ignorant of current events. See, nearly every major and current conflict or war in the world was started by—you guessed it—Islamists.

Lest you think I'm full of Shiite, here's a quick recap of current conflicts: Sudan? Islam. Chechnya? Islam. Afghanistan? Islam. Pakistan? Islam. Palestine? Islam. Lebanon? Islam. Iraq? Islam. (Yes, that may be over-simplifying or glossing over Israeli aggression in some instances, but this is a matter of 'original sin' in starting said conflict.)

Now, take some time and cite a current modern conflict started by Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Go on, no hurry. I'll wait.

Still thinking, huh?

That's cool, get back to me when you think of one.

So who's really not 'coexisting' with whom, Mr. Oh-So-Smart-Religion-Hating Graphic Designer?

How about leaving on the Moon and Star for the 'C' and using regular fonts for the rest of the word? Then a point would be made.

Here's another favorite:

Cute, huh? See how the writer used Jesus to point out Christian hypocrisy in supporting wars, insinuating that we should 'love our enemies'? I actually think this one makes a good point in that regard: As followers of a peaceful and loving God, war should be the last option.

Here's the deal, however: While I don't profess to know what Jesus may or may not think on the matter of war, I get the feeling Jesus would have a darn hard time 'turning the other cheek' or letting his beard be plucked' or 'loving the enemy' if he knew millions or thousands of people were being massacred and buried in mass graves like the Jews in WWII. Or in the killing fields of Cambodia. Or in Saddam's deserts. Or if humanity itself were threatened by any entity other Jesus' dad, dear old God.

Who knows, Jesus might even admire the extreme accuracy of modern weaponry in targeting the bad guys of today. (Of course, some of those cowardly fucks like to use women and children to hide behind posing a gut-wrenching dilemma even Jesus might have trouble dealing with.)

Finally, there's this one I saw in the parking lot at work (sorry, no picture):

"If religious groups want to be in politics, they should pay taxes."

Hmm, does that go for all nonprofit groups—like, say, the Sierra Club? Or the Nature Conservancy? Or MoveOn.org? Or just pick your favorite liberal nonprofit group that's heavily involved in lobbying for their interests. Should they pay taxes too? I'm thinking 'no' here. We just want those meddling Christians to pay! Bastards!

I think the final chuckle I get from all these is this: Professed and alleged tolerant and liberal people have no problem whatsoever openly expressing their intolerance and ignorance.

And in other news, water is wet.

I Was Wrong, Very Wrong

2009-08-31T10:18:00.000-07:00

And in this case, I'm very happy about it.

See, back in late March I had made a few predictions for the then upcoming baseball season. I called out the division and post-season winners and awards. If memory serves, here's what I predicted:

AL West: Angels (This is the only one I have right.)
AL Central: Twins (Probably won't catch the Tigers.)
AL East: Rays (May not even make the Wild Card)
Wild Card: Toronto (Oops....)
MVP: Morneau (Right team, wrong player. Mauer's the man.)
CY: CC Sabathia (I think I have this one right.)
ROY: Travis Snyder, Jays (Sent down in early May and was just recalled.)

NL West: D-Backs (No Brandon Webb...)
NL Central: Cubs (I think I had the Cardinals finishing 4th. Um yeah.)
NL East: Mets (Even when they were healthy, they stunk.)
Wild Card: Phillies (You can hand them the division crown now.)
MVP: Manny Ramirez (50 games suspensions hurt one's chances...)
CY: Tim Lincecum (Can we just hand it to him for the next 5-7 years or so?)
ROY: Don't remember.

Wow, 3 for 16. That's below the Mendoza Line for Predictions.

So why am I happy about it?

The Giants are deeply involved in an exciting Wild Card race and have a legit shot at making the playoffs for the first time since 2003.

I had predicted them to finish 4th in the division.

Yes! I love being wrong! So very wrong!

Useful Idiots, Part 34,981 in an Annoying Series

2009-08-31T09:52:00.000-07:00

She must've been on the same tour with Michael Moore.

Just What I Wanted! A Pile of Fucking Techno Monkey Shit!

2009-08-30T21:17:00.000-07:00

Sony Releases New Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work

Hijacking 9/11, Community-Organizer Style

2009-08-27T15:37:00.000-07:00

During the 2004 election, liberals crowed loudly and often when the GOP used a few images from 9/11 during their convention and, very rarely, in commercials. “Off limits!”, “tasteless!” and “exploitive!” were the cries.

But in 2009 it’s just hunky dorey to apply a little revisionist interpretation of recent history to get people to volunteer. Which is what the well-meaning folks at 911dayofservice.org want you to do.

Their mission is asking people to do the following:

Our mission is to honor the victims of 9/11 and those who rose to service in response to the attacks by encouraging all Americans and others throughout the world to pledge to voluntarily perform at least one good deed, or another service activity on 9/11 each year. In this way we hope to create a lasting and forward-looking legacy -- annually rekindling the spirit of service, tolerance, and compassion that unified America and the world in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Hmm, methinks our community organizers are a tad confused on a couple of key points.

First, and most importantly, the firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel who were killed on 9/11 weren’t ‘volunteering’ or ‘performing a service’ at the time of the attacks; they were doing their jobs, selflessly and heroically. The Everyday Joes and Janes who were murdered in the Towers, at the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field weren’t volunteering or serving either; they too were going about their daily lives and jobs. They “rose in service”, no doubt, but not to pick-up garbage or to bring food to the homeless or visit the elderly.

Second, as a nation we were compelled to service and to give because we were (and continue to be) inspired by the heroism displayed by our fellow Americans on that day. We felt compassion for those who were murdered and their families. We were unified in our anger and contempt for those who attacked us and who sought (and continue to seek) to destroy our way of life. In that sense, service and compassion were very much a part of 9/11.

But tolerance? When the hell did tolerance come into play on 9/11? If anything, it was the intolerance of the Islamofascists that was on full display. No American I know of tolerated or accepted what happened.

Third, why is looking forward better than looking back? Is pausing to remember an event like 9/11 a bad, futile and negative endeavor? Ridiculous. Actively remembering an event, no matter how negative it was, provides context and a deeper appreciation of and for the present. This Pollyanna/Dr.Phil “forward-looking legacy” language smacks of an odd attempt to put lipgloss over the fact that some pretty evil shit went down that day and marginalize it.

Having said all that, I wanted to be fair, so I dove deeper into the site.

Did any of the volunteer opportunities have anything to do with 9/11? Honestly, not really. Only one of the eleven Program Leaders directly relates to 9/11: The National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center. You can also donate $9.11 that will go to organizing “the single largest day of service and civic action in U.S. history in honor of the victims and those who rose in service in response to the attacks.”

Sounds great. Just one thing, and it confuses the beejeezus out of me: How exactly does service and civic action honor victims of 9/11? Oh, I get it. Everyone’s working together like they did after 9/11. Fair enough. But how does that honor the victims exactly? Is that what some people think the passengers on Flight 93 were doing, performing civic action? Sorry to break it to you, but that wasn’t what any of those folks or any of the others who perished were doing.

Some will note that one of the GoodDeeds founders happens to be the brother of a 9/11 victim. So? Does that automatically give the cause instant credibility? No, and it shouldn't. Aside from the fact that too many surviving family members have used their status to promote their politcal and personal agendas, there are some curious connections to President Obama's volunteer agenda—specifically to serve.gov. There's nothing wrong with serve.gov. Their connection here, however, means that a very large and powerful community organizer with direct connections to the current administration is 'exploiting' 9/11 for its agenda. And that's just plain dishonest and disrespectful.

Lest you think I'm a cold-hearted, uncaring bastard, there’s nothing wrong with doing something good, positive and selfless for your community and mankind. There’s also nothing wrong at all with volunteering. I wish I did more myself. Yet what 911DayoOfService.org is doing here fails to honestly and respectfully honor the heroes and victims of 9/11; there is no logical and emotional connection to the event.

If you want to mark 9/11 (and I should hope you would), do something else to honor the victims. Read about the day. Read about a victim’s life. Listen to every one of the 3000 names being read. Remember what you were doing that day. Hoist the flag. Read about what lead to the event. Watch the brilliantly directed and moving “United 93.” Whatever you choose do, make it about 9/11.

If you want to volunteer, go right ahead. You’re doing a good and noble deed. Just realize you're another step farther away from "Never Forget."

The Redemption of Michael Vick

2009-08-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

Inhumane. Subhuman. Disgusted. Furious. Inexcusable.

Back when I used to write over at Wizbang! Sports (now defunct), and if memory serves, those were a few of the words I used to describe the arrest of Michael Vick and the gruesome details behind his direct involvement in a dog-fighting gambling ring.

Like most dog lovers, I wanted to see him punished severely and serve the maximum time for his inhumanity (5 years). Instead, under a plea bargain, he received the near minimum of 18 months with the possibility of receiving more time if he failed to cooperate with prosecutors.

This did not sit well with me, or others. Yet sometimes justice can be indirect.

By the time Vick entered federal prison on Dec. 10, 2007, he had not only lost his freedom but also close to $40 million in football and endorsement contracts. That took the sting out of the 18-month sentence.

Now he’s back.

So what do I think and how do feel about it?

Put it this way: I believe in redemption. Vick has atoned for his sins by pledging his time and money into the rehabilitation of fight dogs, educating the public about dog fighting and is, as I understand it, furthering his involvement in the rehabilitation of fight dogs in Philly. No matter my opinions on the sentence ruling, Vick served the time handed down. And now he deserves a second chance, if not in the public’s eyes, in his own life.

He doesn’t have to redeem himself to society or myself because that really isn’t up to any human being; that is God’s decision. And considering the God I worship and follow is a loving and forgiving God—one that has forgiven far, far worse than what Vick did—I imagine God granted him redemption a while ago.

Vick will have some rough crowds to face, including those in his new home city of Philadelphia—and people that may not see this the way I do. They will taunt and jeer him and make “barking” sounds when he takes the field or makes a play or even breathes. Some may even think he still belongs in prison. I understand all that.

But those folks should stop for a second and think: Given the disturbingly large population of first-time and repeat miscreants in the NFL who seem scarcely unrepentant by their crimes and misdemeanors (think: Adam “Pacman” Jones, Plaxico Burress, Chris Henry, etc.), maybe rooting for Vick is, ironically enough, to err on the side of humanity. Go figure.

Happy 9 Years, Heart

2009-08-23T23:33:00.000-07:00

Thanks for not nearly failing me a second time and giving me the opportunity to have a wonderful and beautiful wife, and an incredibly handsome and bright son.

Oh, and certainly not in the least: Thanks, God. Of all the days not to attend Mass, this is was not one I should have missed.

Sometimes It's Not the Concept, But The Execution

2009-08-18T11:10:00.000-07:00

Crappy YouTube version aside, I really like this spot from Verizon—and it's not because it contains an original concept. In fact, the spot is conceptually pedestrian and a yawner: In a role reversal, tech-unhip parents embarrass their kids with new found technology. Blah, blah, blah, seen it oodles of times. But it's the execution of the script and the acting that overcomes the benign concept.

First, the spot strikes a universal truth in poking fun at social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, winking that the sites are gigantic wastes of time ("social networking" being the cute phrase that glosses over that reality). And mostly they are. (You have 724 "friends?" Really? That's not networking; that's whoring.)

Second, the acting is really good. The daughter plays the pissed off and embarrassed teen girl perfectly. The mother, in a bit of role reversal, is completely engrossed and only momentarily acknowledges her daughter's pleas by shooting her "I-can't-be-bothered-gawd!" glance then goes back to Facebook-ing. And of course there's the Dad delivering the great line, "I...am...sitting...on...the....patio." then wryly chuckling in the direction of his son and an unseen wink to his own slothfulness.

Is it an award-winning spot? Nah, I don't think so. (Heck, who can tell what advertising award judges will like from one year to the next.) Good stuff all in all! Makes me chuckle every time. But maybe I'm easily entertained.

What this spot does prove is that you don't always need an original concept to have a good, memorable spot; sometimes a good execution can trump that. And indirectly, I think this spot reinforces the idea that a good execution can save a mediocre concept, but a great concept can be ruined by poor execution. (I'd provide an example of this, but I can't think of any off hand. Hmm, that might be the problem right there. I'm thinking so.)

I'll end this post by saying, "I...am...sitting...at...the...computer...blogging...to...3.5...readers..."*

Yeah, no waste of time there, huh?

*But you complete me.

Uh-Huh, Sure He Is

2009-08-14T12:07:00.000-07:00

"SC Gov. Sanford goes to Fla. for reserve duty"

Did We Hit a Nerve, Mrs. Secretary?

2009-08-11T09:15:00.000-07:00

Whoa! Okay, that's a bit uncomfortable.

Sure, words get lost in translation all the time. As the Secretary of State, one would think Mrs. Clinton would be keenly aware of that possibility and have the presence of mind to deal with such a situation accordingly.*

Now maybe she was just a bit touchy after an 11-day tour of Africa and that her husband successfully greased the palms of Jong Il. Or maybe she just missed the good old USA and home cooking. But Jiminey Christmas, the open hostility directed toward the university student asking the question and, indirectly (but understandably!), her husband, is conduct unbecoming of a SOS.

I actually like Mrs. C. as our SOS, but this is out of line.

Note: I like how the report ends with Brian Williams explaining that it was the translator who had misspoken. True and fair enough, for sure. Except blaming the translator silently excuses Clinton's behavior, particularly since Mrs. Clinton hasn't issued an apology. Unless you count the audio-less picture at the end of the report where Mrs. Clinton shakes the student's hand. Which would be no surprise if NBC/MSNBC did count that as an apology, given that it's standard operating procedure for the unapologetically, pro-everything-left-especially-Obama outlet to spin damage control for its buddies in the Beltway.

*Updated

Then Again, I'm Not Nuts...

2009-08-07T13:47:00.000-07:00

One to two times a week, I force myself to read Paul Krugman's New York Times column. The Princeton and Nobel Prize-winning economist is worth reading for his incredible knowledge on economics—at least when he isn't using his position as an op-ed columnist to promote when his political agenda while demonizing and marginalizing opposing viewpoints instead of sticking to something he knows: economics.

Sort of like in today's column.

But today's a special day, because the Krugster does a belly flop off the high board and into the "WTF?" deep end of the Crazy Pool.

For the ADHD readers in the crowd, Krugman's column can be paraphrased as follows: " Hey, if you're a part of those "mobs", you must be a racist and loon if you oppose the House's health care plan!'

What? Don't believe me? Okay, let's quote the Krugster:

But they’re (the town hall crowds) probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.....That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship.

Uh-oh, it's back to pre-November 2008: If you oppose Obama, or if Obama doesn't get elected, it's because of racism. Exactly. I didn't vote for Obama because he was black. It had nothing to do with his terrible economic proposals, his inexperience, his dangerously naive foreign policy, his support of entitlement programs, his associations with unrepentant domestic terrorists ("I was only 8 years old at the time...." Yes, but you served on the same board with Bill Ayers for several years), his 20-year association with a truly racist, anti-American who was "spiritual leader" and so on. Nope, none of that. It was all because he was black.

Now I firmly believe that "birthers" are just as nuts as "9/11 Troothers", latching onto the smallest, most insignificant details and attaching a grand conspiracy to the situation*. Is the racism deep-seeded and present in these folks? Oh, I think to some degree, yes, it is. Then again, who knows. Maybe they just dislike Obama so much they're willing to find any way to get him thrown out of office. Who of us can say for sure?

Oh wait, I know! An Ivy League professor, a man of great intelligence, Paul Krugman, knows for sure:

Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

In the words of Penn Gillette, what the fuck?

I'm not even going to address how loony Durbin sounds for his comparison, but Krugman latches on to the looniness and tries to, at first, appear reasonable, then abandons all sense of logic and reason with, "we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction."

Again, channeling Penn: What the fuck?

Being an economist and all, shouldn't he know that can't take an unknown (aka: number of "birthers" actually present) and make a unprovable claim like "substaintial fraction?" Well, fuck, you'd think so. Then again, I'm not a few puffs short of a box of Cocoa Puffs crazy, either.

One more time, just so I'm clear: What's 'driving the mobs', or any of us who don't like having a $1.6 trillion plan shoved down our throats, is deep-seeded racism. Noted, Paul. I feel so much better now that's gotten in touch with my inner racist.

*And for the record, I listen to quite a bit of talk radio, both locally and nationally, from David Boze in Seattle to Michael Medved to John Giv to Laura Ingraham, and every single host who's been confronted or had on a "birther" as a guest or caller has told them, "You're nuts. Give it a rest. Obama is a natural legal citizen, you dope." Every single one.

My Kind of To-Do List

2009-07-31T09:21:00.000-07:00

Ben over at I Can't Believe It's Not Better! posted a very fun baseball 'bucket list' by ESPN's Jim Caple. Ben also included his status on each item. Being the unoriginal and shameless pilferer that I am, and because I loved the list so much, I thought I'd do the exact same thing.

Besides, it'll fun to go back in a few years and see how far I've gotten.

• Spend a week at spring training. (Nope. Maybe next spring?)

• Learn to keep score. (Learned from my dad at age 7.)

• Learn about Tommy John surgery by throwing out your arm at the stadium speed pitch station. (Done.)

• Watch "Field of Dreams," "Bull Durham," "A League of Their Own," "The Bad News Bears" (the original) and "The Natural." (Yes on all. And "Eight Men Out" should be on here.)

• Use a wood bat. (Yes.)

• Enjoy a beer in the bleachers at Wrigley Field on a sunny summer day. (Some day.)

• Listen to Vin Scully call an entire Dodgers game. (He's simply magical! And I'm a Giants fan.)

• Read "Ball Four," "The Boys of Summer," "Nine Innings," "The Glory of Their Times" and any (preferably all) of Roger Angell's collections. (Wow, only one. Okay, I need to do some reading. I'll add from Ben's list too. Note: "Seasons In Hell: With Billy Martin, Whitey Herzog and The Worst Team in Baseball History: The 1973-75 Texas Rangers" is a must-read.)

• Go to Japan's Koshien high school tournament (i.e., where Dice K threw his famous no-hitter). (I'd rather go to the Little League World Series, honestly.)

• Hit a home run. (No. I was a scrappy hitter.)

• Coach a Little League team. (Yes. Ugh. Parents.)

• Ump a Little League game. (No. But I did take an umpiring course.)

• Boo the Yankees in person. (Done. And at Yankee Stadium no less.)

• Play Strat-O-Matic, APBA, Dynasty League or a similar computer-simulation game. (Strat. Back in high school.)

• Attend a fantasy camp and have more fun than you can imagine feeling old and young at the same time. (No.)

• Tour the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. (Maybe next summer!)

• Oil your glove and stuff it under your mattress for the winter, then play catch the first day of spring with your parent/child. (Absolutely!)

• Get to a game early enough to watch batting practice. (Too many to count.)

• Go to the College World Series. (Meh.)

• Play pepper. (Yup.)

• Go to a batting cage and see what it's like to hit a 90 mph fastball. Or, more likely, fail to hit a 90 mph fastball. (Do foul tips count?)

• Attend a townball game in Minnesota (the smaller the town the better). (Bend, OR, isn't Minnesota, but I think it's acceptable.)

• Visit the "Field of Dreams" site in Dyersville, Iowa and the old Durham Athletic Park (where "Bull Durham" takes place). (No.)

• Take your kids to see The Chicken or The Phanatic. (This is achievable.)

• Run around the bases after a big league game. (Done!)

• See Derek Jeter, Albert Pujols and Ichiro play in person and chant their names with a stadium packed with fans. (Homey don't chant.)

• Buy a fitted cap to replace the cheap stadium giveaway you got with the plastic adjustable strap in the back and the Piggly Wiggly logo on the side. (Who doesn't have a fitted cap?)

• Sing "Sweet Caroline" at Fenway Park. (They do this? Why?)

• Recite "Casey at the Bat" and "Tinker to Evers to Chance." (Yes.)

• Read the box scores religiously. (Follow them live.)

• Join SABR. (I'd like to.)

• Get your favorite player's autograph. (I've never run into Willie Mays.)

• Learn to throw a curveball. (Done. Murder on the elbow.)

• Take a week-long road trip through the minors, the lower the league the better, and make sure to include a team owned by Mike Veeck. (Now this would be fun!)

• Cheer the Rally Monkey. (As a Giants fan I can firmly reply, fuck no. Not now, not ever.)

• Eat at Boog's barbecue pit at Camden Yards, enjoy a Primanti Brothers sandwich at Pittsburgh's ballpark, the fish tacos in San Diego, a Dodger Dog at Dodger Stadium and garlic fries while circling the concourse in Seattle. (No, no, no, no and yes.)

• Attend a game in the Caribbean. (No.)

• Buy a bleacher ticket and sneak into a box seat. (It's an art form.)

• Passionately argue in a bar over who belongs in the Hall of Fame. (And Bert Blyleven belongs goddamnit!)

• Collect baseball cards. Get your favorite player's rookie card and store it in a plastic sleeve. Treat all others the way God intended: by clothes-pinning them to the spokes of your bicycle in a pathetic attempt to make an engine noise. (Shit, I can't afford Mays' rookie card. I have a nice collection, I think.)

• Rub the Babe's nose in Monument Park. (Done.)

• Camp out in front of the stadium for tickets to see your favorite team in the postseason. (Done. Well, it was the Giants team store. '89 playoffs vs. Cubs.)

• Try to throw a knuckleball. (Done.)

• Try to catch a knuckleball. (Caught it! With my shin.)

• Catch a foul ball. And then hand it to the nearest kid. (Oddly, I've never caught one.)

• Disobey your parents by staying up late to listen to a game with your transistor radio/iPhone tucked under your pillow. (Countless times listening to Giants announcer Hank Greenwald.)

• Go to the All-Star Game. (Nope.)

• Kayak in McCovey Cove (yeah, Barry Bonds is gone, but San Francisco Bay is still there) (I love kayaking, but I like being inside at the game more.)

• Eat a hot-fudge sundae in a mini batting helmet. (Mmmm, yes.)

And finally …

• See your team play in the World Series. (Sorry, this might not be applicable to Cubs, Mariners, Rangers and Nationals fans.) (In person? No. On TV? Yes. And Dusty Baker is still a fuckwit for pulling Russ Ortiz when he did in Game 6 of the '02 Series....)

I'd like to add a few at some point. Hmm, maybe that would make a good post, too!

N-o s-h-i-t?

2009-07-28T15:05:00.000-07:00

"Study: Texts while driving even more dangerous"

I don't write 'em, I just find 'em.

Teleprompter Malfunction or Freudian Slip?*

2009-07-21T13:17:00.000-07:00

Oopsy! Glossed right over that one, didn't he?

Now, let's get back to cramming HR 3200 down Americans' throats with little debate while dismissing those who question the costs and unintended consequences of such an expenditure.

*Sorry about the Applebee's commerical.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Courteous Drivers

2009-07-21T09:36:00.000-07:00

Yet another beautiful Seattle morning. Sun shining bright, the air already warm, sunroof open on the Pilot and driving the wife to work.

That's when I encounter it. That hideous, foul, maddening Pacific Northwest creature from hell. No, not Bigfoot. The Dangerously Courteous Seattle Driver. And I encountered not just one but two of them at once!

Let me set the scene.

Driving northbound on 1st Ave, a four-lane street reduced to 3 due to construction with 2 northbound lanes and a single lane going southbound. We're traveling in the far right lane doing 30–35MPH only one car in front of me and one to my left, otherwise clear sailing in front of us, the next light a good 1/4 mile away. Yee-hah!

All of a sudden the car in the left lane slows down, as does the car in front of me. 'What the....why are we stoppi....oh fuck, you gotta be kidding me.' The driver in the southbound lane wants to turn left into a driveway and these two assclowns are stopping an entire two lanes of traffic to let make the driver perform his move.

WHAAAAAAA! WHAAAAAAAAAA!, goes the beefy horn on the Pilot.

"Honey," snaps the wife, "what are you doing!?"

"Honking at fuckwits", I snap back, 'that's what."

"Why? They're just..."

"What they're doing is not only against the rules of the road, it's fucking dangerous. So they get the horn."

"You have no idea who might be driving that car. They could have a gun!"

Only now am I thinking that the proper response should've been, 'Good, they should shoot themselves for being asshats.'

"Honey, one's driving a Subaru, the other a 4Runner. I doubt they're packing heat."

Silence for a few blocks. And it got me thinking: Yeah, I could've shown more patience and not honked. I mean, after all, I'm only going to be slightly delayed in getting to my destination, and that's just work. Is it worth getting my blood pressure all out of whack for 5 minutes after laying on the horn? And Seattle does have a anti-honking ordinance, I could have gotten a ticket had an officer of the law been around.

All that got me replying to myself thus: Yeah, that's all very true and probably the proper way to deal with such a minor situation. But fuck all that. Multiple this occurrence by the infinite number of times it happens in this passive-aggressive town and it's worth the $124, but-rarely-enforced honking ticket to blare the horn at drivers acting like the Miss Fucking Manners of Asphalt. As a driver you have a one damn job to do: Drive your car as not to endanger yourself or others. To stop flowing traffic simply because you think it would 'nice' to let that guy turn is a bad and dangerous idea.

So, Dangerously Courteous Seattle Driver, the next time I see you pull a stunt like this, expect the horn. Maybe even the One Fingered Salute. And P.S.: Remove the Kerry/Edwards sticker from your car already.

Cink Doesn't Stink

2009-07-19T22:50:00.000-07:00

Pardon me, mate, but let's put this in terms any limey could understand: You can sod off if you think today's Open Champion, Stewart Cink, is a 'villain'.

All Cink did was drain one of his patent gorgeous putts on 18 for a birdie to force the playoff. He didn't Sally Saladeater his putt for par and The Open on 18. And it wasn't his fault he drew Uncle Snappy out of his bag and put his ball into the Scottish Shit on the third playoff hole to eliminate any hope of winning.

Moreover, this isn't Nameless Turd Winning The US Open (really, I can't remember his name) a few weeks ago. This is Stewart Cink, one of the most respected guys on Tour.* (It causes groans and nausea over how good of a putter a guy is with the name of Cink.)

Here's the deal: Cink put himself into contention to win. As sometimes happens in Majors, the field comes back to you. The thing is, you still have to play incredibly solid for 72 holes to get to that point. Cink did. Watson didn't. Well-respected, long-tour with victories-under-his belt guy wins. Old guy loses with grace. That simple. No villain here.

Yeah, it's a bummer Tom didn't win one for the old guys; I was really rooting for him too. But Cink won one for bald guys with odd, hat-caused tanlines everywhere.

* No, not that fucking Tour, you yellow Spandex-wearing dweeb.

"Did you watch the Tour today?"

2009-07-19T20:41:00.001-07:00

"Oh yeah," I replied in each instance, "Isn't it great how a 60-year old geezer like Watson is leading a bunch of upstart no name Euros and Americans!?"

"Huh?", the response has been in the first two instances.

"Okay, okay. It's not actually part of the PGA Tour, but The Open....Watson....what could be better?"

"Oh, you mean golf. No, no, did you watch the Tour de France?"

Oh, wow. I didn't see that coming. I thought you were talking about a sport that involves a ball. So, um, no, actually I didn't watch the Tour de France. In fact, no, I've never watched the Tour de France. Who the fuck in America—in the middle of great baseball season and of an incredible story unfolding in Tom Watson—watches the Tour de France, except for uncoordinated douchebags whose disinterested, America-hating father never taught him to throw a baseball? God, you probably follow Seattle FC soccer too, don't you? Fuck no, I didn't watch.

"Um, no, I didn't catch it. How's Lance doing? In first again?"

"No! There was actually this big thing about his ex wingman dude who was riding for the other team who did this thing that was really politically driven and uncalled for by Lance's team, but he was cool about it...."

I'm stuck in a Peanuts special. 'Wha, wha. Wha, wha, wha, wha,' goes the teacher. Give me NASCAR, I'd be more interested. And by the way, Lance Armstrong? Brett Favre in fucking tights. Retire al-fucking-ready. No one wants to talk about the strategy of the events on the Tour, outside of Eurpoeans. And Americans who wish they were Europeans. Or Americans who wish America was some Eurpoean country of their choosing because said country is so much more fucking awesome in their eyes due to their limited knowledge of how bankrupt and flatout shitty their healthcare system actually is.

Whoa, easy fella. Deep breath, don't go there.

"Sounds like an interesting story unfolding, " I say. God bless me for not being the dick I wish I could be.

"Oh yeah, it really is. This Contradors guy...." Contras? Contras are in the Tour de France? Now that would be interesting. It certainly would make the guy in the yellow jersey a bit more intriguing, other than looking like a wuss wearing yellow. Maybe even do a cyclist exchange for first place and the Iranians could be involved.

Huh? What the hell is going through my brain? I'm even losing myself in myself now. This isn't good. I hope this ends. Maybe I can help.

"Wow, yeah, that is interesting," I reply, still repressing my inner dick. "And can you believe NFL training camps start this week?"

I can read their eyes, 'Isn't the NFL for uneducated, beer-swilling, crotch-itching, nose-picking Neanderthals who voted for Bush?'

Why yes, it is. And fuck you. Now hold still while I beat you silly with your bike pump....

Joe Biden Strikes Again!

2009-07-16T15:59:00.000-07:00

'We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.'

Somewhere Dan Quayle is smiling.

You Know You're Obsessed With Golf When....

2009-07-15T15:32:00.000-07:00

....you create a mural out of 104,000 golf tees!

See it in detail at DudeCraft*.

*An old friend of mine's very cool art blog.

So That ESPN Home Run Derby Ball Tracker Thingy....

2009-07-13T19:43:00.000-07:00

....is "so fucking out"!*

Remember when Fox Sports had the Puck Tracker a while back? It actually worked too. This? Not so much.

In the Golden Age of Technology you'd think the graphic geeks could track the ball without having the line get all squiggly and jerky. Even worse, the line changed colors like some stoner's bad acid trip the further the ball flew.

The whole concept was about as pointless and mysterious as having Brandon Inge in the Home Run Derby.

*See the awesome trailer for Eastbound and Down over at Ben's blog and you'll understand this reference.

Dogs Rule

2009-07-10T19:45:00.001-07:00

Happy Birthday, Nikola Tesla

2009-07-10T16:20:00.000-07:00

Today's Google home page honors the electrifying genius of one cool dude, Nikola Tesla.

Who's Tesla? Well, you plugged in your computer to one of his inventions: the alternating current electric power system—aka: the plug in your wall. In fact, any electrical motor we turn on today is all thanks to him. He revolutionized industry and lit up our nights more efficiently and less dangerously than did Edison's direct current system.

But that wasn't all!

Tesla invented the induction motor, wireless transmission of electricity, the Tesla Coil, bladeless turbines (like in dams), electrotherapy, x-rays, the floursecent lamp and much, much more. In fact, many scientists today think he was far more of a prolific and important inventor than Edison.

And yet, like many geniuses, he died penniless and alone.

Anyway, if you get a chance, try to catch the Modern Marvels epsidode "Mad Electricity." I think you'll become just as enthralled by Tesla's incredible genius and contributions to modern life as I am.