What Wrong With This Picture?

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

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

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

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

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:

I Just Ate a Trip to Las Vegas

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

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....

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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!