Isn't it just great when life imitates G.I. Joes?
]]>But the Colts' loss to the Steelers may have been the last straw for my NFL 2005 experience. If I continue to watch next week, I'll be faced with the prospect of rooting for either a hated division rival (Pittsburgh) or the team with the most overrated coach and quarterback in the league today. Although I wouldn't normally dream of rooting for the Steelers in anything except a parachuteless skydiving contest, I am finding myself a little more sympathetic to the Steelers this year than most. Perhaps it's because I've been away from Pittsburgh long enough by now to feel a little more more removed from the rabid subsection of Steelers fans that usually agitates me. Or maybe it's because the Ravens were so pathetic this year that to consider the Steelers a rival would give too much credit to the Ravens. Whatever the reason, I sometimes catch myself thinking, "If this is Pittsburgh's year, I wouldn't mind too much."
But then something holds me back. I realize that Pittsburgh going all the way will mean more rabid fans next year. It will mean hearing more Steelers hill-billy music that could have only been written by Terry Bradshaw. It will mean more times where Joey Porter starts fights, pushes cripples to the ground, and talks about how football shouldn't be a "thinking" game.
Denver, on the other hand, is not a hated division rival. They have that much going for them, but that is about it. A victory for them means hearing more illustrious praise for the "genius" of a head coach who won 2 super bowls with one of the 10 greatest QBs of all time and 4-5 other Hall of Fame caliber players as a suporting cast. You won't hear anything about how Scamahan evidently coaches his defensive backs at a high school level. Or about how their vaunted running games relies heavily on illegal cut blocks that for which they are routinely fined. A victory for them also means hearing more illustrious praise about a quarterback with a career passer rating of 75 and as many seasons with more INTs than TD as the reverse (read: Mediocrity defined).
So, NFL, if you're out there listening to anyone in Baltimore (an unlikely scenario I know), here's my ONE wish for next week's AFC Championship game. On the first play of the game, Jake Plummer drops back to throw. Everyone is covered, so "Jake the Snake" scrambles out of the pocket with Joey Porter bearing down on him. As Plummer runs out of bounds directly in front of head coach Mike Scamahan, Porter delivers a vicious helmet-to-helmet hit, knocking Plummer into Scamahan. Plummer receives a concussion and does not return. Scamahan is knocked unconcious for the remainder of the game. Porter is ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct. Steelers win 21-17.
]]>Dear Mr. Cooke,
I don't want to believe you've abandoned the Republican Party, but I have to ask ... Have you given up?
Our records show we have not yet received your 2005 Republican National Committee membership contribution.
As the Treasurer of the RNC, I know our Party's success depends directly on grassroots leaders like you.
So I am suprised and concerned because I know how generously you have helped in the past and how instrumental your support was to our Party's historic victories in 2004.
It goes on and on. I just want to know how I got on this list. It makes me feel like I'm looking at something I shouldn't be, even though it's clearly not worth anything.
]]>Police: Ohio Riot Was Worse Than Expected
I understand the right to assembly is to be protected fiercely. I understand that sometimes protests can turn violent, and that merely the possibility of violence shouldn't be enough to preempt this right. But when the police are expecting widespread violence (aka. a riot is a certainty), shouldn't that be where we draw the line? What is the message here -- riots are okay, as long as they aren't bigger than the police anticipate??
On a tangential note: How exactly does one estimate the size of a riot? "Well Bob, we've got about 20 Neo-Nazis and about 25 inner city gang members. Our studies show us that about 60% of the Nazis and 50% of the gang members will actually light shit on fire. So, at 24.5 arsonists per hour, and a conversion rate of 9 arsonists per fire truck, it looks like 3 fire trucks should handle the fires from the rioting. Joe, can you present the looting data we had from the last riot, please?"
]]>There is a real risk of terrorism, but the situation is not nearly as dire as most people thought in the months directly after 9/11. International terrorists are trying to attack the U.S. and Western Europe (and their interest around the world), but they're rare and they've become rarer since governments started counterattacking and arresting terrorists before they strike. It's impossible to quanitfy the risk in any meaningful sense, but we can look back at the previous decades and see the trends. Internationl terrorism happens, but it's much less common than conventional crime.]]> None of this discussion is meant to belittle or deny the risks - it's just to put them into perspective. In 2001, 3,029 people died in the U.S. from terrorism (the 9/11 attacks). During that same year, 156,005 people died from lung cancer, 71,252 from diabetes, 41,967 from motor vehicle accidents, and 3,433 from malnutrition. Consider what we're willing to spend per year to cure diabetes or increase automobile safety, and compare that with the $34 billion we're spending to combat terrorism. Te response to the terrorism threat has not been commensurate with the risk.
The problem lies in the fact that the threat - the potential damage -is enormous. Security is all about trade-offs, but when the stakes are considered infinitely high, the whole equation gets thrown out of kilter. In the frightened aftermath of 9/11, people said things like: "The budget for homeland security should be infinite. The trade-offs we need to make should be extreme. There's no room for failure." It was easy to succumb to hysteria and scare-mongering and to overreact to the terrorist threat. In fact, one of the primary goals of terrorism is to create irrational terror far in excess of the actual risks. But this kind of talk is meaningless. When a country allocates an infinite budget to homeland security, the terrorists really have won.
... This is a precarious position to take politically, which is why I believe most politicians have steered clear of it. It's safe for a political leader to make direct predictions about the future and recommend an extreme course of action. If another terrorist attack happens, then she can say that the event proved her right. And if nothing happens, she can claim that her security program was a success. (And that it keeps away the vicious purple dragons, too.) A politician is on shaking ground when he says, "Don't worry; it's not that bad." He looks ineffectual compared to his colleagues who are trying to do something to make us safer (even if the "something" doesn't really make us safer); worse, he looks as if he doesn't care about his constituents. And if another attack happens, he looks even worse. The public's difficulty in assessing risks plays into this. Many people have been frightened into believing that terrorism is a far greater risks than it is. All sorts of incidents are immediately assumed to be terrorism, even though investigations prove other causes. And when the next terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil, people, politicians, and the press will all exaggerate the risks of terrorism even more.]]>
My Palm Tungsten T3 (2003-2005) passed away on Sunday evening. The Tungsten T3 is survived by its owner, who was grief stricken when he found it drowned to death in the pocket of the pants he had just washed. Always loyal, the Tungsten served his owner well in reminding him about important bills and meetings in the future. May the Palm live a better life in the next world than the one he faced in this one. ]]>
Ok. I'm watching Carson Daly. It's definitely time to turn off the TV and go to bed.
]]>Also, I upgraded Moveable Type (must....not...drown...in...comment spam...<gasp>), so if there are any hiccups, just let me know.
]]>Isn't it just great when life imitates G.I. Joes?
]]>This is in response to an article on the Page 1 but since you guys on page 2 are cooler maybe you will listen. I had decided to let it go but it was brought to my attention again by a friend. This article http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1930076 where Merril Hoge puts Johnny Unitas at the bottom of his top 10 list of QB's of all time? WTF! Fire him. Yesterday. Who is he sleeping with to hang around there? I mean Linda Cohn is too hot for him so it can't be her and I know Suzie Kolber is beating all the guys off with a stick. It's madness I say! Madness! I'm sorry, but I am glutton for punishment: Since some of players on Hoge's lists didn't even make the overall list, who the hell else is on it?
Aside from the horrific image of Merril Hoge and Suzie Kolber sleeping together, I couldn't agree more. :)
]]>When I look at this, it's hard for me not to believe that Merril Hoge doesn't know a fucking thing about football. He has Johnny Unitas ranked as the 10th best quarterback ever. Now, maybe I am slightly biased in this matter, but seeing as how Unitas next lowest rating was 4th, I don't think this is the case. Three of picks didn't even make the consensus list, but they are better than the guy holding the record for most consecutive games with a TD pass? I don't think so. Merril Hoge can't even spell "Unitas"!
]]>]]> I'm considering a response along the following:Dear Friend,
Congratulations! You recently registered to vote and you have taken the first step in being an active participant in the election process. Former President Ronald Regan understood this when he said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day, we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
This election is about our future. A future focused on:
Tax relief so hard working families can keep more of what they can keep more of what they earn, Fighting and winning the war on terror, and High standards and real accountability in education. We in the Republican Party strongly believe in everyone's right to participate in our country's electoral process. We urge you to consider voting Republican. Please take time to visit our website at www.pagop.org.
Sincerely, The Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania
This election is about our future. Your vision of the future is also focused on: