Dupont Circle:
20-something woman: " . . .and when she asked him if he is gay or metro."
40-something woman: "Metrosexual, hmpf, in my day we called that 'euro-trash.'"
European man: "What is 'euro-trash,' like French?"
Friday, January 27, 2006
Heard in DC
Metro, near Eastern Market:
Two teenage boys sitting next to each other in quietly. Kid #1 is intently studying a piece of paper. Finally, Kid #2 breaks the silence:
Kid #2: "Dude, she's totally your cousin."
Kid #1: "Nah. No she ain't."
Kid #2: "Dude. Totally...look. You totally hooked up with your cousin." [Draws imaginary lines on the piece of paper, which appears to be some kind of family tree.]
Kid #1: [Pause] "Yeah, well, all I'm sayin' is that I ain't never seen her at no family reunion."
Kid #2: "Yeah...whatever."
Two teenage boys sitting next to each other in quietly. Kid #1 is intently studying a piece of paper. Finally, Kid #2 breaks the silence:
Kid #2: "Dude, she's totally your cousin."
Kid #1: "Nah. No she ain't."
Kid #2: "Dude. Totally...look. You totally hooked up with your cousin." [Draws imaginary lines on the piece of paper, which appears to be some kind of family tree.]
Kid #1: [Pause] "Yeah, well, all I'm sayin' is that I ain't never seen her at no family reunion."
Kid #2: "Yeah...whatever."
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Is it discrimination to suggest that black people run faster than non-black people?
I don't have a long post on this one. Just thought I might ask the question after watching the USC/Texas game. I am about the size of the Texas QB (who is black), but have no chance to run as fast as him. Taking a look at college football overall or any other sport it appears to me that black people on average run faster than almost anyone. I know there are exceptions to this rule, but I would have to guess it still should hold true if you tested my theory.
Back to my question. Even if true or not, is what I assume discrimination or racist?
Back to my question. Even if true or not, is what I assume discrimination or racist?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
I think Meatloaf is gay
So what exactly iS it that Meat Loaf (the singer, not the food) won't do for love? Because if I had a girl ready to give me some lovin' I'd do just about anything.
They just didn't have it
My girlfriend: "Honey, I'm sorry the 49ers were so bad this year."
Me: "Don't be. After all, it's not your fault they can't pass, catch, run, block, or tackle."
Me: "Don't be. After all, it's not your fault they can't pass, catch, run, block, or tackle."
What Strawberry could have been
"The saddest thing in the world is wasted talent." -- Robert DeNiro, "A Bronx Tale"
Had you asked me back in the late-1980s, the above passage is what I would have expected to write about Strawberry five years after his retirement. Growing up a Braves fan during that time, I KNEW Strawberry would go down as one of the greats of all time and cause heartbreak for my team. I didn't think this, I was absolutely certain of it. By now, of course, we all know the real truth to be completely different. Strawberry obviously did not, and never will, make the Hall of Fame (unless it's as an example to others) Back then, I, and everyone else, knew Straw had a drug problem, but didn't give a damn. This attitude, however unhealthy, still sticks with many of us baseball fans today. We as fans are total hypocrites when it comes to athletes and their off-field activities. Nonetheless, it was only after leaving the Mets that Strawberry began to have huge problems. Take a look at these career numbers:
8 years with the Mets: .262, 252 HR, 733 RBI, 191 SB
9 years with the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees: .248, 83 HR, 267 RBI, 30 SB
The pressure of playing in New York affects all players. Most poorly, but some positively. There is zero doubt in my mind that Strawberry benefited tremendously from the pressure of playing there. It kept him focused and attentive. The moment he cashed in and went back to his laid-back boyhood home of Los Angeles, all his problems came to the forefront and affected his play. Some people think that drugs wrecked Straw's career. They certainly didn't help, but leaving New York was what really hurt him. Drug problems would have caught up to him eventually (they certainly did when he was a Yankee), but not, I suspect, before he had built up a healthy Hall of Fame resume, and maybe added some more jewelry to accompany his 1986 World Championship ring.
No athlete has wasted so much talent quite like Darryl Strawberry did. Here are some other examples ...
Len Bias - There's something about the power forward position in the NBA, and I don't know what it is. Bias, Roy Tarpley, Shawn Kemp, Derrick Coleman and Chris Webber were arguably the most gifted "fours" to be drafted over the last 20 years. Any one of them could have been the greatest power forward of all time. Coleman and Webber didn't want it bad enough, but at least they stayed clean, carved out solid careers and didn't ruin anyone's life along the way. Kemp and Tarpley blew it all with drugs, but at least they made some cash and had some fun. And at least they're still alive. Not so with Len Bias.
Dwight Gooden - Gooden's story isn't as sad as Strawberry's, for a couple reasons. His drug issues are, of course, well-documented. But what we didn't know back then was that he was pretty much washed up by 1990, his arm dead from too much work at too young an age. He threw 744 major league innings by the time he was 22. Managers today would be fired on the spot for that sort of thing. Moreover, Doc never turned his back on his team. He never quit on the Mets. If anything, the Mets failed him by abusing his arm and shortening his career.
Mike Tyson - Could have ruled the heavyweight division for 15 years. Instead, like many athletes who come from absolutely nothing, Tyson got too fat on the newfound good life. Too much money, too many women, too many suckups who told him that he was great just the way he was and didn't need to train any harder for that Douglas bum. He lost his belt, which SHOULD have been the wakeup call he needed to get back on track. But instead, he took out his anger on a young woman named Deseree Washington, and that was that.
These are my "favorite" examples; please feel free to post some of yours as a comment.
Darryl Strawberry was recently elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, and I couldn't be more proud of him. Darryl was the straw that stirred the Mets for 14 years, leading the boys from Queens to four World Championships; in 1986, 1989, 1990 and 1993. He was the team's all-time home run leader, with 503, and retired fourth on the all-time list with 621.
Had you asked me back in the late-1980s, the above passage is what I would have expected to write about Strawberry five years after his retirement. Growing up a Braves fan during that time, I KNEW Strawberry would go down as one of the greats of all time and cause heartbreak for my team. I didn't think this, I was absolutely certain of it. By now, of course, we all know the real truth to be completely different. Strawberry obviously did not, and never will, make the Hall of Fame (unless it's as an example to others) Back then, I, and everyone else, knew Straw had a drug problem, but didn't give a damn. This attitude, however unhealthy, still sticks with many of us baseball fans today. We as fans are total hypocrites when it comes to athletes and their off-field activities. Nonetheless, it was only after leaving the Mets that Strawberry began to have huge problems. Take a look at these career numbers:
8 years with the Mets: .262, 252 HR, 733 RBI, 191 SB
9 years with the Dodgers, Giants and Yankees: .248, 83 HR, 267 RBI, 30 SB
The pressure of playing in New York affects all players. Most poorly, but some positively. There is zero doubt in my mind that Strawberry benefited tremendously from the pressure of playing there. It kept him focused and attentive. The moment he cashed in and went back to his laid-back boyhood home of Los Angeles, all his problems came to the forefront and affected his play. Some people think that drugs wrecked Straw's career. They certainly didn't help, but leaving New York was what really hurt him. Drug problems would have caught up to him eventually (they certainly did when he was a Yankee), but not, I suspect, before he had built up a healthy Hall of Fame resume, and maybe added some more jewelry to accompany his 1986 World Championship ring.
No athlete has wasted so much talent quite like Darryl Strawberry did. Here are some other examples ...
Len Bias - There's something about the power forward position in the NBA, and I don't know what it is. Bias, Roy Tarpley, Shawn Kemp, Derrick Coleman and Chris Webber were arguably the most gifted "fours" to be drafted over the last 20 years. Any one of them could have been the greatest power forward of all time. Coleman and Webber didn't want it bad enough, but at least they stayed clean, carved out solid careers and didn't ruin anyone's life along the way. Kemp and Tarpley blew it all with drugs, but at least they made some cash and had some fun. And at least they're still alive. Not so with Len Bias.
Dwight Gooden - Gooden's story isn't as sad as Strawberry's, for a couple reasons. His drug issues are, of course, well-documented. But what we didn't know back then was that he was pretty much washed up by 1990, his arm dead from too much work at too young an age. He threw 744 major league innings by the time he was 22. Managers today would be fired on the spot for that sort of thing. Moreover, Doc never turned his back on his team. He never quit on the Mets. If anything, the Mets failed him by abusing his arm and shortening his career.
Mike Tyson - Could have ruled the heavyweight division for 15 years. Instead, like many athletes who come from absolutely nothing, Tyson got too fat on the newfound good life. Too much money, too many women, too many suckups who told him that he was great just the way he was and didn't need to train any harder for that Douglas bum. He lost his belt, which SHOULD have been the wakeup call he needed to get back on track. But instead, he took out his anger on a young woman named Deseree Washington, and that was that.
These are my "favorite" examples; please feel free to post some of yours as a comment.
What is up with Jackson?
There's a movement afoot to place Ronald Reagan on our currency. I have no problems with it, however, what has me perturbed is the fact that the talk is over replacing Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill.
There's a time and place for debating the appropriateness of putting Reagan on our currency, and it's not here or now. The bigger issue is who he (or anyone) would be replacing. Alexander Hamilton was a financial genius without whose help the fledgling United States might easily have collapsed.
There is, however, a man on our currency who accomplished all of the following dubious achievements:
* Shut down the Bank of the United States.
* Broke various and sundry treaties with the Indian tribes.
* Put forth a concept of states' rights that was so reactionary that it emboldened the South to revolt years later.
* Was the first and, thankfully, only President to openly and brazenly defy an order of the Supreme Court.
* Refused to enforce federal law when it suited him.
* As a general, achieved his most notable victory in a war a mere 6 weeks AFTER a peace treaty had been signed, thus ending said war.
Will someone please explain to me why it is that Andrew Jackson remains on our currency?
According to noted hole-digger Alex Miller, archaeologists frequently learn a great deal about civilizations based upon the currency they produce. 10,000 years from now (or whatever), I'm not entirely sure I want Andrew Jackson held up as a model representative of our country. Jackson consistently gets credit for being one of the great early leaders of our country. Why? I've yet to hear this question answered in a satisfactory manner.
Lest you believe this is some pro-Reagan crusade, I'm willing to be bipartisan about this. Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, but more or less a disaster as President. Put Reagan on the $50, and put Franklin D. Roosevelt on the $20. Sure, his ideas about governmental spending helped get us the dependency system we have today, but he did accomplish a lot of very valuable things and all but the most rock-ribbed conservative would acknowledge him as one of our greatest presidents. If not Roosevelt, then Cleveland or Truman. Whatever it takes to get some bipartisanship on this issue.
There's a time and place for debating the appropriateness of putting Reagan on our currency, and it's not here or now. The bigger issue is who he (or anyone) would be replacing. Alexander Hamilton was a financial genius without whose help the fledgling United States might easily have collapsed.
There is, however, a man on our currency who accomplished all of the following dubious achievements:
* Shut down the Bank of the United States.
* Broke various and sundry treaties with the Indian tribes.
* Put forth a concept of states' rights that was so reactionary that it emboldened the South to revolt years later.
* Was the first and, thankfully, only President to openly and brazenly defy an order of the Supreme Court.
* Refused to enforce federal law when it suited him.
* As a general, achieved his most notable victory in a war a mere 6 weeks AFTER a peace treaty had been signed, thus ending said war.
Will someone please explain to me why it is that Andrew Jackson remains on our currency?
According to noted hole-digger Alex Miller, archaeologists frequently learn a great deal about civilizations based upon the currency they produce. 10,000 years from now (or whatever), I'm not entirely sure I want Andrew Jackson held up as a model representative of our country. Jackson consistently gets credit for being one of the great early leaders of our country. Why? I've yet to hear this question answered in a satisfactory manner.
Lest you believe this is some pro-Reagan crusade, I'm willing to be bipartisan about this. Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, but more or less a disaster as President. Put Reagan on the $50, and put Franklin D. Roosevelt on the $20. Sure, his ideas about governmental spending helped get us the dependency system we have today, but he did accomplish a lot of very valuable things and all but the most rock-ribbed conservative would acknowledge him as one of our greatest presidents. If not Roosevelt, then Cleveland or Truman. Whatever it takes to get some bipartisanship on this issue.
"Liberal vs. Right-wing"
This is one of those subtle tricks of language that people on the left side of the political spectrum like to use. “Right-wing” sounds more threatening than “conservative”. People on the right are “right-wing”. People on the left are “liberal”. It’s conservative vs. liberal, or right-wing vs. left-wing. Make a choice! Speaking of which, the other one that drives me nuts is pro-life vs. pro-choice. Most pro-lifers favor the death penalty and military action. That is, most pro-lifers are big fans of death on a large scale. Proponents of abortion on demand are no better: the “choice” of the prospective father of the child, and the parents of the mother carrying the baby are thoroughly irrelevant. Don’t even bother them with the “choice” of the unborn child; only one “choice” matters. Look, it’s pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion. Call it like it is, folks. What’s wrong with illustrating your position on the issue with clarity?
Ten Reasons Why I hate NFL Announcing
I love the NFL. You love the NFL. We all love the NFL. However, the popularity of the league has come with a cost; the announcing is generally terrible. Watch a game sometime, and write down the number of asinine stats, stories, quotes, comments and camera angles. You'll have a list of 20 or 30 things by the end of the game.
It's not a terrible thing, of course. Every major sport has something about it that bothers fans. Football has the announcers. Basketball has the officiating. Baseball has the players union. NASCAR has other fans. Hockey has...well, no one gives a damn about hockey anymore, so I guess there's nothing to be upset about. So out of all those things, I'd probably take idiot announcers over those other fundamental problems.
Of course, that doesn't mean I can't get my fair share of griping in. So, without further ado, these are the 10 things I hate most about NFL announcing (in no particular order).
10. Homer announcers and studio hosts - I once went on a cross country killing spree after listening to Chris Berman talking about "circling the wagons" one too many times. I wore a gas station attendant's head as a hat through three states. Okay, maybe I just dropped a couple F-bombs and hit the mute button. Either way, I wasn't happy.
However, there have been announcers that have been just as bad. When Steve Tasker was in the booth, he was a shameless homer for the Bills. In his defense, at least he played for the team, unlike Berman. Joe Namath wasn't so much a homer as he was blatantly jealous of any QB better than he was (i.e. Dan Marino, John Elway, Joe Montana). And, to be perfectly fair, a lot of people around here thought Bob Trumpy had it in for the Bills. They might have had a point; I don't think I ever heard Bob say a good word about Jim Kelly.
(By the way, in no possible way does this apply to Michael Irvin talking about "THE U!")
9. Endless and meaningless stats - Actually, these don't bother me so much, but they drive my one of my friends. And since his complaining lessens my football experience, they make the list. I'd talk more about this, but it ties into another one below, as you'll see shortly.
8. Overdramatization - There are two forms of this. The first is Kevin Harlan's voice. Every word is enunciated to the utmost degree, every syllable pronounced as loud and clear as humanly possible. If Kevin sent you an instant message, I can guarantee it would be in ALL CAPS. WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!
The second, and perhaps more egregious, is Brent Musberger. Yes, I know, Brent does college football, not the pros, but it's my list, so there. Listen to Brent sometime; he's so bad you can't help but laugh. Here's a garden variety Musberger quote: "and this is an absolutely crucial third down for the Ohio State Buckeyes. They have got to convert here or they're in big trouble." Brent could bust out this line at any time. It could be two minutes remaining with OSU down 4, or it could be midway through the first quarter of a scoreless game. It matters not at all to him.
7. Usage of terms that have no meaning whatsoever in the real world - Has your boss ever told you, in a performance review, that you need a greater "sense of urgency"? Have you been asked on a daily basis how you're "overcoming adversity"? If Mel Kiper comes onto ESPN and compliments a guy by saying he's "a Football Player", should you take it well if a co-worker comes up to you and says "you're an Accountant"?
6. Verbal fellatio - Just once, I'd love to hear an announcer shout, "what on earth was Favre thinking? That is an absolute bonehead play by Brett Favre, and he should know better." There is a list of players (almost exclusively quarterbacks) that can do absolutely no wrong whatsoever. Favre tops the list, followed closely by Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb are on there too, which at least strikes a blow for racial harmony. At every possible opportunity, an announcer will gush over their "brilliant leadership" or "fantastic athleticism". Coaches get this too. At least they do if their last name rhymes with "Elichick".
5. Failure to call a spade a spade - It's very rare that an announcer will call a bad team bad, or a bad player bad. You may hear them say things like "Reggie Howard has struggled in coverage this year", when the truth is closer to, "Reggie Howard has been toasted, scorched, burned, blackened, flame-broiled, and roasted on a spit by opposing receivers this year." I'm not saying they have to be mean-spirited, but for God's sake, it's not kindergarten. These guys are pros, and if they stink, say so. I'll note that studio hosts are much less reluctant to do this than the game announcers.
4. Rhetorical questions - "You wanna talk about a guy who's motivated?"
Um, I don't know, do I?
"You wanna talk about a guy who's playing his heart out right now?"
Sure, I guess.
"Michael Strahan is absolutely playing his heart out right now."
Fine. Couldn't you have skipped the previous two questions and said exactly that?
3. Meaningless cliches and obvious generalities - I mind these less coming from coaches, because most coaches don't want to talk about their game plan any more than they have to. But we all know that the team that runs the most effectively usually wins. We all know that the team that commits fewer turnovers usually wins. I actually caught an announcer the other day saying, "well, they just win games by outscoring the other team." Huh, well I'll be damned. That's a fascinating concept.
2. Tony Siragusa - Either be a sideline reporter or a third man in the booth. Not both. Tony is a sideline reporter who butts into conversations between Dick Stockton and Daryl Johnston whenever the mood strikes him, which is often. The only reason for that I can think of is that Dick and Daryl told the FOX guys they were quitting if they had to share the rather small announcer's box with Tony's fat ass. The guy adds nothing but volume to the proceedings and seems primarily concerned with just getting as much air time as humanly possible. It's gotten to the point that I won't watch a game that he's announcing unless it's a REALLY good game.
1. Confusion of cause and effect - This has recently become my number one pet peeve. Here's an example of what I mean: after a turnover, Troy Aikman said, "when you're a bad team, things like that just seem to happen." While the statement itself is technically true, the meaning behind it is totally wrong. There's not some magic power that makes bad teams fumble more; they're a bad team BECAUSE they fumble a lot.
It's wonderful when you see some sort of stat that confuses cause and effect and looks really authoritative, something like "the Jaguars are 23-6 when Fred Taylor rushes 25 or more times". This implies that Jack Del Rio could hand it to Fred the first 25 plays of the game, and significantly increase his chances of winning. In fact, if the Jags are playing well, they're probably handing the ball off more because they're ahead.
It's not a terrible thing, of course. Every major sport has something about it that bothers fans. Football has the announcers. Basketball has the officiating. Baseball has the players union. NASCAR has other fans. Hockey has...well, no one gives a damn about hockey anymore, so I guess there's nothing to be upset about. So out of all those things, I'd probably take idiot announcers over those other fundamental problems.
Of course, that doesn't mean I can't get my fair share of griping in. So, without further ado, these are the 10 things I hate most about NFL announcing (in no particular order).
10. Homer announcers and studio hosts - I once went on a cross country killing spree after listening to Chris Berman talking about "circling the wagons" one too many times. I wore a gas station attendant's head as a hat through three states. Okay, maybe I just dropped a couple F-bombs and hit the mute button. Either way, I wasn't happy.
However, there have been announcers that have been just as bad. When Steve Tasker was in the booth, he was a shameless homer for the Bills. In his defense, at least he played for the team, unlike Berman. Joe Namath wasn't so much a homer as he was blatantly jealous of any QB better than he was (i.e. Dan Marino, John Elway, Joe Montana). And, to be perfectly fair, a lot of people around here thought Bob Trumpy had it in for the Bills. They might have had a point; I don't think I ever heard Bob say a good word about Jim Kelly.
(By the way, in no possible way does this apply to Michael Irvin talking about "THE U!")
9. Endless and meaningless stats - Actually, these don't bother me so much, but they drive my one of my friends. And since his complaining lessens my football experience, they make the list. I'd talk more about this, but it ties into another one below, as you'll see shortly.
8. Overdramatization - There are two forms of this. The first is Kevin Harlan's voice. Every word is enunciated to the utmost degree, every syllable pronounced as loud and clear as humanly possible. If Kevin sent you an instant message, I can guarantee it would be in ALL CAPS. WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!
The second, and perhaps more egregious, is Brent Musberger. Yes, I know, Brent does college football, not the pros, but it's my list, so there. Listen to Brent sometime; he's so bad you can't help but laugh. Here's a garden variety Musberger quote: "and this is an absolutely crucial third down for the Ohio State Buckeyes. They have got to convert here or they're in big trouble." Brent could bust out this line at any time. It could be two minutes remaining with OSU down 4, or it could be midway through the first quarter of a scoreless game. It matters not at all to him.
7. Usage of terms that have no meaning whatsoever in the real world - Has your boss ever told you, in a performance review, that you need a greater "sense of urgency"? Have you been asked on a daily basis how you're "overcoming adversity"? If Mel Kiper comes onto ESPN and compliments a guy by saying he's "a Football Player", should you take it well if a co-worker comes up to you and says "you're an Accountant"?
6. Verbal fellatio - Just once, I'd love to hear an announcer shout, "what on earth was Favre thinking? That is an absolute bonehead play by Brett Favre, and he should know better." There is a list of players (almost exclusively quarterbacks) that can do absolutely no wrong whatsoever. Favre tops the list, followed closely by Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb are on there too, which at least strikes a blow for racial harmony. At every possible opportunity, an announcer will gush over their "brilliant leadership" or "fantastic athleticism". Coaches get this too. At least they do if their last name rhymes with "Elichick".
5. Failure to call a spade a spade - It's very rare that an announcer will call a bad team bad, or a bad player bad. You may hear them say things like "Reggie Howard has struggled in coverage this year", when the truth is closer to, "Reggie Howard has been toasted, scorched, burned, blackened, flame-broiled, and roasted on a spit by opposing receivers this year." I'm not saying they have to be mean-spirited, but for God's sake, it's not kindergarten. These guys are pros, and if they stink, say so. I'll note that studio hosts are much less reluctant to do this than the game announcers.
4. Rhetorical questions - "You wanna talk about a guy who's motivated?"
Um, I don't know, do I?
"You wanna talk about a guy who's playing his heart out right now?"
Sure, I guess.
"Michael Strahan is absolutely playing his heart out right now."
Fine. Couldn't you have skipped the previous two questions and said exactly that?
3. Meaningless cliches and obvious generalities - I mind these less coming from coaches, because most coaches don't want to talk about their game plan any more than they have to. But we all know that the team that runs the most effectively usually wins. We all know that the team that commits fewer turnovers usually wins. I actually caught an announcer the other day saying, "well, they just win games by outscoring the other team." Huh, well I'll be damned. That's a fascinating concept.
2. Tony Siragusa - Either be a sideline reporter or a third man in the booth. Not both. Tony is a sideline reporter who butts into conversations between Dick Stockton and Daryl Johnston whenever the mood strikes him, which is often. The only reason for that I can think of is that Dick and Daryl told the FOX guys they were quitting if they had to share the rather small announcer's box with Tony's fat ass. The guy adds nothing but volume to the proceedings and seems primarily concerned with just getting as much air time as humanly possible. It's gotten to the point that I won't watch a game that he's announcing unless it's a REALLY good game.
1. Confusion of cause and effect - This has recently become my number one pet peeve. Here's an example of what I mean: after a turnover, Troy Aikman said, "when you're a bad team, things like that just seem to happen." While the statement itself is technically true, the meaning behind it is totally wrong. There's not some magic power that makes bad teams fumble more; they're a bad team BECAUSE they fumble a lot.
It's wonderful when you see some sort of stat that confuses cause and effect and looks really authoritative, something like "the Jaguars are 23-6 when Fred Taylor rushes 25 or more times". This implies that Jack Del Rio could hand it to Fred the first 25 plays of the game, and significantly increase his chances of winning. In fact, if the Jags are playing well, they're probably handing the ball off more because they're ahead.
The Braves Report Card
Liked the Estrada trade; Oscar Villareal has a chance to be a contributor, and Estrada was nothing special behind the plate, but the Edgar Renteria swap will hurt. The Braves are paying roughly 60% of the remainder of his deal, which takes him from “outrageously overpriced” to merely “overpriced”. The cult of personality that surrounds Renteria is amazing. His defense was atrocious last year, and I refuse to believe that it’s entirely the Boston media’s fault. Plus, he’s not the hitter conventional wisdom seems to think. People think he merely struggled the last two years, when in fact his career stats are pretty darn close to what he did the last two seasons, and given his supposed age of 30 (I’ve always believed Renteria’s older than that, though I freely admit I have no proof to back that up), it’s not likely that he’s going to suddenly get better. For this, they gave up a top 10 prospect in Andy Marte. They’ve also lost Kyle Farnsworth, Julio Franco and Rafael Furcal, and aside from the shaky Renteria trade, haven’t done much to replace them. Meanwhile, their chief rivals, the Mets, have advanced leaps and bounds.
I give them a D- so far.
I give them a D- so far.
Here is a thought
You know how people love to stick supposedly inspirational quotes in their signature, from inspirational-like people, usually some dead musician or marginally talented writer like Maya Angelou or whoever? Well, here's my new idea: every day, have a different quote in your signature line from a different dictator in history. Start with King Herod, then work your way forward through history and see if you can get all the way to Saddam Hussein before getting a talking-to from friends and/or co-workers.
Holidays and Travel
So, I have been away from my blog for awhile. Mostly because of the holiday season and travel. I'll be updating on a semi-regular basis so don't worry about the past month or so. If you need a better reason why I wasn't updating just think of it was a relapse into my old drinking habits with a dash of sex, drugs, and rock & roll thrown in on the side.
A Return of "Futurama"?
Thats right, with the rebirth of "Family Guy" Fox is considering a return of "Futurama". I am not the biggest fan, but who didn't like the acholic robot named Bender?
Dating Personality Test
|
Average American Test
| You Are 80% "Average American" |
 You are average because you wouldn't pay to go in space. You are not average since you don't think affirmative action is necessary. |
Political Test Score
| You are a Social Moderate (56% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (73% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)