Great video...
(h/t: Sarah)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
I wish the NBA would get their balls off my chin
I am cursed with a fate I would not wish upon my worst enemy. I am a fan of the Minnesota Timberwolves.
Since the Timberwolves have never had any on-court success, or really anything resembling on-court competence, there are really only one day that a T-Wolves fan can look forward to, NBA Draft lottery day.
It is true that throughout their history the T-Wolves have been their own worst enemy. Inexplicable signings, questionable trades, and downright horrific draft picks (Paul Grant, anyone?) We let Chauncey Billups go and aquired Marko Jaric. We drafted William Avery and Ndudi Ebi. I could go on but decorum prohibits me from doing so.
However, in addition to gross incompetence the Timberwolves have not had any luck. We are cursed by the ping pong ball. Not one time in their history have the Timberwolves had any fortune in the draft lottery. If there were 4 consensus quality players in the draft, the Timberwolves would get the 5th pick. If there were 3 top players, rest assured, your Minnesota Timberwolves would have the 4th slot.
It was because of the ping pong ball that the Timberwolves drafted Christian Laettner instead of Shaquille O'Neal. I need not say more.
This year is no different. With two clear cut top choices in the draft in Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley, and one of those being a near perfect fit for our perpetual rebuilding project (Rose), the scene was set for fate to come in and kick us in the nads once again. She did not disappoint. The kick was swift and hard. The Timberwolves are picking third in this year's draft.
I was hoping that there would be some 'buzz' generated by getting one of the top two picks and all summer long throughout the Twin Cities we would hear the common refrain, "Who's it gonna be, Rose or Beasley?"
We will not be having those conversations, or likely any conversations for that matter regarding the draft. When the question arises as to who one thinks the Timberwolves should draft, rather than a spirited Beasley-Rose debate, we will be forced to utter things like, "I don't know, that one Italian guy, I guess."
This is hardly the recipe for revitalizing interest in a languishing franchise. Thanks a lot ping pong balls.
That One Italian Guy
Since the Timberwolves have never had any on-court success, or really anything resembling on-court competence, there are really only one day that a T-Wolves fan can look forward to, NBA Draft lottery day.
It is true that throughout their history the T-Wolves have been their own worst enemy. Inexplicable signings, questionable trades, and downright horrific draft picks (Paul Grant, anyone?) We let Chauncey Billups go and aquired Marko Jaric. We drafted William Avery and Ndudi Ebi. I could go on but decorum prohibits me from doing so.
However, in addition to gross incompetence the Timberwolves have not had any luck. We are cursed by the ping pong ball. Not one time in their history have the Timberwolves had any fortune in the draft lottery. If there were 4 consensus quality players in the draft, the Timberwolves would get the 5th pick. If there were 3 top players, rest assured, your Minnesota Timberwolves would have the 4th slot.
It was because of the ping pong ball that the Timberwolves drafted Christian Laettner instead of Shaquille O'Neal. I need not say more.
This year is no different. With two clear cut top choices in the draft in Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley, and one of those being a near perfect fit for our perpetual rebuilding project (Rose), the scene was set for fate to come in and kick us in the nads once again. She did not disappoint. The kick was swift and hard. The Timberwolves are picking third in this year's draft.
I was hoping that there would be some 'buzz' generated by getting one of the top two picks and all summer long throughout the Twin Cities we would hear the common refrain, "Who's it gonna be, Rose or Beasley?"
We will not be having those conversations, or likely any conversations for that matter regarding the draft. When the question arises as to who one thinks the Timberwolves should draft, rather than a spirited Beasley-Rose debate, we will be forced to utter things like, "I don't know, that one Italian guy, I guess."
This is hardly the recipe for revitalizing interest in a languishing franchise. Thanks a lot ping pong balls.
That One Italian Guy
So, it's either the Italian Guy, some big guy from Stanford, OJ Mayo, or any number of other players not named Rose or Beasley.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Chris Matthews owns Kevin James on Hardball
Sometimes all you need to do with those who you disagree with politically is give them a microphone and let them do the rest.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Where I have been
I am quite sure that I don't have anything that resembles a 'readership' so the recent lack of posting on the 'ol blog has probably been noticed by few and lamented by less.
Still I just wanted to say that I am still here and alive but I have been too busy and too distracted to post for a couple of reasons.
First, I have been through a very grueling finals period. My last one is today and then I can put this hellish year behind me.
Second, and much more importantly, my dog was diagnosed with cancer two weeks ago. Last night, just after midnight, she passed away. She was scheduled to be put to sleep on Friday but her health declined very rapidly and last night she breathed her last.
I could write a long post about Bailey and how much she meant to me, how much I loved her. I could write of her kind soul and her sweet disposition. She wasn't the brightest dog, but she was mine.
I could write of these things but I won't. I'll keep them for me.
Back when I can, folks.
Peace.
Still I just wanted to say that I am still here and alive but I have been too busy and too distracted to post for a couple of reasons.
First, I have been through a very grueling finals period. My last one is today and then I can put this hellish year behind me.
Second, and much more importantly, my dog was diagnosed with cancer two weeks ago. Last night, just after midnight, she passed away. She was scheduled to be put to sleep on Friday but her health declined very rapidly and last night she breathed her last.
I could write a long post about Bailey and how much she meant to me, how much I loved her. I could write of her kind soul and her sweet disposition. She wasn't the brightest dog, but she was mine.
I could write of these things but I won't. I'll keep them for me.
Back when I can, folks.
Peace.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Two Questions
I have two questions, and I am quite sure neither of them have an answer.
1) Why does this website exist?
2) Why did I spend approximately 6 minutes of my day looking through its archives?
1) Why does this website exist?
2) Why did I spend approximately 6 minutes of my day looking through its archives?
Prince at Coachella
He killed it. And he played Radiohead's "Creep."
My reaction: ohmygodhowfuckingcoolisthatprinceplayedatcoachellaandhecoveredfreakingradioheadohmygoditotallywishiwastherei'mgoingnextyeari'mtellingyourightnowidon'ticareiamfuckinggoing!"
I had a friend who went to Coachella last year and had a blast. If I wasn't a student, or so poor, or so old, I would love to go.
Photo Courtesy of Pitchfork (Please, don't sue me)
My reaction: ohmygodhowfuckingcoolisthatprinceplayedatcoachellaandhecoveredfreakingradioheadohmygoditotallywishiwastherei'mgoingnextyeari'mtellingyourightnowidon'ticareiamfuckinggoing!"
I had a friend who went to Coachella last year and had a blast. If I wasn't a student, or so poor, or so old, I would love to go.
Photo Courtesy of Pitchfork (Please, don't sue me)
Paul Krugman
His recent column really bugged me, let's break it down:
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
I am so tired of this rhetoric portraying those support Barack Obama not as "supporters", but as "followers." The only way the Clinton camp can explain the enthusiasm that Obama has generated is by either implying, or explicitly saying, that we have all been duped by a charming and charismatic snake-oil salesman who is devoid of experience or solid policies. Bullshit. Just because the other candidate can't generate any enthusiasm doesn't mean there rest of us have joined a cult. There is nothing "magical" about him. Unless you count a candidate of intelligence, integrity, and optimism as "magical."
I am also quite sure that nobody suggested that Obama would "sweep easily" to anything or have a "huge victory." It's a long battle and every swing state is essential. This is WHY WE ARE SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
A) I am not sure this is true. B) It's difficult to get your message out to the white working class when their attention is diverted to such important issues as Reverand Wright and comments about "bitterness"
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
I know, this is a big concern for the general election. Should he get the nomination, Obama is going to have a tough time winning big states like California and New York.
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security
Even if you buy into the sweeping generalization that Obama supporters lie any blame as "all Hillary's fault" I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that when Clinton says that she and John McCain "would be ready on day one" that that is hurting the democratic party.
And yes, there is a reason why many of us want Hillary to go away. It has to do with delegates toward the nomination and determining the nominee. I believe it's called "math."
As far as Krugman's comments on negative ads, I don't buy the "well yes Clinton has been negative but she isn't as negative as the Republicans have been" argument. You see, Mr. Krugman, this is precisely why Barack Obama has such an appeal. He represents a conscious decision to turn away from politics as usual. It's called "change." I think you called it "magic."
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?)
Waiting for an opportunity to get people who think like you out of the way of American politics.
Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
She has also been able to stay in the race because of her extreme hubris and her inability to understand what happened along the way to her preordination as the monarch of the country.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Bullshit.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
More bullshit.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
Yep, like this guy.
Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
And Democrats can also portray themselves as being against the disastrous foray into Iraq and against the suppression of civil liberties at home with the Patriot Act. Oh...wait a minute.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
Mr. Krugman, if this is all that you have taken to be as the message of Barack Obama, you just haven't been paying attention.
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
I am so tired of this rhetoric portraying those support Barack Obama not as "supporters", but as "followers." The only way the Clinton camp can explain the enthusiasm that Obama has generated is by either implying, or explicitly saying, that we have all been duped by a charming and charismatic snake-oil salesman who is devoid of experience or solid policies. Bullshit. Just because the other candidate can't generate any enthusiasm doesn't mean there rest of us have joined a cult. There is nothing "magical" about him. Unless you count a candidate of intelligence, integrity, and optimism as "magical."
I am also quite sure that nobody suggested that Obama would "sweep easily" to anything or have a "huge victory." It's a long battle and every swing state is essential. This is WHY WE ARE SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
A) I am not sure this is true. B) It's difficult to get your message out to the white working class when their attention is diverted to such important issues as Reverand Wright and comments about "bitterness"
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
I know, this is a big concern for the general election. Should he get the nomination, Obama is going to have a tough time winning big states like California and New York.
According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.
But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security
Even if you buy into the sweeping generalization that Obama supporters lie any blame as "all Hillary's fault" I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that when Clinton says that she and John McCain "would be ready on day one" that that is hurting the democratic party.
And yes, there is a reason why many of us want Hillary to go away. It has to do with delegates toward the nomination and determining the nominee. I believe it's called "math."
As far as Krugman's comments on negative ads, I don't buy the "well yes Clinton has been negative but she isn't as negative as the Republicans have been" argument. You see, Mr. Krugman, this is precisely why Barack Obama has such an appeal. He represents a conscious decision to turn away from politics as usual. It's called "change." I think you called it "magic."
From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?)
Waiting for an opportunity to get people who think like you out of the way of American politics.
Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.
She has also been able to stay in the race because of her extreme hubris and her inability to understand what happened along the way to her preordination as the monarch of the country.
Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.
Bullshit.
Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.
More bullshit.
No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.
Yep, like this guy.
Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.
They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.
And Democrats can also portray themselves as being against the disastrous foray into Iraq and against the suppression of civil liberties at home with the Patriot Act. Oh...wait a minute.
But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.
Mr. Krugman, if this is all that you have taken to be as the message of Barack Obama, you just haven't been paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
