For the first time since 1994 or something, there will be a Monday night game in Houston. And, unfortunately, I've got a paper to write. I'll still get to watch the game, though, so I'm not bitching.
You know, despite what the Chronicle, ESPN, the NFL, and Madden 2009 seem to think, the Jacksonville-Houston game is not a rivalry. You should hate a rival. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the sister-fuckers. I don't hate the Jags. It's just that we only face Dallas in the preseason (of course, we've faced them twice in the regular season: 29-10 you motherfuckers) and the Titans have historically kicked the Texans' asses. But Jacksonville and Houston are roughly on the same level, so that's apparently a rivalry.
Here's what I think happened: Bob McNair and the NFL were talking about who would be the Texans' rivals. Dallas was a natural, as was Tennessee. But we needed a rival whom we could consistently beat. You know how your first car isn't a Cadillac (unless it's thirty years old)? Well, just as suburban children throughout America get starter cars (mine was my mom's 1994 Honda Accord. I loved that thing.), the Texans got a starter rival - the Jags. The Jags aren't sexy - they're not going to help the Texans get dates with the cool girls - but they're reliable and don't cost much. And, eventually, the Texans will move up to bigger rivals. But, in the meantime, the Jaguars will get them to school and teach them the fundamentals of driving: keep your hands at 10-and-2, don't ride the brake, and establish the run.
Oh, and I missed the first half of the Spurs-Rockets game, but the second half was pretty sweet. Luther Head (Luther motherfucking Head!) carried the team. And BATTIER IS BACK! Oh, be still my heart! Rockets apparently lost to Denver tonight, but things are always good when Shane Battier is back in the lineup.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Maybe we should learn something from this.
It was really quite astounding that the Texans won on Sunday. At least, I know I was astounded - stupefied, even. And, after the game, Kubiak gave the hypothetical game ball to the defense.
Now, the defense "forced" five turnovers. But, as I recall, none of the fumbles (there were three of them) were really caused by the Texans - they just happened because the Browns are shit and the Texans kind of stumbled into the situation. Well, maybe the one caused by Jacques Reeves (!) was really caused by the Texans. But, other than that one and the interceptions (capped off by a truly heads-up play from Weaver), the Texans defense wasn't really any better than in any other week. Mario was fantastic, as always; Dunta returned the starting lineup and was very good; DeMeco continued to be one of the finest MLBs in the league. But, overall, it just didn't seem like the Texans had really improved. They're still a bad team with a shitty defense.
Now, Joe Posnanski wrote about the even worse Chiefs defense. They have created only six (SIX!) sacks all season. Wow. But what's more, it appears that they have been pursuing the Texans' draft strategy over the past six years:
In 2002, with the sixth pick in the draft, the Chiefs took defensive tackle Ryan Sims. In 2004, with their first pick (a second-rounder), they took defensive tackle Junior Siavii. In 2005, with their first pick, they took linebacker Derrick Johnson — and were absolutely thrilled he was available. In 2006, with their first pick, they took defensive end Tamba Hali and talked constantly about his never-stopping motor. This year, with the fifth pick overall, they took defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey.
Of course, the Texans haven't made the same terrible organizational choices that the Chiefs have. The Texans would never have let Jared Allen (that asshole) go (of course, the Texans really haven't had the chance yet to lose a starter to free agency. But they've invested in Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans and Dunta and Andre Johnson, so it's clear the McNair would have been willing to invest in a player like Allen, had he been in that position).
But the point is this: the Texans have devoted four of their last five 1st round draft picks to the defense. Two of those have been unquestioned successes (Mario, Dunta). One is a good player, but still developing (Okoye), and one is largely a failure (T. Johnson). Obviously, the Texans haven't invested quite as much into their defensive line as the Chiefs have, but it's getting there. I know that the writers at DGDB&D want Brian Orakpo or Michael Johnson in 2009, and I'm inclined to agree (Christ, can you imagine Mario with a legit threat opposite him on the D-Line? That would scare the shit out of every QB in the league!). If Orakpo/Johnson develop into the DE's they seem to be, and if Amobi and Okam improve, that would be one truly fearsome line. Damn.
Anyways, be glad you're not a Chiefs/Rams/Lions/Raiders fan, Texans fan. Things could be a hell of a lot worse. The Texans suck big, old, hairy donkey nuts, but Bob McNair, Kubiak, and Rick Smith know what they're doing (but fire Richard Smith. That fucker needs to go immediately.).
Now, the defense "forced" five turnovers. But, as I recall, none of the fumbles (there were three of them) were really caused by the Texans - they just happened because the Browns are shit and the Texans kind of stumbled into the situation. Well, maybe the one caused by Jacques Reeves (!) was really caused by the Texans. But, other than that one and the interceptions (capped off by a truly heads-up play from Weaver), the Texans defense wasn't really any better than in any other week. Mario was fantastic, as always; Dunta returned the starting lineup and was very good; DeMeco continued to be one of the finest MLBs in the league. But, overall, it just didn't seem like the Texans had really improved. They're still a bad team with a shitty defense.
Now, Joe Posnanski wrote about the even worse Chiefs defense. They have created only six (SIX!) sacks all season. Wow. But what's more, it appears that they have been pursuing the Texans' draft strategy over the past six years:
In 2002, with the sixth pick in the draft, the Chiefs took defensive tackle Ryan Sims. In 2004, with their first pick (a second-rounder), they took defensive tackle Junior Siavii. In 2005, with their first pick, they took linebacker Derrick Johnson — and were absolutely thrilled he was available. In 2006, with their first pick, they took defensive end Tamba Hali and talked constantly about his never-stopping motor. This year, with the fifth pick overall, they took defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey.
Of course, the Texans haven't made the same terrible organizational choices that the Chiefs have. The Texans would never have let Jared Allen (that asshole) go (of course, the Texans really haven't had the chance yet to lose a starter to free agency. But they've invested in Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans and Dunta and Andre Johnson, so it's clear the McNair would have been willing to invest in a player like Allen, had he been in that position).
But the point is this: the Texans have devoted four of their last five 1st round draft picks to the defense. Two of those have been unquestioned successes (Mario, Dunta). One is a good player, but still developing (Okoye), and one is largely a failure (T. Johnson). Obviously, the Texans haven't invested quite as much into their defensive line as the Chiefs have, but it's getting there. I know that the writers at DGDB&D want Brian Orakpo or Michael Johnson in 2009, and I'm inclined to agree (Christ, can you imagine Mario with a legit threat opposite him on the D-Line? That would scare the shit out of every QB in the league!). If Orakpo/Johnson develop into the DE's they seem to be, and if Amobi and Okam improve, that would be one truly fearsome line. Damn.
Anyways, be glad you're not a Chiefs/Rams/Lions/Raiders fan, Texans fan. Things could be a hell of a lot worse. The Texans suck big, old, hairy donkey nuts, but Bob McNair, Kubiak, and Rick Smith know what they're doing (but fire Richard Smith. That fucker needs to go immediately.).
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Good times on the internet.
MLBtraderumors.com is usually a great place to get your daily intake of bullshit. A few days ago, Justice wrote something about how Wigginton and Valverde were likely to be traded. From the comments section, tomahawk368 writes:
It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan. Your GM keeps trading away all your good players. The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer. Good luck Astros fans.
What?
It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan.
Nope. Haven't made the playoffs since 2005. Our farm system is the worst in the league. And Drayton isn't going to spend like the Yankees or Red Sox or Cubs to make us really competitive. So Ed Wade will have to cobble together something.
Your GM keeps trading away all your good players.
Ummm.... no. Ed Wade has, in his time here, mostly just traded away what little we had in the farm system for Tejada. His one trade involving a star player was Lidge. I wouldn't consider that "trading away all (our) good players."
The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer.
What? The Stros' bullpen was their strongest part. Ed Wade constructed an outstanding corps or relievers out of Valverde, Brocail, castoffs from other clubs, and the dregs of the Astros' minor league pitching system. For relatively little, the Astros had one of the best bullpens last season.
And since when did the Astros have "many great hitters"? This isn't 2001, you know. We don't have a strong farm system churning out great middle relievers and journeyman hitters. We've got a system that has shat out Hunter Pence and nothing else. Outside of Carlos Lee, Lance Berkman, and Ty Wigginton, the Astros didn't have a good offense last season.
Seriously, it's amazing that this dude hasn't killed himself yet. The world is an astoundingly dangerous place, and one would expect someone that stupid to have, by now, choked on a corkscrew or something.
It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan. Your GM keeps trading away all your good players. The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer. Good luck Astros fans.
What?
It must not be a whole lot of fun to be an Astros fan.
Nope. Haven't made the playoffs since 2005. Our farm system is the worst in the league. And Drayton isn't going to spend like the Yankees or Red Sox or Cubs to make us really competitive. So Ed Wade will have to cobble together something.
Your GM keeps trading away all your good players.
Ummm.... no. Ed Wade has, in his time here, mostly just traded away what little we had in the farm system for Tejada. His one trade involving a star player was Lidge. I wouldn't consider that "trading away all (our) good players."
The most obvious problem with the Astros is the pen. So instead of trading one of your many great hitters for some 7th ant 8th inning help, you trade your closer.
What? The Stros' bullpen was their strongest part. Ed Wade constructed an outstanding corps or relievers out of Valverde, Brocail, castoffs from other clubs, and the dregs of the Astros' minor league pitching system. For relatively little, the Astros had one of the best bullpens last season.
And since when did the Astros have "many great hitters"? This isn't 2001, you know. We don't have a strong farm system churning out great middle relievers and journeyman hitters. We've got a system that has shat out Hunter Pence and nothing else. Outside of Carlos Lee, Lance Berkman, and Ty Wigginton, the Astros didn't have a good offense last season.
Seriously, it's amazing that this dude hasn't killed himself yet. The world is an astoundingly dangerous place, and one would expect someone that stupid to have, by now, choked on a corkscrew or something.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
T-Mac and Soccer
Sometimes, you watch Tracy McGrady and you get a feeling for the sublime. The guy is just so awesome when he's on. Tonight, he was only on the court for thirty minutes, but his performance in the fourth quarter was beautiful. Of course, it would have been more beautiful had he made some more of those shots, but the feeling was there, know what I'm sayin'?
T-Mac is an injured old man. Of course, he's only nine years my senior, so it's odd to think of him as an old man, but he's been in the league longer than I've had arm hair. The resident Jazz fan over at the Dream Shake says McGrady has no heart. But T-Mac has heart. It takes heart to play through minor injuries. The problem is that T-Mac isn't 22 anymore. He's 29 with a bad shoulder, bad back, and bad knee. Time and a decade of professional play have worn down his abilities. Only time will tell us if he can get back on track this season. We would've won tonight's game had Yao been playing. But I'm glad that the trainers are treating Yao with a delicate touch. The same should be true of McGrady.
Oh, and Brent Barry just looks awful out there. He missed wide open shots all night, and I wonder (as did JVG) if he's playing hurt, too.
I watched about ten minutes of the USA-Guatamala soccer match on TV. I played plenty of soccer as a kid, but I don't think I ever really grasped the strategy of it (I still don't). I always played defense, and my primary thoughts on defense (much as my primary thoughts on defense in every other sport) always revolved around getting the ball back. I never really thought about scoring after that. Just give that to the more athletic dude.
Anyways, I was watching this, and I was struck by the strangeness of this sport. Maybe it's just because football and basketball tend to rely upon such tight ball control (heh ... ball control), but the sort of activity that soccer involves is kind of nervewracking. Watching this, you see much more isolated activity. Spacing is generally measured in yards (or, I suppose, meters) rather than feet, as with basketball. And individual players seem to have much less control over where and how the ball is advanced. It just seems, from my inexperienced vantage point, to be a more uncontrolled activity. I kept expecting, at any moment, for someone to come in and take the ball away. But any time a defender got close, the ball was virtually immediately passed. But these long, uncontrolled passes (again, because players are so spaced out) often result in turnovers. But turnovers were so common, and penetration to the goal so infrequent, that there was little cost to any individual turnover. Contrast this again to basketball, where turnovers can often be guaranteed points (of course, when scores are routinely in the triple digits, individual turnovers begin to lose a lot of meaning).
Now, imagine if you were to cut the field (or the pitch, as they put it) in half. You'd create a much more interesting game, I'd think. Passes would have to be more controlled, turnovers would be less frequent but more costly, and players would be much more closely spaced. Of course, you'd have to cut the number of players significantly to avoid injury, but I think the pace of the game would increase significantly.
But I guess that's why they have indoor soccer. And nobody watches that shit.
T-Mac is an injured old man. Of course, he's only nine years my senior, so it's odd to think of him as an old man, but he's been in the league longer than I've had arm hair. The resident Jazz fan over at the Dream Shake says McGrady has no heart. But T-Mac has heart. It takes heart to play through minor injuries. The problem is that T-Mac isn't 22 anymore. He's 29 with a bad shoulder, bad back, and bad knee. Time and a decade of professional play have worn down his abilities. Only time will tell us if he can get back on track this season. We would've won tonight's game had Yao been playing. But I'm glad that the trainers are treating Yao with a delicate touch. The same should be true of McGrady.
Oh, and Brent Barry just looks awful out there. He missed wide open shots all night, and I wonder (as did JVG) if he's playing hurt, too.
I watched about ten minutes of the USA-Guatamala soccer match on TV. I played plenty of soccer as a kid, but I don't think I ever really grasped the strategy of it (I still don't). I always played defense, and my primary thoughts on defense (much as my primary thoughts on defense in every other sport) always revolved around getting the ball back. I never really thought about scoring after that. Just give that to the more athletic dude.
Anyways, I was watching this, and I was struck by the strangeness of this sport. Maybe it's just because football and basketball tend to rely upon such tight ball control (heh ... ball control), but the sort of activity that soccer involves is kind of nervewracking. Watching this, you see much more isolated activity. Spacing is generally measured in yards (or, I suppose, meters) rather than feet, as with basketball. And individual players seem to have much less control over where and how the ball is advanced. It just seems, from my inexperienced vantage point, to be a more uncontrolled activity. I kept expecting, at any moment, for someone to come in and take the ball away. But any time a defender got close, the ball was virtually immediately passed. But these long, uncontrolled passes (again, because players are so spaced out) often result in turnovers. But turnovers were so common, and penetration to the goal so infrequent, that there was little cost to any individual turnover. Contrast this again to basketball, where turnovers can often be guaranteed points (of course, when scores are routinely in the triple digits, individual turnovers begin to lose a lot of meaning).
Now, imagine if you were to cut the field (or the pitch, as they put it) in half. You'd create a much more interesting game, I'd think. Passes would have to be more controlled, turnovers would be less frequent but more costly, and players would be much more closely spaced. Of course, you'd have to cut the number of players significantly to avoid injury, but I think the pace of the game would increase significantly.
But I guess that's why they have indoor soccer. And nobody watches that shit.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wonderful
I just got back from a debate tournament in Shreveport yesterday (I was just judging, unfortunately, but Tulane did fairly well for just our 2nd tournament in the last twenty years). Apparently, the Rockets got their asses kicked on Friday, but handed out some whoopass to the Hornets Saturday. Good deal. Why does everyone think the Hornets are so awesome, anyways?
On the other hand, the Texans gave out another lesson in choking to their fans today (I didn't see it, fortunately; I was in the car at the time).
You know, I got into a discussion (argument) with a Titans fan not long ago about the Adams-Oilers legacy. I was saving this for the next Shitfuckers-Texans game, but I'll go ahead and write it down. I hear two typical arguments from those toothless fucks up north:
1. Houston was just as responsible as Adams. (Traitorous Houstonians might even blame Bob Lanier or Drayton)
There are a few obvious problems with this. First, you're essentially transfering agency from Adams to Houston, and that's idiotic. Nobody can truly force us to do anything. We choose what we do. And Adams chose to move the team.
The city of Houston correctly surmised that Adams was full of shit. He had attempted to move the team to Jacksonville in 1986, and that was only stopped by remodeling the Dome. Taking out the massive scoreboard cost more (inflation adjusted) than building the whole Dome did in 1964. We're still paying for that today. Bottom line: Adams lied to all of us when he said that the Dome modifications would keep the team in Houston.
Now, Adams had a legit beef with his lease situation. He was essentially paying Drayton to play in the Astrodome. But his response was stupid. Instead of proposing a semi-reasonable stadium, he came up with the extravagant Bud Dome. As a refresher, the Bud Dome would have been a downtown stadium with an adjustable indoor roof. Bud intended the stadium to be used by the Rockets, who would lower the roof to create a more intimant atmosphere.
The problem was that Les Alexander didn't lend his support to the idea. And rightfully so - it was an awful one. But Bud continued to pressure the city to accept the proposal, even while he repeatedly moved the planned location around. In short, the Bud Dome was never more than a dream, and an expensive one at that.
So when Bob Lanier told Bud to shove it, he was just seeing through Bud's bullshit.
2. It's Bud's legacy and Bud's team, not Houston's.
Yeah, it's legally Bud's team. No one is arguing that. No one ever argued that.
But we have to view sports franchises as cultural monuments. There would be something wrong with moving the Liberty Bell from Philly. There would be something wrong with moving Greek frescoes to England (and, indeed, that's why there are so many lawsuits about it). Yes, these are private entities, but the name, records, uniforms, etc. are cultural elements that belong to the region in which they gained their meaning.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about the Titans. They're just another shitty franchise in a shitty city (just like Jacksonville or Carolina). But the pre-1997 Oilers were ours. And they should be here. It's unfortunate that, unlike Cleveland, Houstonians' efforts to preserve the Oiler name (the one good thing Tom DeLay ever did) never came through.
Anyways, that's beating a dead horse at this point.
After yesterday's loss to Indy, however, I think DC Richard Smith really will be losing his job. I've mentioned my support for the idea of hiring the (likely) soon-to-be-fired Wade Phillips as DC. The shift to a 3-4 scheme would take time, but I imagine that the Texans players can make the adjustment. Or, if they can't, I imagine that GM Rick Smith, Gary Kubiak, and whomever they interview for the job can tell. I think Amobi Okoye would fit better as a 3-4 DE, anyways.
On the other hand, the Texans gave out another lesson in choking to their fans today (I didn't see it, fortunately; I was in the car at the time).
You know, I got into a discussion (argument) with a Titans fan not long ago about the Adams-Oilers legacy. I was saving this for the next Shitfuckers-Texans game, but I'll go ahead and write it down. I hear two typical arguments from those toothless fucks up north:
1. Houston was just as responsible as Adams. (Traitorous Houstonians might even blame Bob Lanier or Drayton)
There are a few obvious problems with this. First, you're essentially transfering agency from Adams to Houston, and that's idiotic. Nobody can truly force us to do anything. We choose what we do. And Adams chose to move the team.
The city of Houston correctly surmised that Adams was full of shit. He had attempted to move the team to Jacksonville in 1986, and that was only stopped by remodeling the Dome. Taking out the massive scoreboard cost more (inflation adjusted) than building the whole Dome did in 1964. We're still paying for that today. Bottom line: Adams lied to all of us when he said that the Dome modifications would keep the team in Houston.
Now, Adams had a legit beef with his lease situation. He was essentially paying Drayton to play in the Astrodome. But his response was stupid. Instead of proposing a semi-reasonable stadium, he came up with the extravagant Bud Dome. As a refresher, the Bud Dome would have been a downtown stadium with an adjustable indoor roof. Bud intended the stadium to be used by the Rockets, who would lower the roof to create a more intimant atmosphere.
The problem was that Les Alexander didn't lend his support to the idea. And rightfully so - it was an awful one. But Bud continued to pressure the city to accept the proposal, even while he repeatedly moved the planned location around. In short, the Bud Dome was never more than a dream, and an expensive one at that.
So when Bob Lanier told Bud to shove it, he was just seeing through Bud's bullshit.
2. It's Bud's legacy and Bud's team, not Houston's.
Yeah, it's legally Bud's team. No one is arguing that. No one ever argued that.
But we have to view sports franchises as cultural monuments. There would be something wrong with moving the Liberty Bell from Philly. There would be something wrong with moving Greek frescoes to England (and, indeed, that's why there are so many lawsuits about it). Yes, these are private entities, but the name, records, uniforms, etc. are cultural elements that belong to the region in which they gained their meaning.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about the Titans. They're just another shitty franchise in a shitty city (just like Jacksonville or Carolina). But the pre-1997 Oilers were ours. And they should be here. It's unfortunate that, unlike Cleveland, Houstonians' efforts to preserve the Oiler name (the one good thing Tom DeLay ever did) never came through.
Anyways, that's beating a dead horse at this point.
After yesterday's loss to Indy, however, I think DC Richard Smith really will be losing his job. I've mentioned my support for the idea of hiring the (likely) soon-to-be-fired Wade Phillips as DC. The shift to a 3-4 scheme would take time, but I imagine that the Texans players can make the adjustment. Or, if they can't, I imagine that GM Rick Smith, Gary Kubiak, and whomever they interview for the job can tell. I think Amobi Okoye would fit better as a 3-4 DE, anyways.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
T-Mac Wakes Up
By the time the game was heading into the half last night, Tracy McGrady had begun to show some signs of life. But the fight that broke out between Rafer and Matt Barnes seemed to fire the guy up. He got 27 points last night on 11-18, finally breaking out of his slump.
Artest continues to struggle to find his place in the offense. Just from my (admittedly amateurish) look at it, it seems like he just isn't moving when he's off the ball. Given that he seemed to understand Adelman's offense when he was in Sacramento, it seems odd that he is struggling so hard. Artest needs to drive to the basket, not settle for long shots.
Yao imitated vintage Hakeem at one point. Down at the baseline, Yao fakes the spin and pump fakes, drawing Shaq away from him. Then he launches a beautiful hook shot into the basket for the three-point-play. It was the dream shake again, and it was magnificent. Of course, Yao does this relatively often. He doesn't have Hakeem's moves, but he is surprisingly agile for a center, particularly one who is 7'6".
If Yao was imitating Hakeem the Dream, then Aaron Brooks continued his impersonation of Kenny the Jet. Brooks is on fire - he's shooting beautifully, passing like a dream, and creating movement and shots for his teammates. I have the feeling that he'll stay with the second unit for the time being, because he is essentially instant offense coming off the bench. I remember reading that a coach said something just "clicked" for Brooks in practice one day, and it definitely seems like it.
See, now, what did I tell you? The Lakers game was to be expected. The Rockets looked awesome last night, so everyone needs to chill the fuck out.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that Steve Nash is a little bitch who needs to get used to getting killed on the hard screen. If he doesn't like it, he should stay off the court instead of getting his teammates to push Alston around. There will undoubtedly be suspensions handed out today, but I wouldn't doubt it if Nash is left alone. Reason: he's white.
Artest continues to struggle to find his place in the offense. Just from my (admittedly amateurish) look at it, it seems like he just isn't moving when he's off the ball. Given that he seemed to understand Adelman's offense when he was in Sacramento, it seems odd that he is struggling so hard. Artest needs to drive to the basket, not settle for long shots.
Yao imitated vintage Hakeem at one point. Down at the baseline, Yao fakes the spin and pump fakes, drawing Shaq away from him. Then he launches a beautiful hook shot into the basket for the three-point-play. It was the dream shake again, and it was magnificent. Of course, Yao does this relatively often. He doesn't have Hakeem's moves, but he is surprisingly agile for a center, particularly one who is 7'6".
If Yao was imitating Hakeem the Dream, then Aaron Brooks continued his impersonation of Kenny the Jet. Brooks is on fire - he's shooting beautifully, passing like a dream, and creating movement and shots for his teammates. I have the feeling that he'll stay with the second unit for the time being, because he is essentially instant offense coming off the bench. I remember reading that a coach said something just "clicked" for Brooks in practice one day, and it definitely seems like it.
See, now, what did I tell you? The Lakers game was to be expected. The Rockets looked awesome last night, so everyone needs to chill the fuck out.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that Steve Nash is a little bitch who needs to get used to getting killed on the hard screen. If he doesn't like it, he should stay off the court instead of getting his teammates to push Alston around. There will undoubtedly be suspensions handed out today, but I wouldn't doubt it if Nash is left alone. Reason: he's white.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Turns out that Shane Battier is Black
Who knew? I always thought that he was the team's token white guy (granted, a token white guy who is probably the best perimeter defender in the NBA and is one of the league's best role-players, but token nonetheless).
Obama's candidacy (and subsequent election), as well as Shane Battier highlights how fucked up our views on race are. Both Obama and Battier are as white as they are black. Why are they "black," then, in the public's eye?
But issues like these should show us that not only does race not matter, it's entirely a social construction. Yes, there are people with dark skin and people with light skin, but these categories are not made up of real criteria. There is no such thing as a "pure" people - no people simply appeared on this earth, interacting with no one else. Every ethnicity has "interacted" (read: sexed up) with many other ethnicities, and each ethnicity emerged from others. It seems wrong to subscribe to this racial notion, particularly when all racial groups are "tainted" with one another. These categories, if they exist at all, do not exist in the fashion that racists believe them to, nor do they exist as publicly believed. They are simply creations of the mind, an attempt to categorize the world and order it for ourselves. And the quicker we do away with such notions, the easier it will be to move beyond humanity's shameful history on the subject.
EDIT:
Oh, and the comments on the linked article make me ashamed to be from Houston. That's just horrible. Whenever anyone mentions that Obama's election was, in fact, a big deal partially because the man is black (or at least identifies himself as black; see the above screed), people freak the fuck out. Idiotic.
And Shane Battier has a blog! And it's in Chinese (my roommate informs me that, in China, Battier has a massive shoe deal and appears in numerous commercials. This is amazing to me. The Chinese apparently love the dude - just as Houston does - and he is very popular over there. Cool). I frankly wouldn't doubt it if Battier could speak Chinese - he seems like a pretty smart dude.
Obama's candidacy (and subsequent election), as well as Shane Battier highlights how fucked up our views on race are. Both Obama and Battier are as white as they are black. Why are they "black," then, in the public's eye?
But issues like these should show us that not only does race not matter, it's entirely a social construction. Yes, there are people with dark skin and people with light skin, but these categories are not made up of real criteria. There is no such thing as a "pure" people - no people simply appeared on this earth, interacting with no one else. Every ethnicity has "interacted" (read: sexed up) with many other ethnicities, and each ethnicity emerged from others. It seems wrong to subscribe to this racial notion, particularly when all racial groups are "tainted" with one another. These categories, if they exist at all, do not exist in the fashion that racists believe them to, nor do they exist as publicly believed. They are simply creations of the mind, an attempt to categorize the world and order it for ourselves. And the quicker we do away with such notions, the easier it will be to move beyond humanity's shameful history on the subject.
EDIT:
Oh, and the comments on the linked article make me ashamed to be from Houston. That's just horrible. Whenever anyone mentions that Obama's election was, in fact, a big deal partially because the man is black (or at least identifies himself as black; see the above screed), people freak the fuck out. Idiotic.
And Shane Battier has a blog! And it's in Chinese (my roommate informs me that, in China, Battier has a massive shoe deal and appears in numerous commercials. This is amazing to me. The Chinese apparently love the dude - just as Houston does - and he is very popular over there. Cool). I frankly wouldn't doubt it if Battier could speak Chinese - he seems like a pretty smart dude.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Houston sports fans leave something to be desired
I like to lurk over at ClutchFans.net during games (too many people there, though, so if I have anything interesting to say, I say it at the Dream Shake). I love the reactions people have during a poor stretch of play in a game:
"Fire Daryl Moron" (Are you kidding me? The dude is the best GM in the league. He's drafted incredibly well out of the 2nd round, gotten us good talent with poor draft positions, and acquired such players as Artest and Scola. Daryl Morey is not the problem, and he's smarter than you.)
"Trade T-Mac" (He's the heart of the offense. He's hurt right now and isn't playing well. He'll do better as the season moves along.)
"Trade Yao" (Yao - when in good form - is the best center in the Western Conference. He might be the best in the league.)
etc.
A line of truth from "larsv8":
Cluthfans.net: where personel decisions are made after every play.
Oh and Ron Artest just drew 3 fouls in about 8 seconds. First two came off of Kobe, and the next was (I think) off of Vujacic. It's hilarious watching him defend people WHILE PLAY IS STOPPED. The dude is just tenacious, and it's fun to watch him.
--------------------------------
I've turned the game off. It's a Lakers blowout and I really don't want to listen to the LA homers chuckle for the last three minutes.
But read the game thread at Clutch Fans. I can't believe the shit coming out of people's mouths. No, I can. I've lived in Houston for virtually my whole life, so I know how our fans act. Maybe it has been the decades of beatdowns issued our way, but we automatically assume that our teams are a bunch of bums. In a way, it's a good thing - might as well not reward shitty teams with our love. But it gets tiresome when it comes two weeks into the season.
Yes, I have my doubts about this team: injuries are an issue, T-Mac is not the scorer he once was, and Yao seems prone to freak accidents. But I have faith in Rick Adelman and Daryl Morey to put together and run the best team they can. They did that last year. Without a third star, they were able to win 55 games. Now they have a third star.
T-Mac looks spent out there. It doesn't help that he is being ferociously defended, but he just can't get into the lane. Yao seems tired (most of the time, anyways). Artest's offense is too reliant on his outside shot. But these problems will be corrected as the season moves on.
The first quarter of this game was all Houston's. But the Lakers beat them down the stretch. Basketball is a game of growth rates, and the Rockets just burned themselves out in the first quarter. That's probably because they've been on a very hectic schedule for the first few weeks, so I have faith that this will change.
And I have faith that those who are giving up on the Rockets now will change, too. The players will adjust to Adelman's system, just as they adjusted to every system that their high-school, college, and other professional coaches threw at them. And when that happens for a whole game (just as it happened for the first quarter tonight), it will be a thing of beauty. And the Rockets will reel off a few dozen wins, and everyone will be content. Stop letting every bad possession freak you out, Houston.
"Fire Daryl Moron" (Are you kidding me? The dude is the best GM in the league. He's drafted incredibly well out of the 2nd round, gotten us good talent with poor draft positions, and acquired such players as Artest and Scola. Daryl Morey is not the problem, and he's smarter than you.)
"Trade T-Mac" (He's the heart of the offense. He's hurt right now and isn't playing well. He'll do better as the season moves along.)
"Trade Yao" (Yao - when in good form - is the best center in the Western Conference. He might be the best in the league.)
etc.
A line of truth from "larsv8":
Cluthfans.net: where personel decisions are made after every play.
Oh and Ron Artest just drew 3 fouls in about 8 seconds. First two came off of Kobe, and the next was (I think) off of Vujacic. It's hilarious watching him defend people WHILE PLAY IS STOPPED. The dude is just tenacious, and it's fun to watch him.
--------------------------------
I've turned the game off. It's a Lakers blowout and I really don't want to listen to the LA homers chuckle for the last three minutes.
But read the game thread at Clutch Fans. I can't believe the shit coming out of people's mouths. No, I can. I've lived in Houston for virtually my whole life, so I know how our fans act. Maybe it has been the decades of beatdowns issued our way, but we automatically assume that our teams are a bunch of bums. In a way, it's a good thing - might as well not reward shitty teams with our love. But it gets tiresome when it comes two weeks into the season.
Yes, I have my doubts about this team: injuries are an issue, T-Mac is not the scorer he once was, and Yao seems prone to freak accidents. But I have faith in Rick Adelman and Daryl Morey to put together and run the best team they can. They did that last year. Without a third star, they were able to win 55 games. Now they have a third star.
T-Mac looks spent out there. It doesn't help that he is being ferociously defended, but he just can't get into the lane. Yao seems tired (most of the time, anyways). Artest's offense is too reliant on his outside shot. But these problems will be corrected as the season moves on.
The first quarter of this game was all Houston's. But the Lakers beat them down the stretch. Basketball is a game of growth rates, and the Rockets just burned themselves out in the first quarter. That's probably because they've been on a very hectic schedule for the first few weeks, so I have faith that this will change.
And I have faith that those who are giving up on the Rockets now will change, too. The players will adjust to Adelman's system, just as they adjusted to every system that their high-school, college, and other professional coaches threw at them. And when that happens for a whole game (just as it happened for the first quarter tonight), it will be a thing of beauty. And the Rockets will reel off a few dozen wins, and everyone will be content. Stop letting every bad possession freak you out, Houston.
41-13
Fuck it. This team sucks so fucking hard. If we get lucky, we MIGHT defeat Cleveland, Oakland, and Jacksonville, but I fucking doubt it. Tell Kris Brown to shank his kicks from now on - we need better picks. Or, better yet, just keep Richard Smith as DC. We'll get good draft picks every year.
I need a team to follow that doesn't kick me in the balls every week and whom I'll only have to root against every four years. Possible teams: Saints (I live here, so it's a lot easier to watch them than the Texans), Redskins (why not?), Giants (they hate the Cowboys, and I have friends who are Giants fans), Bears (two words: Matt Forte).
Really, I don't know what the Texans can do. They can grab a good safety in the draft (we HAVE good CBs in Dunta and Fred Benett, but Smith prefers Faggins and Jacques Reeves) and dramatically improve, but they could just as easily take a Travis Johnson as a Mario Williams.
You know who I would like to see in a Texans uniform? Graham Harrell. That would be sweet. And who knows? Maybe the Texans will get a chance to draft a decent QB in the 2nd round. The problem is that both Sage and Schaub are awful about the turnovers, and that is killing the offense (the offense has really come together this year, but it could be better). It would be cool to see a real starter run the offense.
I need a team to follow that doesn't kick me in the balls every week and whom I'll only have to root against every four years. Possible teams: Saints (I live here, so it's a lot easier to watch them than the Texans), Redskins (why not?), Giants (they hate the Cowboys, and I have friends who are Giants fans), Bears (two words: Matt Forte).
Really, I don't know what the Texans can do. They can grab a good safety in the draft (we HAVE good CBs in Dunta and Fred Benett, but Smith prefers Faggins and Jacques Reeves) and dramatically improve, but they could just as easily take a Travis Johnson as a Mario Williams.
You know who I would like to see in a Texans uniform? Graham Harrell. That would be sweet. And who knows? Maybe the Texans will get a chance to draft a decent QB in the 2nd round. The problem is that both Sage and Schaub are awful about the turnovers, and that is killing the offense (the offense has really come together this year, but it could be better). It would be cool to see a real starter run the offense.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Why Houston is better than your crappy city.
Here's an interesting discussion of property rights and Houston. Personally, I don't agree with the author's belief that governments have no right to meddle with individual property decisions. Frankly, governments should have the right to make reasonable limitations on personal use of property - so long as those limitations correct for problems of externalities, injustice, etc.
But his point that land-zoning advocates are in this for primarily ideological reasons is spot on. It seems to me that what little debate there is on this subject tends to be less about what is economically advantageous, but about what satisfies our beliefs about what a city should be.
And Houston, as I have said before, flies in the face of what a city should be, or at least the modern conception of how a city should function. The problem is that zoning advocates don't see that Houston is still developing as an urban environment - we are roughly where New York was in the late 19th century. And it will be some time until the costs of further sprawl (transportation, infrastructure, and preferences) outweigh the benefits of more suburbs. Gradually, as the marginal cost of more low-density development increases, Houston will begin to "fill in." Once that process is complete - say, in another twenty-five years - the Bayou City will be truly monstrous in size.
The way I see it, zoning accomplishes the same project - high density urban development - in less time, but at a higher cost. To some cities, I imagine that this is an acceptable tradeoff, particularly for those that will not be able to grow as large or as fast as Houston. But Houston, because it is naturally a hub for immigration (has been since my great-grandfather's family came through Galveston from France), and is naturally (or unnaturally, depending on how you view the channel) a port, has greater potential for growth. More to the point, other cities might view that dynamism and decide to grow less - knowing that overall growth in the US is undetermined by their individual growth rates, and they will not be able to attract the jobs that Houston does - by instituting zoning regulations. Zoning isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it can be a rational choice. Now, we have to see that Houston's lack of zoning regulations has come at a price, but it's one that people are (on the whole) willing to bare.
Now, the author is wrong in assuming that bad things have not come from a lack of zoning. Of course, that depends on how you view the strip clubs, liquor joints, and sex shops that exist throughout the city. I think they contribute to the beautiful culture of Houston, so I don't think it's so bad. But others do think that our lack of regulation has allowed unsavory businesses to flourish. Of course, they flourish because there is a demand for booze, dildos, and naked women, so one can chalk that up to efficient land use.
Overall, I like the lack of zoning. And it's not as if land is freely used throughout the greater Houston area - numerous deed agreements exist throughout our city. But those agreements come from "natural" market interaction, not forced upon us by non-market agents.
Give Houston another few decades, and it will be the cultural equal of Los Angeles or Chicago (that is if it isn't their equal already; it just might be). It will just have liquor stores and strip clubs in more convenient locations. And that's pretty sweet.
But his point that land-zoning advocates are in this for primarily ideological reasons is spot on. It seems to me that what little debate there is on this subject tends to be less about what is economically advantageous, but about what satisfies our beliefs about what a city should be.
And Houston, as I have said before, flies in the face of what a city should be, or at least the modern conception of how a city should function. The problem is that zoning advocates don't see that Houston is still developing as an urban environment - we are roughly where New York was in the late 19th century. And it will be some time until the costs of further sprawl (transportation, infrastructure, and preferences) outweigh the benefits of more suburbs. Gradually, as the marginal cost of more low-density development increases, Houston will begin to "fill in." Once that process is complete - say, in another twenty-five years - the Bayou City will be truly monstrous in size.
The way I see it, zoning accomplishes the same project - high density urban development - in less time, but at a higher cost. To some cities, I imagine that this is an acceptable tradeoff, particularly for those that will not be able to grow as large or as fast as Houston. But Houston, because it is naturally a hub for immigration (has been since my great-grandfather's family came through Galveston from France), and is naturally (or unnaturally, depending on how you view the channel) a port, has greater potential for growth. More to the point, other cities might view that dynamism and decide to grow less - knowing that overall growth in the US is undetermined by their individual growth rates, and they will not be able to attract the jobs that Houston does - by instituting zoning regulations. Zoning isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it can be a rational choice. Now, we have to see that Houston's lack of zoning regulations has come at a price, but it's one that people are (on the whole) willing to bare.
Now, the author is wrong in assuming that bad things have not come from a lack of zoning. Of course, that depends on how you view the strip clubs, liquor joints, and sex shops that exist throughout the city. I think they contribute to the beautiful culture of Houston, so I don't think it's so bad. But others do think that our lack of regulation has allowed unsavory businesses to flourish. Of course, they flourish because there is a demand for booze, dildos, and naked women, so one can chalk that up to efficient land use.
Overall, I like the lack of zoning. And it's not as if land is freely used throughout the greater Houston area - numerous deed agreements exist throughout our city. But those agreements come from "natural" market interaction, not forced upon us by non-market agents.
Give Houston another few decades, and it will be the cultural equal of Los Angeles or Chicago (that is if it isn't their equal already; it just might be). It will just have liquor stores and strip clubs in more convenient locations. And that's pretty sweet.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Live by T-Mac, Die by T-Mac
I watched the Rockets-Blazers game last night, and very little looked good. The defense wasn't great, Ron Artest (while coming through in the clutch for Houston with a final-second stripped ball from Brandon Roy) didn't shoot well, and (worst of all) Yao continues to seem tired out there. T-Mac, however, seemed to remember that he is not Ray Allen but Tracy McGrady, and so stopped settling for outside jump shots. He drove his way to the basket, scoring in the paint. That's what Ron Artest needs to do - the guy is so big and so strong that I wonder why he settles for the 3-point shot when he can easily get down low.
But while Yao struggled throughout the night, he came through in the final seconds of overtime, hitting a clutch fade-away jumper and getting the foul. He makes his freethrow, and the Rockets are up by 1. But there is still 0.8 seconds on the clock.
So Portland inbounds the ball. Brandon Roy (in such a simple play that I can't believe the Rockets fucked this up) runs back to 3-point territory, takes the inbound and fires, making the shot and winning the game. If you watch the replay, you can see T-Mac hesitating for just one freakin split moment, allowing Roy to get separation and fire before Tracy can get in his face. T-Mac just blew his coverage, plain and simple.
Interestingly, this game brings up that whole "don't let the ref decide the game" thing. I hear that a lot, but I've always doubted its truth. It seems to me that the foul call on Yao was legit. If that was a foul in the first four quarters, it was a foul in the closing moments of overtime, and I think referees should make that call. It's usually anti-climactic to end a game on a free throw, but fouls should be called consistently.
But while Yao struggled throughout the night, he came through in the final seconds of overtime, hitting a clutch fade-away jumper and getting the foul. He makes his freethrow, and the Rockets are up by 1. But there is still 0.8 seconds on the clock.
So Portland inbounds the ball. Brandon Roy (in such a simple play that I can't believe the Rockets fucked this up) runs back to 3-point territory, takes the inbound and fires, making the shot and winning the game. If you watch the replay, you can see T-Mac hesitating for just one freakin split moment, allowing Roy to get separation and fire before Tracy can get in his face. T-Mac just blew his coverage, plain and simple.
Interestingly, this game brings up that whole "don't let the ref decide the game" thing. I hear that a lot, but I've always doubted its truth. It seems to me that the foul call on Yao was legit. If that was a foul in the first four quarters, it was a foul in the closing moments of overtime, and I think referees should make that call. It's usually anti-climactic to end a game on a free throw, but fouls should be called consistently.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
This is why we can't have nice things
Environmental economics is one of my favorite subjects. It's a spectacularly relevant area these days, and it's frustrating that environmental groups seem to mistrust economists.
This article talks about some problems with wind power and salmon. Now, I tend to hear the sort of pseudo-environmentalist objection (Turbines kill birds! Dams kill fish!) coming out of a lot of mouths these days - not just from non-environmentalists attempting to execute a sort of fifth-column action but from misinformed environmentalists, as well (I don't really consider myself an "environmentalist" - the environment's only value is in its use to us, but that value must be carefully managed via governmental and economic decisions).
First, let's understand that modern wind turbines won't kill many birds (we'll start with birds because they're a more common objection). They move way too slow to do anything to a bird. Birds might, of course, set up their nests inside the tower, but various solutions to that have been found. Additionally, all wind-producing areas require farm proposals to avoid migration and nesting areas. Few birds are going to get trapped in these things.
But even if they did get trapped in wind turbines, we have to look at this on balance. A few birds killed by a wind farm is nothing compared to the sort of devastation that mining operations will do to its nesting ground. How do they mine for coal these days? They blow the tops off of fucking mountains! Imagine what that does to any birds (or deer, cute little bunny rabbits, squirrels, centipedes, mosquitoes, rare species of plants, fungi, caterpillars, butterflies, and everything else) in proximity to the blast. Seriously, it would take some pretty violent wind farms to destroy as many birds as coal mining operations do.
I imagine the same is true of fish. First, as the article implies, the problem can be solved by infrastructural investment. Second, even if this problem cannot be solved (unlikely), then I'm willing to bet that wind power still won't kill as many salmon as the pollution from coal-fired power plants and runoff from any mining (not sure if they have coal in Oregon, but it's possible). Even if they don't have mining operations in Oregon, it would be wrong to privilege their environment over another.
We have to look at these issues economically, carefully weighing our options and taking the most profitable actions. Texas has been great about this - it has lead the way on wind policy, implementing a market system that encourages environmental protection. As time goes on, this thinking will only become more important, and it will be vitally necessary that voters understand such reasoning.
This article talks about some problems with wind power and salmon. Now, I tend to hear the sort of pseudo-environmentalist objection (Turbines kill birds! Dams kill fish!) coming out of a lot of mouths these days - not just from non-environmentalists attempting to execute a sort of fifth-column action but from misinformed environmentalists, as well (I don't really consider myself an "environmentalist" - the environment's only value is in its use to us, but that value must be carefully managed via governmental and economic decisions).
First, let's understand that modern wind turbines won't kill many birds (we'll start with birds because they're a more common objection). They move way too slow to do anything to a bird. Birds might, of course, set up their nests inside the tower, but various solutions to that have been found. Additionally, all wind-producing areas require farm proposals to avoid migration and nesting areas. Few birds are going to get trapped in these things.
But even if they did get trapped in wind turbines, we have to look at this on balance. A few birds killed by a wind farm is nothing compared to the sort of devastation that mining operations will do to its nesting ground. How do they mine for coal these days? They blow the tops off of fucking mountains! Imagine what that does to any birds (or deer, cute little bunny rabbits, squirrels, centipedes, mosquitoes, rare species of plants, fungi, caterpillars, butterflies, and everything else) in proximity to the blast. Seriously, it would take some pretty violent wind farms to destroy as many birds as coal mining operations do.
I imagine the same is true of fish. First, as the article implies, the problem can be solved by infrastructural investment. Second, even if this problem cannot be solved (unlikely), then I'm willing to bet that wind power still won't kill as many salmon as the pollution from coal-fired power plants and runoff from any mining (not sure if they have coal in Oregon, but it's possible). Even if they don't have mining operations in Oregon, it would be wrong to privilege their environment over another.
We have to look at these issues economically, carefully weighing our options and taking the most profitable actions. Texas has been great about this - it has lead the way on wind policy, implementing a market system that encourages environmental protection. As time goes on, this thinking will only become more important, and it will be vitally necessary that voters understand such reasoning.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Fuckin Protestants
Typical. They break with the Mother Church for what? To throw explosives at people? Yeah, well they'll be fucking surprised when they die and find themselves in purgatory. With the rest of us.
Oh, and God continues to throw shit at the City of Houston. As a Catholic, I have no problem with the concept of a god who curses us - it's what God does. Seriously though, if I were some dumb fuck from Chicago or Boston, I'd think my city is cursed in virtue of some previous karmic violation. But we in Houston know that it's just a bad break. Hopefully Xavier Adibi proves to be kickass.
Oh, and God continues to throw shit at the City of Houston. As a Catholic, I have no problem with the concept of a god who curses us - it's what God does. Seriously though, if I were some dumb fuck from Chicago or Boston, I'd think my city is cursed in virtue of some previous karmic violation. But we in Houston know that it's just a bad break. Hopefully Xavier Adibi proves to be kickass.
Ahh... Award Season
So the Astros' various beat writers are going to give out their awards. Who they got? Berkman wins an award for being awesome. Pence wins an award for being an alright dude. Valverde gets an award for Oswalt having a shit year. Wesley Wright gets an award for being the only rookie on the team. Jose Cruz gets an award for being Cheo. And Neil Hohlfield gets an award for being dead. Awesome!
Oh, and Rafer Alston gonna choke a bitch:
Oh, and Rafer Alston gonna choke a bitch:
If it ain't one thing...
For the first time since 1994, the United States will be an undivided government. The House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency will all be in Democratic control.
This is not a good thing. I say that as a Democrat - this is a terrible, risky thing. I don't believe in "bipartisanship" as a goal unto itself, but I realize that bipartisanship forces different regions to listen to one another. And that's an important part of the American system. With so much power vested in the hands of one party (even one so dysfunctional as the Democratic party), we risk losing critical voices within the political process. Given that parties seem incapable of self-critique, this loss hurts us a great deal.
The celebration surrounding last night's election results bothers me a great deal, as well. Granted, supporters always celebrate their candidate's victory, but this seems like actual devotion to Obama. That's dangerous. Nobody should be devoted to a politician - devote yourself to ideals, not people.
Obama can make a fine president. But I fear that the Democratic party has abandoned the sort of militant liberalism that Clinton - for all of his faults - pursued overseas. I worry that the Obama administration will be unwilling to engage in another Yugoslavia if the situation presented itself. How will he address Darfur? How will he deal with a militantly theocratic Iran? How will he help the Iraqi and Afghani peoples? If Obama (and, more specifically, the Democratic party) is unwilling to use military force, then we will face a long four years.
On another note, I was surprised to see that some 44% of Texans voted for Obama. Cool.
This is not a good thing. I say that as a Democrat - this is a terrible, risky thing. I don't believe in "bipartisanship" as a goal unto itself, but I realize that bipartisanship forces different regions to listen to one another. And that's an important part of the American system. With so much power vested in the hands of one party (even one so dysfunctional as the Democratic party), we risk losing critical voices within the political process. Given that parties seem incapable of self-critique, this loss hurts us a great deal.
The celebration surrounding last night's election results bothers me a great deal, as well. Granted, supporters always celebrate their candidate's victory, but this seems like actual devotion to Obama. That's dangerous. Nobody should be devoted to a politician - devote yourself to ideals, not people.
Obama can make a fine president. But I fear that the Democratic party has abandoned the sort of militant liberalism that Clinton - for all of his faults - pursued overseas. I worry that the Obama administration will be unwilling to engage in another Yugoslavia if the situation presented itself. How will he address Darfur? How will he deal with a militantly theocratic Iran? How will he help the Iraqi and Afghani peoples? If Obama (and, more specifically, the Democratic party) is unwilling to use military force, then we will face a long four years.
On another note, I was surprised to see that some 44% of Texans voted for Obama. Cool.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Remember what I said about maybe going 6-10?
Yeah, well that probably won't happen. They might not win another game this season. Thanks, Jared Allen.
I listened to the radio broadcast yesterday (thanks, internet! I love it when you suck at streaming!), so I didn't see the hit. I looked at the highlights this morning, and I saw the hit, and I tell you what, Allen should be fucking suspended immediately. Schaub had long since completed his pass. Allen had already fallen, but got back up to complete the hit. And his shoulder comes into direct contact with Matt's knee. And now he has a torn MCL and will probably be out for the season. Fuck.
Disgusting. And I think the NFL often does too much to protect the QB. But they need to watch out for this crap.
So Rosenfail will be taking the snaps, now. Jesus. What a shit-tastic season this is turning out to be.
I listened to the radio broadcast yesterday (thanks, internet! I love it when you suck at streaming!), so I didn't see the hit. I looked at the highlights this morning, and I saw the hit, and I tell you what, Allen should be fucking suspended immediately. Schaub had long since completed his pass. Allen had already fallen, but got back up to complete the hit. And his shoulder comes into direct contact with Matt's knee. And now he has a torn MCL and will probably be out for the season. Fuck.
Disgusting. And I think the NFL often does too much to protect the QB. But they need to watch out for this crap.
So Rosenfail will be taking the snaps, now. Jesus. What a shit-tastic season this is turning out to be.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Well...at least we'll get a good draft pick
Today was the game of the Texans' season. If they could win this one, then the last three games weren't a fluke.
So, of course, the Texans fucked it up. I don't know how they were only down by a TD when the game ended, because the whole game had the feeling of a blowout. Maybe it was that Adrian Peterson scored in the opening minutes of the game, or maybe it was that the QBs (Schaub was injured in the 1st half and was finally pulled after he made several terrible plays) kept committing turnovers, but the game felt like a 35-7 loss, not 28-21. So if they keep playing like this, what's their record going to be?
11/9 vs. Baltimore - LOSS. Their defense will kill us. What offense they have will play the Texans' defense like a well-tuned two-bit whore.
11/16 @ Indy - LOSS. They'll be going in with a two-game losing streak. The Colts suck this year, but not as much as the Texans. Plus, we're the Reds to their Oswalt.
11/23 @ Cleveland - WIN. Hey, they can handle this one. Maybe.
12/1 vs. Jacksonville - WIN. God, I hope so. It'll be Monday night, and I think God owes the people of Houston this much. Who am I kidding? He'll break all of our hearts in front of a national audience. LOSS.
12/7 @ Green Bay - LOSS. After the way the Packers dismantled the Colts? We're going to get killed.
12/14 vs Hicks - I'd give my left nut and whatever cash I have on me for the Texans to break up the sister-fuckers' perfect season. But it won't happen. LOSS.
12/21 @ Oakland - WIN. If not, well, shit.
12/28 vs Bears - LOSS. Gotta go out with a bang. And Forte and the Bears are just better than the Texans.
Final Record: 5-11. Fuckin wonderful.
So, of course, the Texans fucked it up. I don't know how they were only down by a TD when the game ended, because the whole game had the feeling of a blowout. Maybe it was that Adrian Peterson scored in the opening minutes of the game, or maybe it was that the QBs (Schaub was injured in the 1st half and was finally pulled after he made several terrible plays) kept committing turnovers, but the game felt like a 35-7 loss, not 28-21. So if they keep playing like this, what's their record going to be?
11/9 vs. Baltimore - LOSS. Their defense will kill us. What offense they have will play the Texans' defense like a well-tuned two-bit whore.
11/16 @ Indy - LOSS. They'll be going in with a two-game losing streak. The Colts suck this year, but not as much as the Texans. Plus, we're the Reds to their Oswalt.
11/23 @ Cleveland - WIN. Hey, they can handle this one. Maybe.
12/1 vs. Jacksonville - WIN. God, I hope so. It'll be Monday night, and I think God owes the people of Houston this much. Who am I kidding? He'll break all of our hearts in front of a national audience. LOSS.
12/7 @ Green Bay - LOSS. After the way the Packers dismantled the Colts? We're going to get killed.
12/14 vs Hicks - I'd give my left nut and whatever cash I have on me for the Texans to break up the sister-fuckers' perfect season. But it won't happen. LOSS.
12/21 @ Oakland - WIN. If not, well, shit.
12/28 vs Bears - LOSS. Gotta go out with a bang. And Forte and the Bears are just better than the Texans.
Final Record: 5-11. Fuckin wonderful.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
College football sucks
There, I said it. I used to think the NCAA provided something that the NFL did not, and they do, but it's not something that should be provided.
Tulane lines up for its now annual asskicking from the LSU Tigers tonight. The season started off fairly well - Alabama beat the Green Wave only via two punt/kick return touchdowns (I don't remember which). But the season has gone terribly for Tulane, losing to Army homecoming weekend and getting blown out by Rice (to be fair, Rice is very good this year, but still). LSU is essentially on the bubble for a BCS bowl game (unlikely, but possible). Neither has seen the season go as hoped.
And, frankly, no one outside of Tulane alumni and the student body gives a shit about the LSU-Tulane "rivalry." It's a rivalry that hasn't been relavent since the Truman administration. This used to be a playing-out of Louisiana's two cultural hearts - New Orleans and everywhere else. It used to have the same significance as UC vs. Stanford - a rivalry between the state's premier public and private institutions.
But in the intervening years, Tulane left the SEC, falling into the hellhole that is non-BCS football. They mustered two great seasons when Tommy Bowden coached, but sucked after he left for Clemson (Of course, it didn't help that Tulane passed over OC Rich Rodriguez for the HC position). And that summarizes why the worse schools can't compete or even get better - as soon as they get better, the head coach and AD will leave for greener pastures. Organizational stability and success allow for a school to build a winning program, and smaller schools are largely unable to create any of those things.
It remains to be seen whether Bob Toledo can build a winning program at Tulane. I doubt it. Alumni won't allow Tulane to go to Divison I-AA, and the NCAA isn't structured to allow for more competitive schools (the easiest way to facilitate this, of course, would be to further decrease the number of scholarships offered).
Oh, and FanHouse has a pretty sweet picture of a Texans fan's jersey:
Some Texans fans like Dallas as their NFC team.
Those people are called "traitors."
Some Texans fans loathe the Cowboys.
These people are called "the citizens of Houston."
Can't have it both ways folks - either like Dallas or like Houston. Can't do both.
Tulane lines up for its now annual asskicking from the LSU Tigers tonight. The season started off fairly well - Alabama beat the Green Wave only via two punt/kick return touchdowns (I don't remember which). But the season has gone terribly for Tulane, losing to Army homecoming weekend and getting blown out by Rice (to be fair, Rice is very good this year, but still). LSU is essentially on the bubble for a BCS bowl game (unlikely, but possible). Neither has seen the season go as hoped.
And, frankly, no one outside of Tulane alumni and the student body gives a shit about the LSU-Tulane "rivalry." It's a rivalry that hasn't been relavent since the Truman administration. This used to be a playing-out of Louisiana's two cultural hearts - New Orleans and everywhere else. It used to have the same significance as UC vs. Stanford - a rivalry between the state's premier public and private institutions.
But in the intervening years, Tulane left the SEC, falling into the hellhole that is non-BCS football. They mustered two great seasons when Tommy Bowden coached, but sucked after he left for Clemson (Of course, it didn't help that Tulane passed over OC Rich Rodriguez for the HC position). And that summarizes why the worse schools can't compete or even get better - as soon as they get better, the head coach and AD will leave for greener pastures. Organizational stability and success allow for a school to build a winning program, and smaller schools are largely unable to create any of those things.
It remains to be seen whether Bob Toledo can build a winning program at Tulane. I doubt it. Alumni won't allow Tulane to go to Divison I-AA, and the NCAA isn't structured to allow for more competitive schools (the easiest way to facilitate this, of course, would be to further decrease the number of scholarships offered).
Oh, and FanHouse has a pretty sweet picture of a Texans fan's jersey:
Some Texans fans like Dallas as their NFC team.
Those people are called "traitors."
Some Texans fans loathe the Cowboys.
These people are called "the citizens of Houston."
Can't have it both ways folks - either like Dallas or like Houston. Can't do both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
