2 amazing stats and 1 example of stupidity  


1) before today's game, freddy garcia had received a total of 13 runs of support the entire season.

2) before today's game, no team had recorded a save against the redsox at fenway.

now, while trying to find good reviews of the greatest movie of all time (windy city heat), i've found basically two camps.

A) It can't be real. nobody would actually believe that. it's too over the top.

B) it has to be real. Eddie (is that his name?) can't be in on the joke b/c he's not a good enough actor to pretend to be "real".

as for A), that's not "proof". These people make these statements like it erases all doubt.

It's B) that bothers me more though. Assuming, arguendo, that the "joke is on us" and he's in on the joke, then why on earth would he assume that his bad acting is "real"????? Maybe he really is a good actor. in fact, i imagine playing a bad actor is pretty easy. The cliche that always annoyed me is when people would talk about lisa kudrow and say "oh, it must be tough for her to play dumb b/c she's so smart in real life'. come again? is saying "i don't get it" or "huh" really that hard a concept to master? By that definition, there could be no such thing as acting. litterally, people could only play themselves.

this movie HAS to be real. i think i would cry if i learned otherwise.

why do people keep checking this site?  


are you not aware that i'm studying for two bars?

see you in august!

Warren Sapp is a big ol' meanie  


A good indication of a person's character is how they react when getting punked. Of course they all laugh after they know they were punked, but that's just saving face. Oh no, what i'm focused on is how quickly they become beligerant towards the punker.

to the surprise of no one, sapp became very upset from the very beggining. Obviously, the punker gets more and more ridiculous as the scene goes on. At the beginning, the guy wasn't even THAT bad. It could have easily been "real". And sapp was just so arrogant and pompous towards the guy.

i don't want to go on. i dislike the guy.

offense vs defense  


why is it that i root for defensive teams? on some level, defense is a good sign of "effort" instead of a skill. Of course, all things being equal, i would objectively like to root for a team that is overachieving through effort instead of just being super talented.

but i'm starting to wonder if my obsession with defense is no different than CW's desire to see small ball. To get a Win, you need to score more points than your opponent. that's it.

I'm sitting here watching the pistons destroy the nets, and the announcers keep excusing kidd's horrible shooting with "well, he does so many other things to help them win. he doesn't need to score." Is this true? would we be as accepting as someone who was lights out shooting but couldn't play defense for his life? If not, why not?

Allan houston is terrible at defense. but i don't think it's a lack of effort in his case. He's just not athletic enough. But i hold it against him. I wrongly blame him for his lack of defense. It's a double standard, i know, but i can't stop.

was i watching an ali g skit?  


sportcenter or some espn basketball show, i'm not sure...

dan patrick: "fact or fiction, tonights game will be the last time we see THIS kings team play together"

leiger: "fiction. sure, they might tweak their line up a bit. a role player here or there, but the core will be the same. webber, bibby, stoiakavich (SP) and miller, they aren't going anywhere"

other guy" "i disagree. they've spent tons of money (blah blah blah) and they haven't even made it to the finals. if they don't win this year, i could see webber and/or christie being traded. you at least have to LOOK at trades should they not make it to the finals."

patrick: well, then if they win tonight but then lose to the lakers, will that keep the team together?

leiger: No, this team is going to get broken up if they don't make the finals.


Correlation does not equal causation: example #584  


Moderately interesting news segment on child labor in India. How kids are forced to work like slaves and whatnot while the rich kids go to school.

at the very end, peter jennings says:

"There is hope though, as in the region of _____, where litteracy is nearly 100%, kids don't work as much and stay in school more."

ugh, i'm not getting the sentence exactly right. he was saying that litteracy will save everything. that it will cause kids to work less and instead keep them in school.

now, wouldn't a rational person think, "hmm, if the kids are in school and not working, they will have a higher litteracy rate"

how could peter have it the other way around (and especially have the latter two things independent of each other?)

Am I the last femminist left?  


Susan Hawk is one of those annoying femminists who goes so far over the edge that they actually become sexist. You know the type...she'll go out of her way to say that women are better than men at things, but if someone points to something that a man can do better she starts flipping out. Just as a point of reference, she actually said that it was sexist when she heard someone say that men could beat women at tennis.

Well, this "femminist" became a complete hypocrite last night when she revealed that she got major plastic surgery done. Lipo, eyes, and breasts, just to name a few. First, let me generally say that people who take pride in their "new" look is a bit disturbing in and of itself. She didn't do anything to earn this improved look (not only did she not work out or change her lifestyle, but a tv show PAID for the surgery). Second, and more importantly, this isn't even "her" anymore. There were parts altered (and added!) to her. how can she take pride in this? "hey look at me, i'm not myself anymore". Disgusting.

Now, for the hypocritical part. As a femmonist, i imagine she takes issue with the fact that women are objectified and judged on their looks. As a brute, i imagine she didn't care for this fact. But, now that she's better looking, all of a sudden she enjoys the fact that her looks are important. She relished the applause that she was getting last night. All of a sudden, being objectified is ok b/c she's on the "plus" side of that evaluation.

It just sickens me to no end. There's no such thing as a femmonist anymore (except for me, i guess). There's no such thing as ANYTHING anymore. Magic Johnson becomes a spokesman for AIDS after he gets it. Should we respect him for that? How about caring about something that doesn't directly affect you? How about making a sacrafice for something you believe in. If Susan Hawk really believed that objectification of women is wrong, then when she was offered free breasts she should have said "no thanks, i find it degrading".

I'm tired of so called femmonists who want it both ways. They whine and moan when they affected by the negative stereotypes of women affect them, but seem to have no qualms about using the positive ones to their advantage. These same women who whine and moan about not being able to get equal pay for equal work (or just a general respect in their office) never seem to be able to buy their own drinks or do any type of manual labor. "why do guys always stare at my chest?" - uh probably b/c you wear revealing outfits. Shut up, you sicken me.

dusty baker manages the expos?  


bottom of the eighth, 2 outs, expos up 3-1. Bases loaded and the pitcher spot coming up.

he lets livan hernandez hit.

a hit ENDS the game. instead, livan strikes out and now has to go into the 9th with only a 2 run lead.

steve needs to edit this before i post it  


I could easily have chalked up the recent events to ignorance and moved on. However, it is the ignorance of the ignorance that is inexcusable. The arrogance of the ignorant people in this league is so shocking that I feel as though it’s my duty to try and explain to them why they are so ignorant. So, away we go…

April 20th, circa 10 am – Kush (I don’t even know his first name. That fact will be important later), IM’s me telling me how he’s about to pull off a blockbuster trade with Jen. He does so in a joking manner, and within the bounds of “fun competitive spirit”. Considering that he has the 2nd best team in the league, obviously I do not want his team to get better. So, as I have done before (and as any good gm would do), I try and see if I can offer a better deal to the person he’s about to trade with (in this case, Jen).

April 20th, circa 11 am – My opening line to Jen is along the lines of “I better stop this trade any way I can, even if that means you getting mad at him” I can’t remember the exact wording of it, but it was clearly an opening joke and playing up the same competitive spirit that Kush started the conversations with that morning. I then followed up with something like “If you only knew what he was saying about you, you’d trade with me instead. See, right here he says trading with you is annoying” Yes, I pasted a line. Just like lines were pasted by certain people to my sister where I was calling her a “nerd” or something equally offensive. Had I known that I was dealing with a completely insecure and paranoid person, I wouldn’t have made the initial joke. However, I didn’t, and Jen then demanded to know what was said about her. After attempting to defuse the situation by explaining that it was just joking around and nothing serious, she wouldn’t shut up so I just sent her the rest of the inoffensive lines. After that, she said, “Ok let’s talk trades” and the deal was worked out for chavez/jeter.

April 20th, circa 11:30 am – Kush says “thanks for getting my girlfriend angry at me”. I try to explain to him that it was not intentional and she’s just taking things the wrong way. Jen then IM’s me cursing at me, and saying I was evil and that she never would have done the trade had she been aware of what I was doing to her. I can’t remember her exact wording, but it was shockingly delusional.

Now, I’m going to have to fill in the time between 11 and 11:30 b/c that’s where the ignorance sets in. Here’s what Jen has to believe in order for her side to make sense.

1) She has to assume that her own boyfriend considers her annoying
2) That not only does he think she’s annoying, but that he would share that with people.
3) That he would share that with me, someone he doesn’t even know, has never met, and who’s first name I don’t even know.
4) That I would then take that confidence and break it by telling her.
5) That I would do so in the context of fantasy and try to use it to my fantasy advantage
6) That I would think that it would actually work. And that she would then dislike her current boyfriend and just trade with me.

All of that has to be true in order for her theory to hold water. Here’s a much simpler explanation: I was joking around by sending that line in the exact same way that someone sent similar lines to my sister. Did I go around accusing people of trying to break up my family? No, mainly b/c I’m not a delusional nut who thinks the world revolves around them.

There should be a general competitive spirit that comes with fantasy. You should want to beat other teams. I was trying to enjoy such a spirit when I was trying to block kush’s trade and better my own team. It wasn’t an attempt to get Jen to actually dislike Kush or get mad at him. If the standard by which fantasy decisions are made is “which GM do I like more?” then this league is doomed.

So, whatever, a completely irrational person called me evil and had this conspiracy theory that I was intentionally playing on real emotions to my fantasy benefit. The funny part is that she said that I “admitted” it with my opening line. Call me crazy, but if was really going to try and manipulate someone, I wouldn’t joke about it at the very beginning. “Hey moron, I’m about to do something, get ready.”

But, like I said, I can tolerate ignorance and although Jen was completely wrong about my intentions, I didn’t really care. I know that my integrity remains in tact and that it was a misunderstood joke, not something evil. Then things got ridiculous as she arrogantly IM’s me with “just to let you know, your little scheme did not work and good triumphs over evil.”

And that brings me to:

April 20th 12:49 pm – My trade gets vetoed.

I recently went back to the league settings to make sure the standard for trades was “league vote”. Nowhere in the yahoo constitution does it say the standard is “whiny 20 year old girlfriend is sad, so trade gets vetoed.” If people want to question my integrity, perhaps they shouldn’t abuse their commissioner’s powers. Why was this trade vetoed? Was there a league vote that I was not aware of in those 40 minutes? If so, how many teams vetoed? And what was the standard that they used? It clearly wasn’t based on anything fantasy related, b/c the talent on both sides of the trade was essentially even. Was the trade vetoed b/c I’m a “bad” person? If so, that’s subjective, unethical, and not apart of the fantasy experience. It’s also flat out incorrect.

So, the commissioner abuses his power to make his little girlfriend happy. How sweet. And how unethical. How am I supposed to run my team the way I want when he’s just making decisions on his own personal tastes? Now that I’m “public enemy #1”, I guess I should never expect to even get a trade offered in my direction. Never mind the fact that two players, Chavez, and Jeter, SHOULD have been on my team and no longer were. It was an accepted trade. An accepted trade has to be vetoed by the RULES, not because someone is irrational and misunderstood a joke.

So after this debacle, I pretty much lost all respect for this league (or at least the two parties involved). However, since I only know these people through my sister, I was going to allow the ignorance to go unmentioned just to avoid making waves. But, then the commissioner goes ahead and vetoes another trade involving Jeter. Again, no explanation as to why the trade was vetoed, what teams agreed, or what standard he is using. But guess what happens? Of course, he eventually winds up getting the player (Jeter) who was involved in TWO unfairly vetoed trades.

What’s the point in being in a league where one person can abuse his power and unfairly manipulate the playing field. I was accused of trying to manipulate people, but I think it’s time that others look in the mirror. Jen took such arrogant satisfaction in telling me that the trade was vetoed…that good triumphed over evil. I don’t see how clicking on a button makes anything more right or wrong. Yes, he vetoed a trade, but he was able to do so not because he was “right” but because he was “powerful” in the fantasy sense. He could probably beat me up too, does that make his position anymore right?

Whoever had a problem with my trade (and who knows, maybe people did veto it on their own accord in those 30 minutes and w/o prodding from certain people) did not have a problem from a talent standpoint. I was giving up pedro among other players. In a league where Nomar for Nomo can actually make it through, obviously there doesn’t seem to be a problem with lopsided trades. No, the veto of this trade was done for personal reasons. Thus, it was a compromise of integrity and I find it insulting and disgusting. I have no desire to play in a league where someone can just wield power without any restraints…especially when that person has proven to lack integrity.

If he wants to win so badly, I’m going to help him. I’ll guarantee that every time he plays me, he’ll get a 10-0 win. Then, I’ll just dump whoever into my roster when I’m playing other teams. Even without checking or updating, I should at least get a few cheap wins and ruin other people’s chances.

And for anyone in this league who is going to complain that “I’m ruining it for everyone”, I have a question. Where were you when these other trades were vetoed? Is it fair that certain teams are not allowed to run their teams as they see fit? That certain teams are allowed to trade and others aren’t? That it’s one person who’s allowed to make such decisions.

If people’s stance is “he can do it b/c he has the power, he’s the commish”, then fine. But guess what, I have power to control my team. And until he figures out how to officially kick me out of yahoo, then I’m going to do my best to fight fire with fire.

To anyone not involved in this debacle, I regret any decrease in enjoyment that my participation caused. To Jen, I apologize for upsetting you with my joke, but clearly it was not intentional. Maybe it’s my fault for not appreciating how sensitive people can be. Especially younger people. And for you commish, I’m sorry that you can’t see the error of your ways. You can threaten me with “no future invitations” but why would I want to be in a league where you abuse your powers. Enjoy winning the league. Enjoy, too the fact that you compromised your integrity in doing so. I did nothing intentionally wrong but was punished nonetheless. Really fair.

That is all. Thanks for making me a martyr.

Local ordinance 404.1  


404.1 Personal Cooking Appliances. Personal appliances such as gas or propane camp stove, portable barbecue or hibachi, may be used under the following conditions:
a). Placement in an area that will not scorch, burn or otherwise damage lawns or table tops.
b). Placement in an area at least 30 feet from any flammable material such as grass, weeds, wood chips, brush or buildings.
c). All burning fuel such as wood or charcoal is thoroughly extinguished before being disposed of in an existing fireplace, fire pit or barbecue grill. It is unlawful to dispose of coals in garbage cans or refuse bins.
Looks like from all the research that i did, that it is unsafe to throw coals out in the garbage. This makes sense, as even splashing water on them does not guarantee that they will not remain hot internally. It would be crazy to throw a cig. in the garbage.

The IDEAL way to get rid of coal is either 1) soak them in water for 24 hours and then put them in the garbage, or 2) submerge them in water and then put them in a metal tin sealed tightly. Since neither of these options were available, i feel like the side of the parking lot was the best solution.

but what do i know.

The thin fabric of society is eroding...  


People incorrectly think that their morality only becomes tested when the stakes are high. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's quite likely that when something is big enough, you might do the "right" thing just out of obligation or guilt. Integrity is doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's the little daily activities that trully test what kind of person you are.

With that being said, I think the logical conclusion is that how a person conducts themselves while waiting in line defines their existence as human beings. Recently, i had the unfortunate displeasure of witnessing people completely disregard their fellow man in an attempt to satisfy their own personal greed. Try as they might to justify such horrible behavior, there is simply no justification. Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. These people are part of the problem.

When the bbq was about to start, i immediately got in line. I was in a rush b/c my last class ever was starting in 10 minutes. The line was brutally long and filled up right behind me. Hungry, sitting out in the heat, and watching the clock, the line was obviously annoying. But, what was 100x worse was watching the occassional person forgo the line and just take whatever they wanted. They were so shady about it too, just happening to want to say hello to one of their friends who was at the front of the line. Here's a news flash, in such a limited environment, everyone basically knows everyone. it's the equivelant of when PJ points in one direction right before he hits you with a pillow in a drunken stupor. You can see it coming from a mile away.

Anyway, these line cutters come up with all types of excuses: i was hungry, i couldn't wait in line, everyone is doing, etc etc etc.

Of course, we were all hungry. Wanting something doesn't justify taking something. There are lots of things i want. The question is whether you are entitled to them. And if you don't wait in line, you aren't entitled to it. How is it that these people think they are too good to stand in line? I had a class to get to, while i saw some of these line cutters then sitting out in the sun lazily enjoying their food. But it's the "everyone is doing it" part that really bothers me.

Obbviously, not every one is doing it. Because if they were, there wouldn't be a line. There would be complete chaos. No, just the selfish and inconsiderate people are doing it. And guess what, the people that were going to wait in line see this and get frustrated and maybe they cut as well. Now your decision to cut has not only hurt all the people in line who now have to wait longer, but it has also encouraged other people to act equally inconsiderate. Furthermore, for someone in line to say "everyon is cutting", they are obviously noticing the shadiness of the behavior. Now, maybe it takes a rare person to sit and get so angry that they stew about it for a week and then rant about it in a blog, but i imagine that a "normal" person's view of the world drops just a bit. Maybe down the line said person decides not to go out of their way to help a person. Not to give a horribly cliched "pay it forward" interpretation, but i REFUSE to believe that these encounters with selfish people don't accumulate. Often, we just push it down deep into a little ball, and occassionaly release it by punching out an umpire. I can't imagine caring so little about the people around you that you can "hurt" them for your own personal gain. How can these people be so painfully unware?

So, i waited an extra 2 minutes for my burger. Big deal. But where does it stop? Can you just litter b/c who cares if there's some garbage on the floor? Everyone does it. The garbage can was ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. Look out for number one, i guess. society comes in a distant second.

If i'm a bitter person, it's only b/c for 25 years i've had to endure people cutting me in line.