This shit storm is just gonna keep going until it becomes a diarrhea that forces the nation into a dehydration of proper sports knowledge.
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/8853534
And I thought America didn't have a cholera problem
Godspeed
-- Knuttel
11.28.2008
11.26.2008
Trouble on the horizon
ESPN, an already evil enough organization (trying to lowball NHL, for shame) is on a path to take over the world.
They must be stopped
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sandomir.html?_r=3&em
http://deadspin.com/5098814/exploring-the-espn-business-model-hint-it-involves-swimming-in-piles-of-cash
The most efficient way may be to start with the head, to take down Disney itself.
Godspeed
-- Knuttel
They must be stopped
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/sports/ncaafootball/25sandomir.html?_r=3&em
http://deadspin.com/5098814/exploring-the-espn-business-model-hint-it-involves-swimming-in-piles-of-cash
The most efficient way may be to start with the head, to take down Disney itself.
Godspeed
-- Knuttel
11.23.2008
A Proposition to Roger Goodell, Regarding Quarterbacks
Dear Commissioner Goodell,
As you may or (apparently) may not know, there is a growing controversy over the rule being implemented this year on how quarterbacks are hit -- while either holding the ball or immediately after releasing it.
Well, Mr. Goodell, I have a solution for you, that I think wins for both sides.
When a defensive player gets within a certain distance of the quarterback, he simply raises his hands up and yells "SACK!"
How could this not fail, Mr. Goodell? The quarterbacks will remain untouched, and therefore unbroken. Because of this rule, we may never have to suffer through (*gasp*) another Tom Brady-less year. Plus, the defenses will still get to play at 100%.
The refs can decide how close it is you need to be to yell sack, and naturally it should change from game to game, as the current rule also works. Ties, should naturally go to the quarterback, cos we all know offense is the be-all and end-all of all that football is.
Thank you for your consideration,
--Knuttel
As you may or (apparently) may not know, there is a growing controversy over the rule being implemented this year on how quarterbacks are hit -- while either holding the ball or immediately after releasing it.
Well, Mr. Goodell, I have a solution for you, that I think wins for both sides.
When a defensive player gets within a certain distance of the quarterback, he simply raises his hands up and yells "SACK!"
How could this not fail, Mr. Goodell? The quarterbacks will remain untouched, and therefore unbroken. Because of this rule, we may never have to suffer through (*gasp*) another Tom Brady-less year. Plus, the defenses will still get to play at 100%.
The refs can decide how close it is you need to be to yell sack, and naturally it should change from game to game, as the current rule also works. Ties, should naturally go to the quarterback, cos we all know offense is the be-all and end-all of all that football is.
Thank you for your consideration,
--Knuttel
11.22.2008
Why is Tim Burton Still Making Movies?
Seriously, why? I can't think of any good explanation for it. Anyone who's seen the suckfest that is Sweeney Todd:bla bla bla bla bla would know exactly what I am talking about -- and I should note for reference that the statement is not an indictment on musicals; I happen to enjoy them, and movies such as The Sound of Music, The King and I, and West Side Story all happen to be favorites of mine.
But the issue at hand is not Sweeney Todd. That has already been done, and little can be done to amend it. I'd suggest burying copies of the DVD in the middle of the desert, somewhere near wherever the video game for ET was taken, but I have hope that the land could one day be arable, and I don't wish the soil to be inadvertantly polluted. Ejecting them into space may incur the wrath of a normally peaceful group of aliens.
The issue at hand is his remake of Alice in Wonderland. For those of you that don't know, Tim Burton has little success with remakes. His Batman and Batman Returns I think were actually surpassed by Schumacker's later Batman Forever (which was honest about its camp) and never topped the movie based on the TV show from the 60s (Bat-shark repellent spray -- classic). The latest Christopher Nolan series of Batman movies really puts these to shame.
He then remade Planet of the Apes. The original was one of the greatest movies of all time. There will never be another actor like Chuck Heston. And for the record, Mark "Marky-Mark" Wahlberg is no Chuck Heston. So what if the monkeys in the original looked fake, it wasn't about the appearance. The movie was a classic for its script and direction and acting, not makeup. I would go so far as to say the last movie of the series in the 70s (or 80s, no one really knows when they stopped) was better than this pile of diarrhea that Tim Burton made.
Then he re-made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Frankly the only people I know who claim to remotely like it are die-hard Tim Burton fans. OK, so the book might have been darker than the Gene Wilder film. The Gene Wilder film was made for children, no need to be excessively dark. The Tim Burton film was more so "sanitary" than dark, especially the scenes within the factory itself. And also, i did find the original "adequately dark." The scene in the tunnel with the boat and the end when he almost blows off Charlie are dark enough, not to mention the cold way he deals with every single kid who gets kicked out. Oh, and by the way, trying to turn the main character into an allegory of a man who was 6 when the book was written, why? Frankly, it just dates the movie in the worst of ways, much in the way vague genre movies date themselves. Who cares, the only movie that should even mention the life (not works, that is entirely different, and entirely touchable) of Michael Jackson is his own movie, Moonwalker.
Somewhere along the way he also made The Corpse Bride, which was essentially a re-make of his already made movie -- The Nightmare Before Christmas.
I'm thoroughly convinced he doesn't do casting calls anymore. Just take a look at the cast list for Alice. Every movie since he married Helena Bonham Carter has starred her. Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter? The list goes on to include -- Christopher Lee, Paul Reubens, Alan Rickman, and Deep Roy. For those unfamiliar with the last name, he is the Oompa-Lumpa from Charlie, and also has parts in Big Fish, Sleepy Hollow, The Corpse Bride, and Planet of the Apes.
The reason I'm writing this is because recently (this week I believe) the studio released stills from his upcoming re-make. Notably there was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Sufficed to say, if I had not been made aware that this was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, I would have selected JOHNNY DEPP FROM ANY OTHER DAMN TIM BURTON MOVIE. Look, I respect, sometimes admire Depp's acting career for the most part, I just don't understand why he signs on to all of his films.
I also understand that filmmakers like to have a signature look. The problem is every single one of his movies seems the same. I didn't mind that when it was just Edward Scissorhands. At the time, it was an innovative movie, with a unique appearance. It's just that almost every one of his movies since then has the same exact neo-gothic look about it. Even Planet of the Apes has a somewhat gothic feel to it, despite being set well in the future.
I've heard the argument that he uses colors well. That's essentially the only argument I've ever heard, and its a bit weak. The only colors he ever really uses are black, white, and red. Maybe sometimes he'll use orange, which is really a light red. This also puts him in the company of I Know Who Killed Me, one of the latest films to star Lohan. Though I am a fan of the film (shocking, I know), one thing I'm not going to tout is its art direction -- for the exact same reason, its solely reliant upon an extremely small set of colors which are set well apart from the others. If you're looking to do something more artistic with it, don't make it so obvious. Use a full spectrum of colors, and perhaps have a group which signifies something.
Tim Burton needs to stop. He's simply adding to the trend of re-making movies and making more and more sequels. To make matters worse, it doesn't even appear that he's going to do a very good job with Alice.
Why can't someone do something creative, such as the screenplay I am currently working upon, about a national dilemma; where it turns out the nazi's aren't gone. They've simply escaped to a secret moon base, and are planning to launch an attack to make up for their prior defeat. The solution: a task force of werewolves, who will, because they are on the moon, be in a permanent state of werewolf. Sadly, if this gets made, I see a Tim Burton re-make ten years immediately afterwards, starring Christopher Lee as a Nazi, Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman as werewolves, and Helena Bonham Carter as the President of the Unites States of America.
--Knuttel
But the issue at hand is not Sweeney Todd. That has already been done, and little can be done to amend it. I'd suggest burying copies of the DVD in the middle of the desert, somewhere near wherever the video game for ET was taken, but I have hope that the land could one day be arable, and I don't wish the soil to be inadvertantly polluted. Ejecting them into space may incur the wrath of a normally peaceful group of aliens.
The issue at hand is his remake of Alice in Wonderland. For those of you that don't know, Tim Burton has little success with remakes. His Batman and Batman Returns I think were actually surpassed by Schumacker's later Batman Forever (which was honest about its camp) and never topped the movie based on the TV show from the 60s (Bat-shark repellent spray -- classic). The latest Christopher Nolan series of Batman movies really puts these to shame.
He then remade Planet of the Apes. The original was one of the greatest movies of all time. There will never be another actor like Chuck Heston. And for the record, Mark "Marky-Mark" Wahlberg is no Chuck Heston. So what if the monkeys in the original looked fake, it wasn't about the appearance. The movie was a classic for its script and direction and acting, not makeup. I would go so far as to say the last movie of the series in the 70s (or 80s, no one really knows when they stopped) was better than this pile of diarrhea that Tim Burton made.
Then he re-made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Frankly the only people I know who claim to remotely like it are die-hard Tim Burton fans. OK, so the book might have been darker than the Gene Wilder film. The Gene Wilder film was made for children, no need to be excessively dark. The Tim Burton film was more so "sanitary" than dark, especially the scenes within the factory itself. And also, i did find the original "adequately dark." The scene in the tunnel with the boat and the end when he almost blows off Charlie are dark enough, not to mention the cold way he deals with every single kid who gets kicked out. Oh, and by the way, trying to turn the main character into an allegory of a man who was 6 when the book was written, why? Frankly, it just dates the movie in the worst of ways, much in the way vague genre movies date themselves. Who cares, the only movie that should even mention the life (not works, that is entirely different, and entirely touchable) of Michael Jackson is his own movie, Moonwalker.
Somewhere along the way he also made The Corpse Bride, which was essentially a re-make of his already made movie -- The Nightmare Before Christmas.
I'm thoroughly convinced he doesn't do casting calls anymore. Just take a look at the cast list for Alice. Every movie since he married Helena Bonham Carter has starred her. Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter? The list goes on to include -- Christopher Lee, Paul Reubens, Alan Rickman, and Deep Roy. For those unfamiliar with the last name, he is the Oompa-Lumpa from Charlie, and also has parts in Big Fish, Sleepy Hollow, The Corpse Bride, and Planet of the Apes.
The reason I'm writing this is because recently (this week I believe) the studio released stills from his upcoming re-make. Notably there was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Sufficed to say, if I had not been made aware that this was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, I would have selected JOHNNY DEPP FROM ANY OTHER DAMN TIM BURTON MOVIE. Look, I respect, sometimes admire Depp's acting career for the most part, I just don't understand why he signs on to all of his films.
I also understand that filmmakers like to have a signature look. The problem is every single one of his movies seems the same. I didn't mind that when it was just Edward Scissorhands. At the time, it was an innovative movie, with a unique appearance. It's just that almost every one of his movies since then has the same exact neo-gothic look about it. Even Planet of the Apes has a somewhat gothic feel to it, despite being set well in the future.
I've heard the argument that he uses colors well. That's essentially the only argument I've ever heard, and its a bit weak. The only colors he ever really uses are black, white, and red. Maybe sometimes he'll use orange, which is really a light red. This also puts him in the company of I Know Who Killed Me, one of the latest films to star Lohan. Though I am a fan of the film (shocking, I know), one thing I'm not going to tout is its art direction -- for the exact same reason, its solely reliant upon an extremely small set of colors which are set well apart from the others. If you're looking to do something more artistic with it, don't make it so obvious. Use a full spectrum of colors, and perhaps have a group which signifies something.
Tim Burton needs to stop. He's simply adding to the trend of re-making movies and making more and more sequels. To make matters worse, it doesn't even appear that he's going to do a very good job with Alice.
Why can't someone do something creative, such as the screenplay I am currently working upon, about a national dilemma; where it turns out the nazi's aren't gone. They've simply escaped to a secret moon base, and are planning to launch an attack to make up for their prior defeat. The solution: a task force of werewolves, who will, because they are on the moon, be in a permanent state of werewolf. Sadly, if this gets made, I see a Tim Burton re-make ten years immediately afterwards, starring Christopher Lee as a Nazi, Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman as werewolves, and Helena Bonham Carter as the President of the Unites States of America.
--Knuttel
11.19.2008
No More Clintonites
OK, so Barry-O has been busy trying to figure out who is going to be in his cabinet, and has named some pretty important positions thus far; notably Chief of Staff, Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services.
One thing to keep in mind -- Barry O will pretty much be able to select whoever he wants to fill any of these positions, his party has a clear majority in congress, and there is even a possibility the Senate could be filibuster proof by party lines. It is likelier to already be filibuster proof due to the rather amorphous nature of American Political Parties. People are elected, rather than parties, thus people from the other side of the aisle may help in blocking filibusters.
Alas, I digress.
Barry O has been nominating too many Clintonites into these seats of power. In fact, I can't really name anyone selected thus far (except maybe Daschle) who doesn't have a strong Clinton connection.
Barry O ran on the platform of change. He has yet to take the Oath of Office, and already things are looking a lot like 1998.
While this is still a welcome difference from the expected continuation of Neo-Cons if McCain had won -- yes, I know he isn't a neo-con, but his campaign was run by them, and in all likelihood he would have picked several to run his cabinet -- This is not what I voted for, and more importantly, this is not what America voted for.
If America wanted another Clinton Administration, America would have picked Hilary Clinton to be the Democratic Candidate. She lost, and now it seems all too real that she could end up being secretary of state. Scary proposition. When you pick one Clinton, you get both of them. While I admire Bill Clinton, and his presidency, now is not the time for him to be at the forefront of American politics. This administration was supposed to hand off the party to the next generation of Democrats, not bring back the old ones.
We don't need someone who can advise Barry O on foreign relations, write foreign policy etc -- Biden is also in office, remember, he can do that stuff. We need Obama-Biden policy, not Clinton-Clinton policy.
That's another thing, Biden is/has experience. I know Barry O wants to pick up a bunch of experienced, qualified people, but -- sometimes, in fact oftentimes, experience does not equal qualified.
I could continue on this matter, but the issue is grating upon me too much.
--Knuttel
One thing to keep in mind -- Barry O will pretty much be able to select whoever he wants to fill any of these positions, his party has a clear majority in congress, and there is even a possibility the Senate could be filibuster proof by party lines. It is likelier to already be filibuster proof due to the rather amorphous nature of American Political Parties. People are elected, rather than parties, thus people from the other side of the aisle may help in blocking filibusters.
Alas, I digress.
Barry O has been nominating too many Clintonites into these seats of power. In fact, I can't really name anyone selected thus far (except maybe Daschle) who doesn't have a strong Clinton connection.
Barry O ran on the platform of change. He has yet to take the Oath of Office, and already things are looking a lot like 1998.
While this is still a welcome difference from the expected continuation of Neo-Cons if McCain had won -- yes, I know he isn't a neo-con, but his campaign was run by them, and in all likelihood he would have picked several to run his cabinet -- This is not what I voted for, and more importantly, this is not what America voted for.
If America wanted another Clinton Administration, America would have picked Hilary Clinton to be the Democratic Candidate. She lost, and now it seems all too real that she could end up being secretary of state. Scary proposition. When you pick one Clinton, you get both of them. While I admire Bill Clinton, and his presidency, now is not the time for him to be at the forefront of American politics. This administration was supposed to hand off the party to the next generation of Democrats, not bring back the old ones.
We don't need someone who can advise Barry O on foreign relations, write foreign policy etc -- Biden is also in office, remember, he can do that stuff. We need Obama-Biden policy, not Clinton-Clinton policy.
That's another thing, Biden is/has experience. I know Barry O wants to pick up a bunch of experienced, qualified people, but -- sometimes, in fact oftentimes, experience does not equal qualified.
I could continue on this matter, but the issue is grating upon me too much.
--Knuttel
11.16.2008
BOYCOTT THE NFL
To begin, let me assure everyone, this is not because the Eagles just tied the Bungles. This is about a disease which is plaguing the entire league.
The Quarterback is being overprotected.
The quarterback can slide down anywhere on the field, instead of being tackled down, if he so chooses. The quarterback cannot be hit below the knees behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit in the head behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit after he releases a pass behind the line of scrimmage. Now it seems the quarterback cannot be hit at all.
WHY?!!??!?
Last time I checked, the quarterback is a normal position, just like any other position on the field. Why is he given precedence? Even as the position is slowly moving back to accepting "athletes" to play it (after the doldrums of slow qbs which hung like a parasite in the 70s and 80s), it seems the NFL is slowly rejecting the notion that these players are equals of their teammates.
Why don't we just dress all of the quarterbacks up in tutus. That way at least the other team knows they should just prance around him and tap him down, as opposed to hitting him down.
Seriously, I think at this point it would actually be manlier to sit through The Notebook than to watch any given quarter (let alone a whole game) of an NFL game.
Personally, this is not a very tough decision on my part. I had previously boycotted the last super bowl, after I decided the best result of that game would be a natural disaster to destroy the stadium and all inside. I found a good alternative in the puppy bowl, voiced by none other than the legendary Harry Kalas, who is known nationally as the voice of NFL films since '75, back when they actually played football (locally, the legendary voice of the Phillies. Side note, why the hell is he not voicing the Phillies World Series DVD? That is an outrage, and I may think about putting a bounty of Bud Selig's head for that). I've also had a personal boycott on the Madden Series, since it has become total crap since it gained the right to be the exclusive NFL game, and a boycott on Reebok's NFL gear crap, for similar reasons.
Even though my Nittany Lions are effectively out of the BCS title picture (by default of having one loss as a Big Ten team, total bullshit. Florida's loss was at home to under .500 Ole Miss, shouldn't they be disqualified?) I think I will stick to watching only NCAA football. The way of deciding the champion may not be nearly as organized and coherent, but at least I know I will be watching football when I watch one of those games, even if one or both of the teams is playing a spread offense.
I think, as it stands, Italian League soccer may actually be manlier than NFL, even with all of their dives and flops and general delays.
Think about that.
--Knuttel
and another thing -- just because someone who isn't the normal quarterback may be lined up to take a snap directly, usually from shotgun, doesn't make it a "wildcat" formation. Sometimes its just, oh I dunno, someone else lined up to take the snap from shotgun. The wildcat formation is a modern variation on a very distinct old formation called the Single Wing.
The Quarterback is being overprotected.
The quarterback can slide down anywhere on the field, instead of being tackled down, if he so chooses. The quarterback cannot be hit below the knees behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit in the head behind the line of scrimmage. The quarterback cannot be hit after he releases a pass behind the line of scrimmage. Now it seems the quarterback cannot be hit at all.
WHY?!!??!?
Last time I checked, the quarterback is a normal position, just like any other position on the field. Why is he given precedence? Even as the position is slowly moving back to accepting "athletes" to play it (after the doldrums of slow qbs which hung like a parasite in the 70s and 80s), it seems the NFL is slowly rejecting the notion that these players are equals of their teammates.
Why don't we just dress all of the quarterbacks up in tutus. That way at least the other team knows they should just prance around him and tap him down, as opposed to hitting him down.
Seriously, I think at this point it would actually be manlier to sit through The Notebook than to watch any given quarter (let alone a whole game) of an NFL game.
Personally, this is not a very tough decision on my part. I had previously boycotted the last super bowl, after I decided the best result of that game would be a natural disaster to destroy the stadium and all inside. I found a good alternative in the puppy bowl, voiced by none other than the legendary Harry Kalas, who is known nationally as the voice of NFL films since '75, back when they actually played football (locally, the legendary voice of the Phillies. Side note, why the hell is he not voicing the Phillies World Series DVD? That is an outrage, and I may think about putting a bounty of Bud Selig's head for that). I've also had a personal boycott on the Madden Series, since it has become total crap since it gained the right to be the exclusive NFL game, and a boycott on Reebok's NFL gear crap, for similar reasons.
Even though my Nittany Lions are effectively out of the BCS title picture (by default of having one loss as a Big Ten team, total bullshit. Florida's loss was at home to under .500 Ole Miss, shouldn't they be disqualified?) I think I will stick to watching only NCAA football. The way of deciding the champion may not be nearly as organized and coherent, but at least I know I will be watching football when I watch one of those games, even if one or both of the teams is playing a spread offense.
I think, as it stands, Italian League soccer may actually be manlier than NFL, even with all of their dives and flops and general delays.
Think about that.
--Knuttel
and another thing -- just because someone who isn't the normal quarterback may be lined up to take a snap directly, usually from shotgun, doesn't make it a "wildcat" formation. Sometimes its just, oh I dunno, someone else lined up to take the snap from shotgun. The wildcat formation is a modern variation on a very distinct old formation called the Single Wing.
What is Obama's next move: feet don't fail me now
It has been quite some time since the elections, and the results have shown a clear, if not dominating win by Barrack Obama.
But where does he go now (at least in a general ideological sense)? Does he take the total victories of the entire Democratic Party as a sign that America wants its government to be progressive and/or liberal? Does he view the election results as more an incumbent Republican defeat, and try to move more towards the center, bridging the partisanship which has plagued the country recently? Does he take the “pragmatic” approach, whatever that may be? Does he try to work with whatever state the nation is in, or does he try and reverse everything under Bush, trying to start from square one, circa 2000?
The answer is simple. We don’t know yet. There’s speculation from both sides, trying to figure out what he plans on doing, but the fact is there aren’t any hints thus far, and any speculation thus far seems more like something from the respective personal political fantasy lands. The choice of Biden as running mate doesn’t necessarily say much about where he intends to go politically, because VP’s typically haven’t had that role. Usually they’ve been relegated to appeasing certain party factions, whether they be geographic or ideological. His selection of Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of Staff also says nothing. The Chief of Staff should actually probably be renamed Chief of being an asshole, as that is essentially the role they have – doing the dirty work to make sure congress and the rest of the cabinet is on the same page.
Personally, I think he should try and go for a more moderate route. This goes along with my idea of radical moderation, where moderation must be sought for radically, as radical aims must be brought about moderately. As long as he doesn’t take his cues from Nancy Pelosi, and other far-leftists, it should be fine.
His choice of Secretary of State, which will likely be his next cabinet choice, should paint a more vivid impression of what the office will be like. Any Republican name (he did mention he wants a bi-partisan cabinet) will point to a more moderate office. The three leading names I’ve heard thrown around this position are Bill Richardson (Gov – NM), John Kerry (Sen – Mass), and Hil-dawg Clinton (Sen – NY).
Bill Richardson may have the most foreign policy experience of all current Governors. He was Ambassador to the UN for some time under the Clinton Administration, which would make this selection somewhat of a Clinton reprisal, though not so strongly. He, as a lot of the Democratic Party, has moved on since 2000. While his work in the Clinton Administration is strong, he has made his work of the past 8 years exemplar as well.
The Selection of John Kerry would signal a stronger break from the Clintons than most other selections. He does have the experience, being a high ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations committee for a long time, alongside VP-elect Joe Biden. This role may suit him, as John Kerry is not so much a leader, but a policy nerd. I just hope, if he does get the post, that he chooses not to surrender to countries before wars even start. It would be a real enough fear.
Hil-dawg has officially been confirmed as interviewed for the position. However, sources also say he is/has interviewed many many people for this, extensively. It’s something called vetting. Anyways, I really don’t see this as a good move. She touts her experience as from when her husband was President. And, yes, she was a very active First Lady, perhaps only preceded by Eleanor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson (who effectively ran the country in 1920). But the foreign policy duties as First Lady are usually limited to meeting foreign dignitaries under controlled circumstances, not negotiating treaties and imposing embargos, etc. In addition, her personality is too domineering. If she is assigned this post, foreign policy is hers. Plus, putting her in this post would be potentially putting the office back into the 90s. The Clinton administration is over, let her be a Senator and move on.
Another possible selection would be to put a virtual unknown in this post. Biden has enough foreign policy experience to spare, and they may actually use this post to groom the Presidential Candidate for 2012 (Biden may be too old by then). If anyone remembers their history lesson, something like the first 4 Presidents after Adams were all former Secretaries of State – Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams. The only thing I can think of that would keep this from happening is this whole lack of experience BS surrounding the whole campaign (even though Biden has enough to spare).
--Knuttel
But where does he go now (at least in a general ideological sense)? Does he take the total victories of the entire Democratic Party as a sign that America wants its government to be progressive and/or liberal? Does he view the election results as more an incumbent Republican defeat, and try to move more towards the center, bridging the partisanship which has plagued the country recently? Does he take the “pragmatic” approach, whatever that may be? Does he try to work with whatever state the nation is in, or does he try and reverse everything under Bush, trying to start from square one, circa 2000?
The answer is simple. We don’t know yet. There’s speculation from both sides, trying to figure out what he plans on doing, but the fact is there aren’t any hints thus far, and any speculation thus far seems more like something from the respective personal political fantasy lands. The choice of Biden as running mate doesn’t necessarily say much about where he intends to go politically, because VP’s typically haven’t had that role. Usually they’ve been relegated to appeasing certain party factions, whether they be geographic or ideological. His selection of Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of Staff also says nothing. The Chief of Staff should actually probably be renamed Chief of being an asshole, as that is essentially the role they have – doing the dirty work to make sure congress and the rest of the cabinet is on the same page.
Personally, I think he should try and go for a more moderate route. This goes along with my idea of radical moderation, where moderation must be sought for radically, as radical aims must be brought about moderately. As long as he doesn’t take his cues from Nancy Pelosi, and other far-leftists, it should be fine.
His choice of Secretary of State, which will likely be his next cabinet choice, should paint a more vivid impression of what the office will be like. Any Republican name (he did mention he wants a bi-partisan cabinet) will point to a more moderate office. The three leading names I’ve heard thrown around this position are Bill Richardson (Gov – NM), John Kerry (Sen – Mass), and Hil-dawg Clinton (Sen – NY).
Bill Richardson may have the most foreign policy experience of all current Governors. He was Ambassador to the UN for some time under the Clinton Administration, which would make this selection somewhat of a Clinton reprisal, though not so strongly. He, as a lot of the Democratic Party, has moved on since 2000. While his work in the Clinton Administration is strong, he has made his work of the past 8 years exemplar as well.
The Selection of John Kerry would signal a stronger break from the Clintons than most other selections. He does have the experience, being a high ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations committee for a long time, alongside VP-elect Joe Biden. This role may suit him, as John Kerry is not so much a leader, but a policy nerd. I just hope, if he does get the post, that he chooses not to surrender to countries before wars even start. It would be a real enough fear.
Hil-dawg has officially been confirmed as interviewed for the position. However, sources also say he is/has interviewed many many people for this, extensively. It’s something called vetting. Anyways, I really don’t see this as a good move. She touts her experience as from when her husband was President. And, yes, she was a very active First Lady, perhaps only preceded by Eleanor Roosevelt and Edith Wilson (who effectively ran the country in 1920). But the foreign policy duties as First Lady are usually limited to meeting foreign dignitaries under controlled circumstances, not negotiating treaties and imposing embargos, etc. In addition, her personality is too domineering. If she is assigned this post, foreign policy is hers. Plus, putting her in this post would be potentially putting the office back into the 90s. The Clinton administration is over, let her be a Senator and move on.
Another possible selection would be to put a virtual unknown in this post. Biden has enough foreign policy experience to spare, and they may actually use this post to groom the Presidential Candidate for 2012 (Biden may be too old by then). If anyone remembers their history lesson, something like the first 4 Presidents after Adams were all former Secretaries of State – Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams. The only thing I can think of that would keep this from happening is this whole lack of experience BS surrounding the whole campaign (even though Biden has enough to spare).
--Knuttel
11.11.2008
Ohio State should be burned down, and the soil sewn with salt
Being a Penn State fan, or really I suppose this could go for a fan of any school in the Big Ten besides Ohio State, I really hate Ohio State.
What they have done to damage the reputation of the Big Ten is really incalculable.
The past two years they have made it to the BCS National Championship game. Whether or not it was merited, they were one of the teams selected (not gonna get into the whole, BCS sucks we need a playoff bit).
Both of those years they were not only beaten, but blown out, once by Florida, once by LSU (coincidentally both SEC schools, however I think that is merely coincidence).
By being blown out these two years, as the perceived consistent leader of the Big Ten (which is false) they've by default ruined the legitimacy of the entire conference.
They haven't really had a significant bowl win since really either 02 (when they beat Miami for the championship) or 03 (when they narrowly edged Kansas State for a Fiesta Bowl win). The BCS win against the Irish isn't really anything special considering the Irish only need like 3 losses for a guarunteed BCS bid, and the fact that the Irish haven't won any bowl games since the 80s when Lou Holshtz was their head coach. Come to think of it, they themselves decided not to play in any bowl games at all for about 50 years from the 20s to the 70s.
But the simple fact is this. Ohio State, at least/especially over the last few years, has been built only to win in the Big Ten. Anyone remember the year they beat the Irish in a BCS game, they previously lost to Texas in the regular season (and Penn State).
So naturally, they will go to these games. In fact, despite having two losses this year (USC, and Penn State again) they probably will go to a BCS game again, and get blown out.
And another thing. I'm tired of the SEC constantly, consistently, and most of all, incessantly being touted as the be-all and end-all of all awesome college football conferences. The fact of the matter is their basement sucks (Tennessee -- who lost to Wyoming, Mississippi State, Arkansas), they never play good out of conference opponents (often times much worse than the ones the Big Ten plays, at least the Big Ten usually schedules FBS teams), and once bowl season does in fact come around, they only do about as good as the other conferences, which is to say around .500. Ok, so Alabama and Florida are elite teams, so are Penn State, Texas, and USC, they don't seem to be in the SEC. OK, so they produce alot of NFL defensive players, so do the Big Ten and Pac Ten. It's really quite absurd the levels this conference is elevated above the others. Oddly enough it's probably karmic payment for that one year undefeated Auburn was left out of the national championship game. Nowadays it seems every single SEC fan is screaming "INJUSTICE" if the entire BCS Bowl series isn't filled with SEC teams. The funny part about that is the players themselves don't know the meaning of the word. They just don't learn it with their Basket weaving majors.
Damnit, I said I wouldn't go there, but you know how you fix all that crap with the conferences claiming their #1 team should go to the big game, Playoff. It's not that hard. Just an automatic berth for Big Ten, SEC, Pag 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and then two at large. 8 teams, that's only 3 rounds. simple.
Damn Ohio State for ruining this for any other Big Ten team's future hopes at a National Championship. I guess Mr. Sweatervest didn't want anyone else to join in on the fun.
--Knuttel
**Update 9:30 pm**
Here are the conferences as they stand currently
The ACC has 8 of its 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and none eliminated from contention. There are, however, none with less than 2 losses.
The Big 12 has 7 teams out of 12 eligible for a bowl berth, with 2 eliminated from contention, and two more dangerously close.
The Big East has 5 out of 8 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and one eliminated from contention.
The Big Ten has 6 out of 11 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 3 eliminated from contention.
The Pac 10 has 5 out of 10 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 2 elminated from contention.
The SEC has 6 out of 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth and one eliminated from contention.
What does this say? It says the ACC has a lot of good above average teams, none terribly weak, but none terribly good. There is currently a three way tie for the Coastal division lead. The Big 12 has some good teams, but the bottom is staggering. 3-7 Baylor, 2-8 Iowa State, 4-6 Kansas State, 4-6 Texas A&M. The SEC is pretty much a reflection of that; particularly the SEC West (which features undefeated Alabama), 4-6 Arkansas, 3-6 Mississppi State, traditionally strong Auburn at 5-5. The Pac 10 is doing its best Hamlet impersonation (there's something rotten in the state of Washington) -- 1-9 Wasu and 0-9 Washington. USC is unquestionably the best team, but their loss is to second in the Pac 10 Oregon State, who Penn State beat. The Big East is in a similar situation with the ACC, in that no team wants to win the division, the problem though is none of them are particularly good. With that much parity, to already have an eliminated team does not bode well for the rest of the conference. Which leaves the Big Ten. The Big Ten is currently in a three way tie for first place, 9-2 Michigan State, 9-1 Penn State, and 8-2 Ohio State. Each only has one conference loss. The six automatic bowl berths are most among conferences that don't have a conference championship game, because they do not have 12 teams. The teams already eliminated were an Indiana team that is never expected to anything really, a Purdue team that nearly pulled an upset in Oregon, and a Michigan team in transition. Wisconsin fell off the map once conference play started, but still sits at .500.
Also to consider, once bowl games begin, the only one of these conferences that does not have any "home" bowl games -- a bowl game in the immediate geographic area -- is the Big Ten. There is the Motor City Bowl in Detroit, but that is a crappy bowl game that features, if any Big Ten team, the one in seventh place in the conference. The overwhelming number of games are played in Florida, Texas, and California. This creates home games for, essentially, the SEC, ACC, and Big East; the Big 12; and the Pac 10, respectively. There are even more games in the southern states -- those that hold SEC and ACC teams such as Georgia and Louisiana, games in the general south west, and all up the west coast, for Pac 10 teams. Now, I know bowl games are seen as "vacation" to alot of people (sportswriters, coaches, etc), and few people plan to travel to the freezing Midwest, or (cold) Pennsylvania, for a bowl game, but this should put a serious hamper on the ability of Big Ten teams to compete in these games, and the fact of the matter is they usually do remarkably well, not even considering something like this. Sometimes I wonder if Jim Tressel's soul is darker than Urban Meyer's for doing something like this to the conference.
What they have done to damage the reputation of the Big Ten is really incalculable.
The past two years they have made it to the BCS National Championship game. Whether or not it was merited, they were one of the teams selected (not gonna get into the whole, BCS sucks we need a playoff bit).
Both of those years they were not only beaten, but blown out, once by Florida, once by LSU (coincidentally both SEC schools, however I think that is merely coincidence).
By being blown out these two years, as the perceived consistent leader of the Big Ten (which is false) they've by default ruined the legitimacy of the entire conference.
They haven't really had a significant bowl win since really either 02 (when they beat Miami for the championship) or 03 (when they narrowly edged Kansas State for a Fiesta Bowl win). The BCS win against the Irish isn't really anything special considering the Irish only need like 3 losses for a guarunteed BCS bid, and the fact that the Irish haven't won any bowl games since the 80s when Lou Holshtz was their head coach. Come to think of it, they themselves decided not to play in any bowl games at all for about 50 years from the 20s to the 70s.
But the simple fact is this. Ohio State, at least/especially over the last few years, has been built only to win in the Big Ten. Anyone remember the year they beat the Irish in a BCS game, they previously lost to Texas in the regular season (and Penn State).
So naturally, they will go to these games. In fact, despite having two losses this year (USC, and Penn State again) they probably will go to a BCS game again, and get blown out.
And another thing. I'm tired of the SEC constantly, consistently, and most of all, incessantly being touted as the be-all and end-all of all awesome college football conferences. The fact of the matter is their basement sucks (Tennessee -- who lost to Wyoming, Mississippi State, Arkansas), they never play good out of conference opponents (often times much worse than the ones the Big Ten plays, at least the Big Ten usually schedules FBS teams), and once bowl season does in fact come around, they only do about as good as the other conferences, which is to say around .500. Ok, so Alabama and Florida are elite teams, so are Penn State, Texas, and USC, they don't seem to be in the SEC. OK, so they produce alot of NFL defensive players, so do the Big Ten and Pac Ten. It's really quite absurd the levels this conference is elevated above the others. Oddly enough it's probably karmic payment for that one year undefeated Auburn was left out of the national championship game. Nowadays it seems every single SEC fan is screaming "INJUSTICE" if the entire BCS Bowl series isn't filled with SEC teams. The funny part about that is the players themselves don't know the meaning of the word. They just don't learn it with their Basket weaving majors.
Damnit, I said I wouldn't go there, but you know how you fix all that crap with the conferences claiming their #1 team should go to the big game, Playoff. It's not that hard. Just an automatic berth for Big Ten, SEC, Pag 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, and then two at large. 8 teams, that's only 3 rounds. simple.
Damn Ohio State for ruining this for any other Big Ten team's future hopes at a National Championship. I guess Mr. Sweatervest didn't want anyone else to join in on the fun.
--Knuttel
**Update 9:30 pm**
Here are the conferences as they stand currently
The ACC has 8 of its 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and none eliminated from contention. There are, however, none with less than 2 losses.
The Big 12 has 7 teams out of 12 eligible for a bowl berth, with 2 eliminated from contention, and two more dangerously close.
The Big East has 5 out of 8 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and one eliminated from contention.
The Big Ten has 6 out of 11 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 3 eliminated from contention.
The Pac 10 has 5 out of 10 teams eligible for a bowl berth, and 2 elminated from contention.
The SEC has 6 out of 12 teams eligible for a bowl berth and one eliminated from contention.
What does this say? It says the ACC has a lot of good above average teams, none terribly weak, but none terribly good. There is currently a three way tie for the Coastal division lead. The Big 12 has some good teams, but the bottom is staggering. 3-7 Baylor, 2-8 Iowa State, 4-6 Kansas State, 4-6 Texas A&M. The SEC is pretty much a reflection of that; particularly the SEC West (which features undefeated Alabama), 4-6 Arkansas, 3-6 Mississppi State, traditionally strong Auburn at 5-5. The Pac 10 is doing its best Hamlet impersonation (there's something rotten in the state of Washington) -- 1-9 Wasu and 0-9 Washington. USC is unquestionably the best team, but their loss is to second in the Pac 10 Oregon State, who Penn State beat. The Big East is in a similar situation with the ACC, in that no team wants to win the division, the problem though is none of them are particularly good. With that much parity, to already have an eliminated team does not bode well for the rest of the conference. Which leaves the Big Ten. The Big Ten is currently in a three way tie for first place, 9-2 Michigan State, 9-1 Penn State, and 8-2 Ohio State. Each only has one conference loss. The six automatic bowl berths are most among conferences that don't have a conference championship game, because they do not have 12 teams. The teams already eliminated were an Indiana team that is never expected to anything really, a Purdue team that nearly pulled an upset in Oregon, and a Michigan team in transition. Wisconsin fell off the map once conference play started, but still sits at .500.
Also to consider, once bowl games begin, the only one of these conferences that does not have any "home" bowl games -- a bowl game in the immediate geographic area -- is the Big Ten. There is the Motor City Bowl in Detroit, but that is a crappy bowl game that features, if any Big Ten team, the one in seventh place in the conference. The overwhelming number of games are played in Florida, Texas, and California. This creates home games for, essentially, the SEC, ACC, and Big East; the Big 12; and the Pac 10, respectively. There are even more games in the southern states -- those that hold SEC and ACC teams such as Georgia and Louisiana, games in the general south west, and all up the west coast, for Pac 10 teams. Now, I know bowl games are seen as "vacation" to alot of people (sportswriters, coaches, etc), and few people plan to travel to the freezing Midwest, or (cold) Pennsylvania, for a bowl game, but this should put a serious hamper on the ability of Big Ten teams to compete in these games, and the fact of the matter is they usually do remarkably well, not even considering something like this. Sometimes I wonder if Jim Tressel's soul is darker than Urban Meyer's for doing something like this to the conference.
11.03.2008
Presidential Experience
Time to put the Brad Lidge facts on hold for a little bit, though there will be more, I assure you.
This, I suppose, would refer to both Obama and Palin, who have little governmental experience, especially when in comparison with their respective running mates.
There have been great Presidents with a lot of experience (LBJ, FDR, Jackson). There have been awful Presidents with a lot of experience (Pierce, Garfield, Harrison). There have been awful Presidents with only a little experience (Grant). There have been great Presidents with only a little experience (Wilson, TR, Taft).
The roundabout point there, is there really isn't any particular job that can prepare one for being a President. It would appear that since Kennedy, the requirement would be either being a Governor or Vice President. But the truth is many people from many previous jobs have become President -- Senators, Governors, Generals, Representatives, etc.
But quite possibly the President with the least experience coming into office, is considered by many to be one of the greatest. In addition, he arguably had to deal with the largest crisis this nation has ever faced.
This man is Abraham Lincoln.
His government experience is essentially limited to ONE term in the House of Representatives (that's only two years) as a member of the Whig party. He decided not to run for re-election because he was deemed unelectable in his district -- he had been a strong opponent of the Mexican-American war, while it was wildly popular in his region of Illinois. By naming the war, you should also be able to figure out that this one term was in the 1840's, Lincoln was President from 1861-1865. After his stint in Congress, he returned to his law practice. While he argued cases before the State Supreme Court, he really didn't do anything again politically until he tried running for an Illinois Senate seat in 1858 as a member of the new Republican party. This campaign brought about the famous Lincoln-Douglass debates. Back then, Senate seats were decided by the State legislatures, and the Douglass' Democrats won more seats, thus making Douglass Senator. In 1860, the Republican Party decided to run Abraham Lincoln for President. The Democratic Party was split in two over the issue of slavery, and ran a northern and southern candidate (oddly enough, the northern candidate was none other than Douglass). A fourth party took further votes away from the Democratic party. The split in the dominating party of the time allowed Lincoln to capture enough electoral votes to become President, even though he had only won a small portion of the popular vote(>40%). Douglass, while winning the second largest portion of the popular vote, mostly received them from areas Lincoln won, and ended up only winning the State of Missouri, and half of New Jersey.
So what does this all mean -- When it comes down to it, sometimes experience means crap. The most qualified man should always be picked, but when there is no true training ground to become President, there really is no experience that can be counted against another's.
It's more about the person themselves, who they are, not what they've done.
--Knuttel
This, I suppose, would refer to both Obama and Palin, who have little governmental experience, especially when in comparison with their respective running mates.
There have been great Presidents with a lot of experience (LBJ, FDR, Jackson). There have been awful Presidents with a lot of experience (Pierce, Garfield, Harrison). There have been awful Presidents with only a little experience (Grant). There have been great Presidents with only a little experience (Wilson, TR, Taft).
The roundabout point there, is there really isn't any particular job that can prepare one for being a President. It would appear that since Kennedy, the requirement would be either being a Governor or Vice President. But the truth is many people from many previous jobs have become President -- Senators, Governors, Generals, Representatives, etc.
But quite possibly the President with the least experience coming into office, is considered by many to be one of the greatest. In addition, he arguably had to deal with the largest crisis this nation has ever faced.
This man is Abraham Lincoln.
His government experience is essentially limited to ONE term in the House of Representatives (that's only two years) as a member of the Whig party. He decided not to run for re-election because he was deemed unelectable in his district -- he had been a strong opponent of the Mexican-American war, while it was wildly popular in his region of Illinois. By naming the war, you should also be able to figure out that this one term was in the 1840's, Lincoln was President from 1861-1865. After his stint in Congress, he returned to his law practice. While he argued cases before the State Supreme Court, he really didn't do anything again politically until he tried running for an Illinois Senate seat in 1858 as a member of the new Republican party. This campaign brought about the famous Lincoln-Douglass debates. Back then, Senate seats were decided by the State legislatures, and the Douglass' Democrats won more seats, thus making Douglass Senator. In 1860, the Republican Party decided to run Abraham Lincoln for President. The Democratic Party was split in two over the issue of slavery, and ran a northern and southern candidate (oddly enough, the northern candidate was none other than Douglass). A fourth party took further votes away from the Democratic party. The split in the dominating party of the time allowed Lincoln to capture enough electoral votes to become President, even though he had only won a small portion of the popular vote(>40%). Douglass, while winning the second largest portion of the popular vote, mostly received them from areas Lincoln won, and ended up only winning the State of Missouri, and half of New Jersey.
So what does this all mean -- When it comes down to it, sometimes experience means crap. The most qualified man should always be picked, but when there is no true training ground to become President, there really is no experience that can be counted against another's.
It's more about the person themselves, who they are, not what they've done.
--Knuttel
11.02.2008
Brad Lidge facts part 2
There really aren't enough of them.
26. Brad Lidge dared Chase Utley to drop the F bomb in the World Series speeches after the parade on Friday, but then Utley wussed out. Lidge double dog dared him, and he still wasn’t gonna do it. So then Lidge triple dog dared him and threatened to throw his slider at his face. The rest is history.
27. One time Brad Lidge’s slider went up against Chuck Norris’ roundhouse kick. I don’t recall seeing any Chuck Norris movies recently.
28. Harry Kalas’ voice is so powerful it can open a pickle jar. Ok, that’s not about Lidge, but it needs to be said.
29. Brad Lidge once pretended to be a moose, and hunted Sarah Palin. The one out now is simply an imposter.
30. Brad Lidge gave his voice over talents to Harry Kalas after he heard what former Phillies relief pitcher Wheels was doing with his.
31. Brad Lidge ate John Kruk’s surgically removed nut on a dare, then spit it out and threw a slider at Billy Wagner’s face.
32. Brad Lidge recently took all of Pete Rose’s gambling prophets after Pete Rose said he could hit his slider.
33. Brad Lidge accidentally broke the window of the Delorean from Back to the Future when his slider slipped into the space time continuum as he was striking out Chipper Jones.
34. When Brad Lidge played for the Houston Astros, he always said whether the roof was open or closed while he was pitching, regardless of whether how it was the rest of the game.
35. Brad Lidge is currently on the NSA Terror watch list, after the incident in Crawford, Texas. He was pitching some balls to GW Bush, but Bush couldn’t hit his slider, Lidge wasn’t about to back down, so he beaned him in the head and threw a pretzel down his throat. The NSA has no chance of catching him.
36. When fans of opposing teams see Brad Lidge warm up in the bullpen, they either leave because they know they have officially lost the game, or they stay to marvel at the sweet-ass slider.
37. Brad Lidge’s slider put Pat Burrel in permanent slow motion.
38. Brad Lidge and Mitch Williams regularly play a pitching version of Horse, ala Michael Jordan and Larry Bird. The difference is they usually wager two big macs instead of one.
39. Brad Lidge used his slider to help John Rambo when he was in Afghanistan in Rambo 3.
40. Bruce Lee used to train for agility by trying to dodge Brad Lidge sliders. This didn’t last too long, as Brad Lidge never misses.
41. Once, Brad Lidge’s slider broke so hard, it went underground and killed a few Molemen. The FBI tried to keep the situation under wraps, but the moleman head Brad Lidge keeps as a trophy is too sweet to not show around.
42. The bomb that blew up the death star was based off of Brad Lidge’s slider.
43. John Wilkes Booth wanted to use Brad Lidge’s slider to kill Abraham Lincoln, but Brad Lidge liked the dude, so Booth was forced to use a derringer. On the way down, Lidge threw a slider at his leg and broke it.
44. Brad Lidge taught Zakk Wylde how to play guitar.
45. Brad Lidge can turn back time like Superman by throwing his slider against the earth’s rotation.
46. Brad Lidge’s slider once beat the Flash in a race because the Flash stopped to gaze at the awesome breaking action.
47. If Brad Lidge is bored while in New York, he’ll demand entrance to The Boy From Oz (he doesn’t have to pay) and just throw sliders at Hugh Jackman’s face.
48. Mayor Michael Nutter ran his campaign on the platform of how awesome Brad Lidge’s slider is. He won in a landslide.
49. Charlie Manuel almost didn’t want Brad Lidge on his team because he thought it was too unfair an advantage that the rest of his team would only have to pitch 8 innings a game.
50. Once Brad Lidge asked Vin Diesel if he was actually Fast and/or Furious. Vin Diesel ran away crying.
26. Brad Lidge dared Chase Utley to drop the F bomb in the World Series speeches after the parade on Friday, but then Utley wussed out. Lidge double dog dared him, and he still wasn’t gonna do it. So then Lidge triple dog dared him and threatened to throw his slider at his face. The rest is history.
27. One time Brad Lidge’s slider went up against Chuck Norris’ roundhouse kick. I don’t recall seeing any Chuck Norris movies recently.
28. Harry Kalas’ voice is so powerful it can open a pickle jar. Ok, that’s not about Lidge, but it needs to be said.
29. Brad Lidge once pretended to be a moose, and hunted Sarah Palin. The one out now is simply an imposter.
30. Brad Lidge gave his voice over talents to Harry Kalas after he heard what former Phillies relief pitcher Wheels was doing with his.
31. Brad Lidge ate John Kruk’s surgically removed nut on a dare, then spit it out and threw a slider at Billy Wagner’s face.
32. Brad Lidge recently took all of Pete Rose’s gambling prophets after Pete Rose said he could hit his slider.
33. Brad Lidge accidentally broke the window of the Delorean from Back to the Future when his slider slipped into the space time continuum as he was striking out Chipper Jones.
34. When Brad Lidge played for the Houston Astros, he always said whether the roof was open or closed while he was pitching, regardless of whether how it was the rest of the game.
35. Brad Lidge is currently on the NSA Terror watch list, after the incident in Crawford, Texas. He was pitching some balls to GW Bush, but Bush couldn’t hit his slider, Lidge wasn’t about to back down, so he beaned him in the head and threw a pretzel down his throat. The NSA has no chance of catching him.
36. When fans of opposing teams see Brad Lidge warm up in the bullpen, they either leave because they know they have officially lost the game, or they stay to marvel at the sweet-ass slider.
37. Brad Lidge’s slider put Pat Burrel in permanent slow motion.
38. Brad Lidge and Mitch Williams regularly play a pitching version of Horse, ala Michael Jordan and Larry Bird. The difference is they usually wager two big macs instead of one.
39. Brad Lidge used his slider to help John Rambo when he was in Afghanistan in Rambo 3.
40. Bruce Lee used to train for agility by trying to dodge Brad Lidge sliders. This didn’t last too long, as Brad Lidge never misses.
41. Once, Brad Lidge’s slider broke so hard, it went underground and killed a few Molemen. The FBI tried to keep the situation under wraps, but the moleman head Brad Lidge keeps as a trophy is too sweet to not show around.
42. The bomb that blew up the death star was based off of Brad Lidge’s slider.
43. John Wilkes Booth wanted to use Brad Lidge’s slider to kill Abraham Lincoln, but Brad Lidge liked the dude, so Booth was forced to use a derringer. On the way down, Lidge threw a slider at his leg and broke it.
44. Brad Lidge taught Zakk Wylde how to play guitar.
45. Brad Lidge can turn back time like Superman by throwing his slider against the earth’s rotation.
46. Brad Lidge’s slider once beat the Flash in a race because the Flash stopped to gaze at the awesome breaking action.
47. If Brad Lidge is bored while in New York, he’ll demand entrance to The Boy From Oz (he doesn’t have to pay) and just throw sliders at Hugh Jackman’s face.
48. Mayor Michael Nutter ran his campaign on the platform of how awesome Brad Lidge’s slider is. He won in a landslide.
49. Charlie Manuel almost didn’t want Brad Lidge on his team because he thought it was too unfair an advantage that the rest of his team would only have to pitch 8 innings a game.
50. Once Brad Lidge asked Vin Diesel if he was actually Fast and/or Furious. Vin Diesel ran away crying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)