Midnight ice running came about as a necessity.
I was training at the time to go to Marine Corps OCS, something which now seems a further away dream than other somewhat preposterous goals of mine (but I intend on completing them anyway). It was the winter of 09/10, a particularly wet and snowy winter, and i still needed to run regularly to both keep in shape and keep my 3 mile run time down. Sidewalks were unreliably shoveled, and roads were too lined with snowbanks to share with cars during the day.
Now that I look back upon it, the first midnight ice run was actually before any snow came that winter. I had the idea that running in the freezing cold would toughen me up, make me stronger in ways more than running itself could. So I went out in the same kind of gear I would wear in the heat of the afternoon in summertime. The skies were clear (which at nighttime actually makes it darker) and all the stars were shining prominently. Anyways, I was freezing, not even the increased body heat of rigorous activity could keep me warm -- and then I guess about 2 miles in I noticed I tore my calf (again) and had to walk the rest of the way home, making me even colder. But the initial run high coupled with the freezing temperatures (making a nice burning sensation in the lungs each breath) and the prominent stars -- it was a magic feeling. And then as I was limping home I got pulled over by a cop, probably suspecting a dude running around in his shorts at 1am in 30 degree weather was tweaking.
Due to the injury incurred (a fatigue injury, not an accidental), that was my last run for a while, but they quickly became a fixture in that winter, for the aforementioned reasons. I adapted better to the colder running environs of nighttime, getting warmer running clothes and the like, but the mystical quality of that first one never really faded.
I was still mostly alone on those roads, no outside noises, just my thoughts and my music were with me. I could run through schools too, as there were no students upon which to trespass.
Physically, in addition to the regular benefits of regular running, midnight ice running worked more muscles in the leg (having to always be on one's toes, shifting quickly laterally, hopping and jumping around ice patches, running through and over snow patches and banks) and eyesight and mental discipline (always looking for ice patches, which can come into the field of vision at the last second, and other obstacles, most efficient routes to get around everything).
If running on a treadmill is a too perfect form of running, midnight ice running makes regular road running look like running on a track.
-- Knuttel
Showing posts with label trickster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trickster. Show all posts
6.08.2010
What did they expect, it's the Interwebs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504396.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
3.25.2010
Madness? THIS IS MARCH; part 3
My results from the second round:
As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.
So no further elite 8's lost, etc.
But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.
This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.
Let's see how this turns out.
As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.So no further elite 8's lost, etc.
But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.
This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.
Let's see how this turns out.
3.20.2010
Madness, THIS IS MARCH! : Part 2, first round done
So the first round is done. I have crossed out all losers, wherever they may lie in the bracket.
As you can see, I'm really not in terrible shape.
I have lost half of my elite 8, yet only one final four. Even better, I have only lost 6 of my sweet 16.
In addition, I picked one of the biggest upsets of the tournament so far -- Murray State over Vanderbilt. However, I also got screwed over by another huge upset that I didn't pick -- Ohio over Georgetown.
So really, this bracket is turning out as planned. It's gonna take some hits early on, simply because most lower seeds don't have what it takes to play against upper seeds (I had only 5 of the top 8 seeds advancing; all 8 top seeds advanced). I think the heart of this theory lies once the weaker teams are weeded out. That's when the true coin flip happens.
Therefore, I will conduct another round of coin flipping after the second round is done, and possibly another for the semis/final.
-- Knuttel
by request I'll do a thingy on the upcoming Champions League Quarterfinals. God, I haven't written about soccer in almost a year.
3.19.2010
Madness? THIS IS MARCH!
OK, lame pun aside, I actually decided to fill out a bracket this year for fun, even though I am not taking part in any pools or anything.
I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.
I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.
You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.
And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.
Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.
-- Knuttel
I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.
I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.
You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.
And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.
Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.
-- Knuttel
3.08.2010
Feel Good-umentaries
What has happened to documentaries?
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
I realize that nothing can ever be truly objective, even the simple presentation of facts is always filtered by the mind which organizes them. But does every single modern documentary have to simply go for an emotional response?
OK, so not all the oscar winners and nominees were feel good stories, but the fact remains that they were all emotional. Even the documentary Food Inc., while producing a lot of fact filled moments and tried earnestly to expose wrongful practices of the large food industry, spent many many moments on emotional pieces, which usually didn't add anything major to the story.
In addition to this, The documentary awards (short and long) are often seen as a reflection of issues that hollywood, or the academy, care(s) about.
And so the winner for long documentary was a fluff piece (The Cove) about the Japanese practice of eating dolphins (and whales), and some of their methods of hunting. Sure, I don't personally agree with the eating of these animals, but I also come from a society where this is certainly not the norm, and really isn't accepted either. In Japan, there is a long history and tradition of eating these creatures, much like there is a tradition for them to eat other creatures of the sea. Japan is a series of islands, with alot of coastline, and not alot of land. It makes perfect sense they'd turn to the sea for sustinence. Alas, I digress. Possibly the thing that irks me the most about it is they don't have any regard at all for what Japan thinks of it. A good chunk of the movie was about how the locals were opposed to this film and how difficult it was for this film crew to get this message across to the world. (Good for you, thanks). OK, maybe the methods of hunting they use aren't that "humane", but frankly what is humane hunting anyway. These are probably the same idiots that want the deer population to starve themselves to death rather than get hunted down, cos it's natural -- nevermind that their natural predators haven't been in most of these areas for over 100 years. Goddamnit, I digress again.
Really the makers of this film come off as more ignorant than the people they're trying to portray. Even the title (The Cove) implies this is a secret and dirty act they are doing, and this is the only place this happens, and we, as responsible members of this western world, must be the ones to stop it.
It's like if a film crew went to Mexico to make a documentary about how the people are savages, making tacos instead of hamburgers.
What about Eskimo hunting? Is that OK? They hunt all sorts of sea mammals (which I'm assuming is the criteria for making this evil, being mammal). I can just imagine one of the producers trying to talk to an Inuit -- "Don't you know you can get all your protein sources from Soy and Soy byproducts? Where's your nearest Wholefoods?" "Geeeee, Thaaaaaaanks."
Like I said in my previous post, it's this total lack of self-awareness that makes the academy awards watchable.
Moral arguments are always the worst, simply because they lack universality. The world is not black and white, and fuck if it's always shaded in gray.
"Good sir, can you show me to that place where sea lions ride the waves to the shore?"
--Ok, one more picture. That's it, I swear.
Terrifying.
Anyways, onto the short documentary.
It got Kanye'd. Haha. It happens at the MTV awards, chalk it up to the zany nature. It happens at the academy awards? You betta bet there was some monocle droppage.
I'll try and put this together as fairly as possible. The documentary that won was about a woman in Africa who suffers from natural disfigurement, making her "tainted by witchcraft" amongst locals, that sings in a band, and to a lesser extent her band, who also suffer from deformities. There were originally two people involved in the direction/shooting of this short documentary or whatever, and naturally they had different ideas on what the direction was to be (oh, so that's what a director does). Anyways, one director wanted it to be about the woman, the other wanted it to be about the band. The one who wanted it to be about the woman won, and finished the movie listed as the director, and thus the recipient of the award. The other person, having contributed, managed to keep a role as producer in the credits, though largely maintained a position of disowning the film. The movie wins, and the director walks up and gives a speech. The other person crashes through (apparently to the protest of the director's 90 some year old mother, hah) and runs up, interrupts the speech only a few short words into it, and doesn't let the other dude finish.
So let me rephrase that. The director, who's documentary was his vision, gets cut out of his own acceptance speech by the partner who only the day prior had pretty much disowned any attachment to the project.
At least Beyonce was nominated for an award when the proceedings were interrupted on her behalf; and its probably less emotionally jarring for this to happen to a middle aged man than to an 18 year old girl.
BTW, last time a "major" motion picture, and not an "independent" film won best picture was only a few years ago with The Departed (2006). And possibly one of the "largest" films ever made, Return of the King (2003) has won recently, and blockbusters simply dominated in the late 90s. So, even with an expanded field, the academy can't pick one of its own major studio films to win the best picture award. Wow. I really question a lot here, but I'll leave this as it is.
You guys got enough pictures, no video.
-- Knuttel
3.05.2010
Is Knuttel Really Talking About Tim Burton?
So Tim Burton has another re-make coming out soon. And it stars his usual cast, and I'm also going to presume Elfman is doing the score.
What should one make of his career?
He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."
Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.
It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.
I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.
Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.
Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).
Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.
-- Knuttel
What should one make of his career?
He's spent virtually all of his career doing re-makes of one sort or another, and almost all of them are incredibly stylistically similar. So stylistically similar I often make the bad joke "I liked Edward Scissorhands the first time I saw it."
Basically every film he's done has either had a mid-20th century (50s-ish) or cheapened Victorian feel. Adding the 50s bit really makes it to include all of his films. The Victorian imagery style he uses is so gaudy and while stylistically true, so uncharacteristically Victorian, it just seems to cheapen the whole 19th century. I'd imagine many a steampunk enthusiast to abhor the coming of a Tim Burton film.
It's like he caught in some sort of permanent suburban mailaise, imagining up places he's never been, in a time he never will be a part of, with all the money Hollywood can throw at him.
I always thought it was a demand we have of our "artists" (something I'd always assume a good filmmaker to be) to progress with their work, or at the very least to not stand still. One must move about and explore. What can the medium do, what can it not do, where should we go, are there places we should refrain from going? These are questions one must ask. And no, "but it's in 3D" does not yet fully count unless one is really planning on exploring the medium (I heard Cameron did this in Avatar, but I don't have much interest in seeing it). As of now, I still see it as an expensive Hollywood excercise in survival.
Another note, something with which I disagree with him almost unequivocally -- Just because something is strange, bizarre, or even trippy does not mean that it is dark and possibly brooding. This trait of his has seemingly gotten worse in recent years, possibly due to the rise of emo music mid decade.
Even so, how can one say the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the original Planet of the Apes were not dark. Darkness is very much often hid amongst the light. In fact, the early music of Black Sabbath pretty much defined that sentance. Everyone remembers "Iron Man" and "Paranoid", but what about "Planet Caravan", "Laguna Sunrise", "Changes", and even "NIB" (which has a very positive message actually).
Maybe I'm just angry he lacks the proper respect one should have for an audience. He never challenges it, he simply expects them to show up when the time comes, hand over money to see his movie and possibly buy paraphanelia, and until then drool over press releases from the set.
-- Knuttel
2.11.2010
Article
Psychologists are trying to take over the country.
I might put up a rant about this later, but I'm kinda tired and angry. damn blizzard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000009.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
-- Knuttel
I might put up a rant about this later, but I'm kinda tired and angry. damn blizzard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000009.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
-- Knuttel
12.04.2009
BS "championship" preview before the preview
If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.
Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.
He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.
I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.
So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.
One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.
This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.
The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).
Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.
The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.
The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).
The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.
So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.
Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl
This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC
If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.
Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.
One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.
It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.
It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).
So how do we fix this?
Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.
Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.
The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?
Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.
If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?
If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.
Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.
I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.
-- Knuttel
oh, and some Danzig
Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.
He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.
I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.
So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.
One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.
This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.
The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).
Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.
The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.
The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).
The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.
So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.
Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl
This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC
If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.
Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.
One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.
It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.
It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).
So how do we fix this?
Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.
Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.
The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?
Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.
If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?
If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.
Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.
I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.
-- Knuttel
oh, and some Danzig
11.29.2009
Knuttel poetry break
So for some incredibly inexplicable reason I decided to pick poetry back up. I know, I know, poetry goes on the other blog, but whatevs, that one's obsolete, forever tied to an obsolete email address (my psu account).
I never really was a fan of editing poetry, so here's the night's first attempt.
working title -- wrapped and bound (it really, really is a working title)
Upon the streets
I walk
Into the darkness
Until we meet
I sulk
Inside this sweetness
And when the day comes, forever madness
Fates have been judged by all we haven’t done
The setting sun
It sinks
Into its ashes
The rising moon
Shall glow
Inside the hollow
The hollow of the hallowed night is right
It burns inside our empty chambers now
We cannot be filled
We cannot be filled
The heavy are slow
The full cannot move
-- Knuttel
and for some real amusement, space cowboy
soon should be a post on the current state of college football
I never really was a fan of editing poetry, so here's the night's first attempt.
working title -- wrapped and bound (it really, really is a working title)
Upon the streets
I walk
Into the darkness
Until we meet
I sulk
Inside this sweetness
And when the day comes, forever madness
Fates have been judged by all we haven’t done
The setting sun
It sinks
Into its ashes
The rising moon
Shall glow
Inside the hollow
The hollow of the hallowed night is right
It burns inside our empty chambers now
We cannot be filled
We cannot be filled
The heavy are slow
The full cannot move
-- Knuttel
and for some real amusement, space cowboy
soon should be a post on the current state of college football
4.28.2009
Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter has always been a favorite politician of mine. Why? Because he holds fast to his own political beliefs, that's why. He acts in the best interest of his state and his country, not in the best interest of his party.
That's what makes him a great Senator.
And that's exactly why he had to switch parties.
The Republican party has essentially given up on the Northeast, and plans on giving up even further. Toomey was slated to run against Specter again in the primaries. He only narrowly lost last time, and already was predicted to have a 20 point lead for the election next year. Toomey is a far right republican, compared to Specter's moderate. So, if the Pennsylvania Republican party had its way, it would have rather run someone willing to tow the party line over someone who is willing to not make a mockery over the political process.
How bad is the Republican party trying to lose that its scaring away some of its most powerful politicians? Do they want to cling onto a narrow majority in a small, changing (yeah, it is), part of the country? Speaking of that change, yeah, that means they're gonna lose that part of the country too (North Carolina and Virginia, remind me who won them in the last presidential cycle).
Jesus Christ, just because Neo-conservativism was hi-jacked and distorted doesn't mean you have to resort to being the dixie party again.
Do they realize that liberatarian economic policies have large numbers of supporters in the Northeast (and other current democratic strongholds) in addition to parts they already have? Not to mention, the most charismatic leader of this part of the party is himself a Texan.
The democrats here don't actually win that much. Just another Senator titularly in their party (Specter actually switched parties originally very early in his career, to get the position of Philadelphia D.A.). Specter will still vote his own way.
I wonder what party and/or wing is going to replace the void that is quickly being created by the Republicans. Remember, it only took about 2 or 3 election cycles to make the Whigs a distant memory. And it was all because the Whigs refused to recognize the will of a changing nation.
That's what makes him a great Senator.
And that's exactly why he had to switch parties.
The Republican party has essentially given up on the Northeast, and plans on giving up even further. Toomey was slated to run against Specter again in the primaries. He only narrowly lost last time, and already was predicted to have a 20 point lead for the election next year. Toomey is a far right republican, compared to Specter's moderate. So, if the Pennsylvania Republican party had its way, it would have rather run someone willing to tow the party line over someone who is willing to not make a mockery over the political process.
How bad is the Republican party trying to lose that its scaring away some of its most powerful politicians? Do they want to cling onto a narrow majority in a small, changing (yeah, it is), part of the country? Speaking of that change, yeah, that means they're gonna lose that part of the country too (North Carolina and Virginia, remind me who won them in the last presidential cycle).
Jesus Christ, just because Neo-conservativism was hi-jacked and distorted doesn't mean you have to resort to being the dixie party again.
Do they realize that liberatarian economic policies have large numbers of supporters in the Northeast (and other current democratic strongholds) in addition to parts they already have? Not to mention, the most charismatic leader of this part of the party is himself a Texan.
The democrats here don't actually win that much. Just another Senator titularly in their party (Specter actually switched parties originally very early in his career, to get the position of Philadelphia D.A.). Specter will still vote his own way.
I wonder what party and/or wing is going to replace the void that is quickly being created by the Republicans. Remember, it only took about 2 or 3 election cycles to make the Whigs a distant memory. And it was all because the Whigs refused to recognize the will of a changing nation.
3.22.2009
Season 8, what hath become of you? (update)
Season 8 (Degrassi), from the start, was going to be an interesting experience. None of the students attending the school in season 1 attend the school anymore. Spinner still hangs around, even though he graduated, and Snake still teaches there. Emma, Manny, and Liberty are all out on their college experience.
But something grave has happened.
The man has found Degrassi.
It may have popped up as an anomaly where The Principal or the Cops or some other force has been the ultimate and true law, overruling everything about kid law. Season 8 thus far has been an exception. While the Principal himself as giver of the law may have been subverted to a certain extent (though after his totalitarian management of the football team), the kids have all been subject to laws outside of their own realm.
This has become really strong as of late. It began with "Heat of the Moment." The main plotline deals with a little sort of squabble that ends up online, where Alli makes a fool of Holly J to the extent that she doesn't want to come into school. This in and of itself would not be so bad, except, inexplicably, Acting Principal Snake Simpson and the Toronto Police Department both found out about this, giving her a school suspension, a juvenile criminal record, and at least a months worth of punishment from the parents.
It is a serious issue, for sure, but by some deus ex machina, Alli managed to get the worst punishment she could really get for this, and it all came seemingly from the outside. Not even Holly J was the one pressing charges. When Degrassi last dealt with bullying in general (not on the interwebs) the student himself eventually took matters into his own hands and shot the dude. Now, I'm not advocating School shootings by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a drastic shift in tone for the show. Before the adults were callous, uncaring, disinterested, and never out for the best interests. Now all of a sudden, they are watching, they will act when something is done wrong, and they claim (indisputably) that they are the best interest. When did Degrassi turn into Narc High?
3 episodes later, Narc-ville returns, in "Touch of Grey," which has only so far aired in Canada (thank you interwebs). In this episode, the main plotline deals with Emma's struggle to find an identity at college, in the process her nickname changes from "Blonde Emma" (even though at this point she is a brunette) to "Blaze." Yeah, this episode deals with pot, and what I assume to be outdated slang (I'm giving the kids younger than me some credit, surely they must use at least slightly different terminology). In this episode, a new friend of Emma's enters into a diabetic coma, and I am not making this up, because she forgets that she has diabetes after getting high off a few pot brownies. The RA's immediately know the culprit was pot brownies, because the method of choice for getting high by diabetics is naturally to consume pot with an extremely sugary baked confection. Campus police eventually catch up to "Blaze"'s roommate/boyfriend, who is trying to ditch her stash, because she didn't think of doing it herself earlier.
Compare this wth the way pot was dealt with during season 7 (before hand it was simply alluded to). Two instances specifically come up, one in "Love is Like a Battlefield" the other in the aptly titled "Pass the Ductchie." Both of these have very real circumstances, none of which are too heavyhanded. Both of which are ambiguous. In the first, Alex smokes up with Jay as a way to cheer him up after he gets dumped. Their friendship goes way back, and Jay had been alluded to as a smoker previously. This costs Alex her ability to help out her girlfriend, Paige, with her newfound job, and thus eventually costs her the relationship. In the latter, Spinner is dealing with chemotherapy and is having difficulty holding things down. Jay suggests to him that marijuana may help him with this (naturally Jay knows of its anti-emitic properties). It helps Spinner hold both his medicine and his food down, and everything is fine and dandy, until he loses focus in school (a recurring problem with him, mind you) and has some minor fights with his girlfriend, mainly about hanging out too much with his ex. He decides to stop, deal with the constant vomiting of chemo, and focus on school. What a trooper.
Both of these instances dealt with the actual effects of marijuana on the user, and not the possession of said substance. In addition, neither of those instances paints a black and white picture of marijuana use, and have arguably deleterious effects if they had chosen not to partake. If Alex hadn't smoked up with Jay, it would have soured that moment in their friendship, Alex disavailing herself while Jay needs her the most. If Spinner hadn't smoked up, he would have been throwing up even more. It gave him a few days of holding everything down, and he eventually learns on his own that he'd rather go without it. Jay isn't even painted as a stereotypical pothead. Thuggish, sure, pothead, nah, not really. Compared to Kelly's friend, total pothead (even down to recreational frisbee).
So why shift gears like this? It seems in the Degrassi universe, no longer is it the consequences of your own actions on your friends which affects you. No, it is the consequences from outside authority figures on seeing your actions that affects you.
Is Canada entering into some sort of Police State I am unaware of?
-- Knuttel
The intermediary episode (a two parter, "Jane Says") actually dealt with an important issue, the first time in a while they've dealt with such a serious issue. Sadly the secondary plots in both just seemed annoying. 1) don't lie to the popular kids because they are petty, and have poor taste in tv and music; 2) Claire starts attracting male attention away from Alli. Way to counterbalance child molestation. Yeah, and they definitely did scale back on the issue itself in both of them, old degrassi would have been much more intense.
And while I'm at it, what is the deal with all of the retconning?
Edit: An episode in Season 5 deals with pot, "Death of a Disco Dancer" I believe is what it was called. Paige gets a joint from her former Teacher/boyfriend now exile Matt O upon the official ending of their relationship. After stupidly flailing it about the front steps of the school, Paige and Alex settle on smoking up before the College/Career fair visits. Paige eventually has to interview with the representative from Banting (like the Ivy equivalent) who is also a family friend. She freaks out, her mom finds out she smoked, an she gets grounded or whatever. But again, here it is not the possession of Marijuana which caused the problem, and it's not the all seeing eye which incurred wrath. Again too, the situation surrounding the consumption is rather ambiguous. While Palex is certainly not making out, it is certainly in its beginning stages, and doing this helped to strengthen the budding friendship/romance.
Later in the season, there was another drug related matter. Not only did it deal with a much "harder" drug (percs), but the kid (JT) was straight up dealing them. Again, all of his consequences came from his peers (including his pregnant girlfriend) discovering his dealing and his eventual consumption (and overdose) on the drug itself. It was an ultimate lesson in responsibility, not a childish lesson in -- hey, why do you have that, you're not supposed to have that, I'm telling, you're gonna get in soo much trouble.
After all of these years, does Degrassi have to grow up?
But something grave has happened.
The man has found Degrassi.
It may have popped up as an anomaly where The Principal or the Cops or some other force has been the ultimate and true law, overruling everything about kid law. Season 8 thus far has been an exception. While the Principal himself as giver of the law may have been subverted to a certain extent (though after his totalitarian management of the football team), the kids have all been subject to laws outside of their own realm.
This has become really strong as of late. It began with "Heat of the Moment." The main plotline deals with a little sort of squabble that ends up online, where Alli makes a fool of Holly J to the extent that she doesn't want to come into school. This in and of itself would not be so bad, except, inexplicably, Acting Principal Snake Simpson and the Toronto Police Department both found out about this, giving her a school suspension, a juvenile criminal record, and at least a months worth of punishment from the parents.
It is a serious issue, for sure, but by some deus ex machina, Alli managed to get the worst punishment she could really get for this, and it all came seemingly from the outside. Not even Holly J was the one pressing charges. When Degrassi last dealt with bullying in general (not on the interwebs) the student himself eventually took matters into his own hands and shot the dude. Now, I'm not advocating School shootings by any stretch of the imagination, but this is a drastic shift in tone for the show. Before the adults were callous, uncaring, disinterested, and never out for the best interests. Now all of a sudden, they are watching, they will act when something is done wrong, and they claim (indisputably) that they are the best interest. When did Degrassi turn into Narc High?
3 episodes later, Narc-ville returns, in "Touch of Grey," which has only so far aired in Canada (thank you interwebs). In this episode, the main plotline deals with Emma's struggle to find an identity at college, in the process her nickname changes from "Blonde Emma" (even though at this point she is a brunette) to "Blaze." Yeah, this episode deals with pot, and what I assume to be outdated slang (I'm giving the kids younger than me some credit, surely they must use at least slightly different terminology). In this episode, a new friend of Emma's enters into a diabetic coma, and I am not making this up, because she forgets that she has diabetes after getting high off a few pot brownies. The RA's immediately know the culprit was pot brownies, because the method of choice for getting high by diabetics is naturally to consume pot with an extremely sugary baked confection. Campus police eventually catch up to "Blaze"'s roommate/boyfriend, who is trying to ditch her stash, because she didn't think of doing it herself earlier.
Compare this wth the way pot was dealt with during season 7 (before hand it was simply alluded to). Two instances specifically come up, one in "Love is Like a Battlefield" the other in the aptly titled "Pass the Ductchie." Both of these have very real circumstances, none of which are too heavyhanded. Both of which are ambiguous. In the first, Alex smokes up with Jay as a way to cheer him up after he gets dumped. Their friendship goes way back, and Jay had been alluded to as a smoker previously. This costs Alex her ability to help out her girlfriend, Paige, with her newfound job, and thus eventually costs her the relationship. In the latter, Spinner is dealing with chemotherapy and is having difficulty holding things down. Jay suggests to him that marijuana may help him with this (naturally Jay knows of its anti-emitic properties). It helps Spinner hold both his medicine and his food down, and everything is fine and dandy, until he loses focus in school (a recurring problem with him, mind you) and has some minor fights with his girlfriend, mainly about hanging out too much with his ex. He decides to stop, deal with the constant vomiting of chemo, and focus on school. What a trooper.
Both of these instances dealt with the actual effects of marijuana on the user, and not the possession of said substance. In addition, neither of those instances paints a black and white picture of marijuana use, and have arguably deleterious effects if they had chosen not to partake. If Alex hadn't smoked up with Jay, it would have soured that moment in their friendship, Alex disavailing herself while Jay needs her the most. If Spinner hadn't smoked up, he would have been throwing up even more. It gave him a few days of holding everything down, and he eventually learns on his own that he'd rather go without it. Jay isn't even painted as a stereotypical pothead. Thuggish, sure, pothead, nah, not really. Compared to Kelly's friend, total pothead (even down to recreational frisbee).
So why shift gears like this? It seems in the Degrassi universe, no longer is it the consequences of your own actions on your friends which affects you. No, it is the consequences from outside authority figures on seeing your actions that affects you.
Is Canada entering into some sort of Police State I am unaware of?
-- Knuttel
The intermediary episode (a two parter, "Jane Says") actually dealt with an important issue, the first time in a while they've dealt with such a serious issue. Sadly the secondary plots in both just seemed annoying. 1) don't lie to the popular kids because they are petty, and have poor taste in tv and music; 2) Claire starts attracting male attention away from Alli. Way to counterbalance child molestation. Yeah, and they definitely did scale back on the issue itself in both of them, old degrassi would have been much more intense.
And while I'm at it, what is the deal with all of the retconning?
Edit: An episode in Season 5 deals with pot, "Death of a Disco Dancer" I believe is what it was called. Paige gets a joint from her former Teacher/boyfriend now exile Matt O upon the official ending of their relationship. After stupidly flailing it about the front steps of the school, Paige and Alex settle on smoking up before the College/Career fair visits. Paige eventually has to interview with the representative from Banting (like the Ivy equivalent) who is also a family friend. She freaks out, her mom finds out she smoked, an she gets grounded or whatever. But again, here it is not the possession of Marijuana which caused the problem, and it's not the all seeing eye which incurred wrath. Again too, the situation surrounding the consumption is rather ambiguous. While Palex is certainly not making out, it is certainly in its beginning stages, and doing this helped to strengthen the budding friendship/romance.
Later in the season, there was another drug related matter. Not only did it deal with a much "harder" drug (percs), but the kid (JT) was straight up dealing them. Again, all of his consequences came from his peers (including his pregnant girlfriend) discovering his dealing and his eventual consumption (and overdose) on the drug itself. It was an ultimate lesson in responsibility, not a childish lesson in -- hey, why do you have that, you're not supposed to have that, I'm telling, you're gonna get in soo much trouble.
After all of these years, does Degrassi have to grow up?
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
7.17.2008
On the trickster
It has been a while since my last post, I know, but I had places to be, and places to be drunk, so without further ado, for which I hope more than nothing comes, some thoughts I had on the trickster in modern comics.
The trickster is commonly thought of, in a simplistic sense, as one who simply plays tricks. This is a misconception. The trickster is more than that. The trickster is a character/persona who is usually at some sort of disadvantage or discomfort by the system of rules/order which they reside, and seeks to escape this by creating their own set of rules or simply forcing those in power to abide by a separate set of rules.
The two most common tricksters I can think of are villains in the DC world -- The Flash villain - the Trickster, and the Batman villain - the Joker. There are others such as Superman's Mr. Mxysptlk and Thor's Loki, and the X-men's Arcade, but I know less about these characters. There are also villains who seem to be superficially goofy or tricksterish, but are not really tricksters at all, such as Batman's Riddler.
The Trickster
-The Flash
-Sees the line (rules) of morality and chooses to cross it in order to attain self and group (rogues) gain. Seeing the line both enables him to choose his own side, as he does reform for a bit of his career to not do evil, and it enables him to see how far he crosses it. He creates devices which force the Flash to rethink how he can stop him, as speed alone cannot usually accomplish the feat.
The Joker
-Batman
-Refuses to acknowledge any rule of law or morals and therefore cannot cross it. Furthermore he commits no wrongdoing by this logic. The anti-absurdist hero in a way. If Sisyphus's boulder always falls back down, there is no reason to keep pushing it back up the hill -- if within order there is always an element of chaos, then why is order pursued? The Joker is revolution in motion, but also without direction.
But why have only villains been tricksters in recent times? Traditionally this role was reserved for folk heroes and creators -- such as Renard the fox and Robin Hood. They represented the struggles of the lower classes. The rule of law heavily favored the upper classes. These characters circumvented or created their own rules in order to create their own sense of justice, not chaos or self-gratification.
America of the last 50 years has been on top of the world, controlling its industries. Even if you are poor in America, you have a better life than most of the rest of the world. So therefore villains have been the tricksters, not the heroes.
As the world is changing slowly, there may soon be a shift.
Candidates for future hero trickster treatment:
Deadpool, Cable, Silver Surfer, Green Arrow, Namor, Magneto (as future hero), the Flash, Ghost Rider, The Punisher, among others.
A shame I couldn't think of more DC, but that shows their general lack of depth. Note I included the Green Arrow, but not Batman. This is because of the manner in which they go about their work. The Green Arrow works independently and distrusts all higher organizations, even the Justice League occasionally. Batman tries to reclaim the system, working alongside commissioner Gordon and, until he became two-face, DA Harvey Dent.
But the main reason I picked those is because their sense of laws and morality differs from those who are in power, not just the villains they fight.
--Knuttel
The trickster is commonly thought of, in a simplistic sense, as one who simply plays tricks. This is a misconception. The trickster is more than that. The trickster is a character/persona who is usually at some sort of disadvantage or discomfort by the system of rules/order which they reside, and seeks to escape this by creating their own set of rules or simply forcing those in power to abide by a separate set of rules.
The two most common tricksters I can think of are villains in the DC world -- The Flash villain - the Trickster, and the Batman villain - the Joker. There are others such as Superman's Mr. Mxysptlk and Thor's Loki, and the X-men's Arcade, but I know less about these characters. There are also villains who seem to be superficially goofy or tricksterish, but are not really tricksters at all, such as Batman's Riddler.
The Trickster
-The Flash
-Sees the line (rules) of morality and chooses to cross it in order to attain self and group (rogues) gain. Seeing the line both enables him to choose his own side, as he does reform for a bit of his career to not do evil, and it enables him to see how far he crosses it. He creates devices which force the Flash to rethink how he can stop him, as speed alone cannot usually accomplish the feat.
The Joker
-Batman
-Refuses to acknowledge any rule of law or morals and therefore cannot cross it. Furthermore he commits no wrongdoing by this logic. The anti-absurdist hero in a way. If Sisyphus's boulder always falls back down, there is no reason to keep pushing it back up the hill -- if within order there is always an element of chaos, then why is order pursued? The Joker is revolution in motion, but also without direction.
But why have only villains been tricksters in recent times? Traditionally this role was reserved for folk heroes and creators -- such as Renard the fox and Robin Hood. They represented the struggles of the lower classes. The rule of law heavily favored the upper classes. These characters circumvented or created their own rules in order to create their own sense of justice, not chaos or self-gratification.
America of the last 50 years has been on top of the world, controlling its industries. Even if you are poor in America, you have a better life than most of the rest of the world. So therefore villains have been the tricksters, not the heroes.
As the world is changing slowly, there may soon be a shift.
Candidates for future hero trickster treatment:
Deadpool, Cable, Silver Surfer, Green Arrow, Namor, Magneto (as future hero), the Flash, Ghost Rider, The Punisher, among others.
A shame I couldn't think of more DC, but that shows their general lack of depth. Note I included the Green Arrow, but not Batman. This is because of the manner in which they go about their work. The Green Arrow works independently and distrusts all higher organizations, even the Justice League occasionally. Batman tries to reclaim the system, working alongside commissioner Gordon and, until he became two-face, DA Harvey Dent.
But the main reason I picked those is because their sense of laws and morality differs from those who are in power, not just the villains they fight.
--Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)