So I've been given the task of making salsa for thanksgiving, but my last batch, I guess, was too hot for everybody.
So while I still plan on bringing some of the old salsa to thanksgiving, I had to make a new batch.
"Please, please, please, we want your salsa but it's too hot, the Knuttel," they told me amidst their tears (yes, my family calls me the Knuttel).
Making a bitching bitch-ass weaksauce salsa is no small feat, so I had to use a lot of thinking stuff to figure out how to make it work. Here is the recipe below. I'll put a post-script or something about how it actually turned out.
11.23.2010
NCAA Football, week 13, 2010
Even though there is sooooo much more to be discussed regarding the elections (there were many referenda (that's plural for referendum), especially regarding gun rights, sections of the recent healthcare bill, and one pretty large one regarding the possible legalization of a recreational drug; oh, and the democrats picked Pelosi to be the minority leader, that happenned too; and screw governor's races) I think it's time for me to again shift gears and to talk about college football, everyone's favorite subject.
This just in -- the BCS sucks.
I'm not just saying this because Penn State is doing awful this year (well, by Penn State standards), I'm saying this because it is fact.
This just in -- the BCS sucks.
I'm not just saying this because Penn State is doing awful this year (well, by Penn State standards), I'm saying this because it is fact.
11.11.2010
Election Day 2010: Take 3: the House
And so I finally get around to talking about the elections regarding the House of Representatives.
To talk about the numbers results briefly -- the Democrats had a decent majority, took a thorough thumping, and now are the minority party to the Republicans.
Democrats who lost were mostly moderates who won their seats in 06 or 08, in the process of voting out Republicans. Not very many incumbent Republicans lost their seats.
To talk about the numbers results briefly -- the Democrats had a decent majority, took a thorough thumping, and now are the minority party to the Republicans.
Democrats who lost were mostly moderates who won their seats in 06 or 08, in the process of voting out Republicans. Not very many incumbent Republicans lost their seats.
11.06.2010
Election Day 2010: take 2: The Senate
Part 2 of a bit by bit breakdown of this year's election results.
"The Senate"
The Senate, as we are used to thinking, is the senior chamber of Congress. Each Senator must appeal to an entire state during their election process, a concept which would seemingly breed more moderate candidates and elections. In addition the 6 year term would arguably make each Senator more independent, both of their party and the electorate they represent, as they face their wrath far less frequently.
That being said, that is not what happened this year, not at all.
"The Senate"
The Senate, as we are used to thinking, is the senior chamber of Congress. Each Senator must appeal to an entire state during their election process, a concept which would seemingly breed more moderate candidates and elections. In addition the 6 year term would arguably make each Senator more independent, both of their party and the electorate they represent, as they face their wrath far less frequently.
That being said, that is not what happened this year, not at all.
11.02.2010
Election day 2010: take 1
So polls have closed in a good part of the country, I suppose it's time to put a few cents in.
Democrats have taken a pounding thus far, whether deserved or undeserved. But that is usual business for mid-term elections -- the party in power usually loses; 2002 was an apparition (dare I say because of 9/11).
I'll analyze actual results later, as they actually come in and are finalized.
Early cable news coverage was awful. They did nothing but quibble over EVERYTHING, and loudly at that (true to form, I suppose). Once network tv coverage began, the scene mellowed, and the coverage was more sublime. I guess around this time the cable news began to lose SOME of its fury, but it still remains loud whenever they want and for no apparent reason.
Regardless, it looks like party structure in general will be in some sort of disarray/change. Whoever adapts better would appear to be better suited in 2012, not necessarily who is more productive.
-- Knuttel
Democrats have taken a pounding thus far, whether deserved or undeserved. But that is usual business for mid-term elections -- the party in power usually loses; 2002 was an apparition (dare I say because of 9/11).
I'll analyze actual results later, as they actually come in and are finalized.
Early cable news coverage was awful. They did nothing but quibble over EVERYTHING, and loudly at that (true to form, I suppose). Once network tv coverage began, the scene mellowed, and the coverage was more sublime. I guess around this time the cable news began to lose SOME of its fury, but it still remains loud whenever they want and for no apparent reason.
Regardless, it looks like party structure in general will be in some sort of disarray/change. Whoever adapts better would appear to be better suited in 2012, not necessarily who is more productive.
-- Knuttel
10.25.2010
Bookmarks and Thoughts
I've had these windows open forever, and it's really dragging down my computer (downside I guess of running a brand new OS (linux) on a 6 year old laptop).
anyways -- I share:
anyways -- I share:
10.21.2010
The Separation of Church and State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html
God, I'd hope I'd never have to write anything about this. I thought it would be common sense to ANYONE who has grown up in America that there is a separation between church and state within our government. Apparently, it's too difficult to also remember all of our freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, at least beyond speech (by the way, it's speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition, in no particular order). Why not, I'll just post what the first amendment is, aka the easy amendment.
God, I'd hope I'd never have to write anything about this. I thought it would be common sense to ANYONE who has grown up in America that there is a separation between church and state within our government. Apparently, it's too difficult to also remember all of our freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, at least beyond speech (by the way, it's speech, religion, assembly, press, and petition, in no particular order). Why not, I'll just post what the first amendment is, aka the easy amendment.
10.18.2010
Deficit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20101015/pl_yblog_exclusive/what-would-it-really-take-to-trim-the-deficit
There's all of this talk this election season about controlling the deficit, reducing the national debt, etc.
First -- definitions
The national debt is the cumulative amount of money the nation owes to other entities.
The national deficit is the amount of money the nation accrues in debt over the course of a year.
Only one President has ever gotten the debt to 0, Andrew Jackson. The last President to have a deficit of 0 was Bill Clinton, who upon the Internet boom of the late 1990s, began to pay back against the debt.
Moving on, both the debt and deficit have been big issues of this, and most, election years. Many want us to get rid of some/most/all of the debt to reduce dependence on foreign entities, namely China -- who actually only owns a plurality of the debt. Many have also seen deficit spending as one of the best ways to get the nation out of recession. The latter statement has been less popular since the passing of TARP, and most tend to focus on the other "half" of Keynesian economics -- tax cuts.
I wonder what the figures are on what the taxes would be currently, with the bush tax cuts, with the bush tax cuts for just those who earn under $250,000 a year, and without the bush tax cuts entirely. Sadly, I don't think anyone would make such a chart, and me being only 14-15 at the time the cuts took place, I am woefully unaware of what it was like financially pre-cut.
As the article states, I find it interesting that tax cuts are among the most inefficient ways to help the economy. I knew of the fact that upper-class cuts help the economy the least, but seeing as how they are the ones who control the media etc, the fact is easily ignored.
How have we really gotten so bad that tax cuts are the only way our politicians can campaign about fixing the economy, that not being for tax cuts is the equal of being against tax cuts?
The Republican plan, which was published earlier this year, in the summer I believe, only has rhetoric about cutting the deficit, while not doing much to actually reduce it in the meat and bones. The tea party contingent plans on cutting back the government as much as possible, except in the personal government project that helps each individual person.
The Democrats have not listed any plan besides letting the bush tax cuts above 250,000 expire, and keeping the rest (Obama pledged not to raise taxes on anyone who makes under that, and you'd be damn sure he's gonna keep that if he wants any shot at re-election, it killed Bush Sr.'s shot).
Honestly, raising taxes might be the only way to get out of it. With the current economic recession being largely caused by fiscal instability in people being unable to pay off their houses and credit cards, perhaps the country should look inwards and not become a parody of its people. We've spent more than we've had, but the projects can't be cut, people need them, they've come to rely upon them. So we need to suck it up, and make more than the minimum monthly payments.
-- Knuttel
There's all of this talk this election season about controlling the deficit, reducing the national debt, etc.
First -- definitions
The national debt is the cumulative amount of money the nation owes to other entities.
The national deficit is the amount of money the nation accrues in debt over the course of a year.
Only one President has ever gotten the debt to 0, Andrew Jackson. The last President to have a deficit of 0 was Bill Clinton, who upon the Internet boom of the late 1990s, began to pay back against the debt.
Moving on, both the debt and deficit have been big issues of this, and most, election years. Many want us to get rid of some/most/all of the debt to reduce dependence on foreign entities, namely China -- who actually only owns a plurality of the debt. Many have also seen deficit spending as one of the best ways to get the nation out of recession. The latter statement has been less popular since the passing of TARP, and most tend to focus on the other "half" of Keynesian economics -- tax cuts.
I wonder what the figures are on what the taxes would be currently, with the bush tax cuts, with the bush tax cuts for just those who earn under $250,000 a year, and without the bush tax cuts entirely. Sadly, I don't think anyone would make such a chart, and me being only 14-15 at the time the cuts took place, I am woefully unaware of what it was like financially pre-cut.
As the article states, I find it interesting that tax cuts are among the most inefficient ways to help the economy. I knew of the fact that upper-class cuts help the economy the least, but seeing as how they are the ones who control the media etc, the fact is easily ignored.
How have we really gotten so bad that tax cuts are the only way our politicians can campaign about fixing the economy, that not being for tax cuts is the equal of being against tax cuts?
The Republican plan, which was published earlier this year, in the summer I believe, only has rhetoric about cutting the deficit, while not doing much to actually reduce it in the meat and bones. The tea party contingent plans on cutting back the government as much as possible, except in the personal government project that helps each individual person.
The Democrats have not listed any plan besides letting the bush tax cuts above 250,000 expire, and keeping the rest (Obama pledged not to raise taxes on anyone who makes under that, and you'd be damn sure he's gonna keep that if he wants any shot at re-election, it killed Bush Sr.'s shot).
Honestly, raising taxes might be the only way to get out of it. With the current economic recession being largely caused by fiscal instability in people being unable to pay off their houses and credit cards, perhaps the country should look inwards and not become a parody of its people. We've spent more than we've had, but the projects can't be cut, people need them, they've come to rely upon them. So we need to suck it up, and make more than the minimum monthly payments.
-- Knuttel
The Marcellus Shale
The Marcellus Shale is a large natural gas reserve that will likely be developed soon, due to its size and the demand for natural gas. Most of this reserve lies in the northern Appalachian mountains, and thus what to do with it has become somewhat of an issue for this years Pennsylvania Gubernatorial race
So the main issue is ... should the energy companies be taxed for mining the natural gas? How should they be taxed, if taxed?
Passage of a bill looks eminent, so it looks as if the issue will be more rhetorical and theoretical than anything else.
I look at it this way. The natural gas is there. How much is there is unclear, but it's there. Unless the states decide to go to war with one another, or some country invades and takes over the Marcellus Shale, it will still be there, and it will still be in Pennsylvania. In this case, it is the job of the government to make sure minimal damage is done in order to extract the natural gas, or to ensure that what damage is done can be reversed. If it takes a tax to make sure this can be done within the state budget, a tax which is the similar in neighboring Marcellus states (which, by the way, because it's in shale form, cannot be a "my milkshake drinks your milkshake" scenario), then the tax must be enacted. It's the only responsible thing to do. Having the tax will not drive away business because the industry is fixed. The natural gas is where it is and it cannot move. In fact, it is the duty of the state to make sure it is getting its fair share for parting with its limited precious resources. Is not the state its own actor in this market?
Given the recent history of the energy mining industry (ahem, BP, ahem) I'm not so certain stasis can be trusted to the corporations. And to put it flatly, once the natural gas there is gone, so is the industry with the region. Recompense of some kind must be had.
RECOMPENSE!!!!
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101012_On_Pa__natural_gas_tax__different_polls_yield_different_results.html
-- Knuttel
So the main issue is ... should the energy companies be taxed for mining the natural gas? How should they be taxed, if taxed?
Passage of a bill looks eminent, so it looks as if the issue will be more rhetorical and theoretical than anything else.
I look at it this way. The natural gas is there. How much is there is unclear, but it's there. Unless the states decide to go to war with one another, or some country invades and takes over the Marcellus Shale, it will still be there, and it will still be in Pennsylvania. In this case, it is the job of the government to make sure minimal damage is done in order to extract the natural gas, or to ensure that what damage is done can be reversed. If it takes a tax to make sure this can be done within the state budget, a tax which is the similar in neighboring Marcellus states (which, by the way, because it's in shale form, cannot be a "my milkshake drinks your milkshake" scenario), then the tax must be enacted. It's the only responsible thing to do. Having the tax will not drive away business because the industry is fixed. The natural gas is where it is and it cannot move. In fact, it is the duty of the state to make sure it is getting its fair share for parting with its limited precious resources. Is not the state its own actor in this market?
Given the recent history of the energy mining industry (ahem, BP, ahem) I'm not so certain stasis can be trusted to the corporations. And to put it flatly, once the natural gas there is gone, so is the industry with the region. Recompense of some kind must be had.
RECOMPENSE!!!!
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101012_On_Pa__natural_gas_tax__different_polls_yield_different_results.html
-- Knuttel
10.11.2010
KA-BROOM
Question: What is the sound of a sweep?
The playoff future looks bright for the Phillies, with but one exception -- the offense looked rather anemic. That is to say, most of their offense was generated from defensive errors. This needs to be rectified.
Pitching was stellar.
2 complete games, 1 no hitter, and no runs surrendered by the bullpen -- against the NL's most potent offense of the year, no less. The Reds had the team triple crown, and their first baseman was close to getting a personal one.
The next series shall be interesting, and I hope they both exhaust eachother.
I don't know how I feel exactly about the possibility of a Yankees/Phillies rematch though. Sure, having the Phillies win would be awesome, but would that particular matchup be good for baseball?
-- Knuttel
The playoff future looks bright for the Phillies, with but one exception -- the offense looked rather anemic. That is to say, most of their offense was generated from defensive errors. This needs to be rectified.
Pitching was stellar.
2 complete games, 1 no hitter, and no runs surrendered by the bullpen -- against the NL's most potent offense of the year, no less. The Reds had the team triple crown, and their first baseman was close to getting a personal one.
The next series shall be interesting, and I hope they both exhaust eachother.
I don't know how I feel exactly about the possibility of a Yankees/Phillies rematch though. Sure, having the Phillies win would be awesome, but would that particular matchup be good for baseball?
-- Knuttel
10.02.2010
The Modern Anti-Hero
The modern day anti-hero is in our midst, upon the TV screen: Jersey Shore's Angelina "Jolie" Pivarnick.
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
But Knuttel, one might say, how could this possibly be?
It's quite simple, really.
First off, no one on the program displays true heroic qualities. None of them have any explicit virtue or anything like that. They may display "jerk with a heart of gold" qualities, but that rarely ever extends beyond their "family" or anyone else allowed within their group. This too extends to Angelina.
So what does she do that makes her heroic, in an anti-hero kind of way?
She remains (or at least remained).
She was an early departure on the first season, leaving the rest of the cast to bond without her. Sure, she did an annoying thing or two (notably cock blocking Mike and Pauly D in an extremely obvious way), but the whole cast annoys each other really. They're all immature, annoying assholes. It's what they do.
So why then does Angelina get outcast as such? Sure, she wasn't there for the first season, but that didn't stop the cast from accepting other second season people, such as her friend Jose.
Week in and week out she continuously took shit from the rest of the cast. She slowly worked at gaining their trust, only to have it taken back in a quarter of the time for something usually trivial, something any other cast member would be just as likely to do -- in the hot tub with Vinny's uncle hitting the ball into Snooki's face could easily be an accident, especially with someone who would probably not be very athletic or coordinated, something that Snooki could have very easily done to Angelina (except she would've brushed it off as nothing and no one would have left the hot tub terribly upset).
Among other things held against her was Vinny taking offense to Angelina saying that JWoww is talking about how drunk Pauly is, saying it like, "she's talking shit," when it's closer to, "she's talking a matter of factly, with little inflection of criticism." This of course leads to a fight. Later after a long dispute between her and Vinny, they end up drunkenly sleeping together. Vinny later states this act as doing it so he has something against her. Let me say that again, Vinny slept with Angelina so he could later hold it against her. How evil is that? Anyways, this comes within a day of Angelina saying she slept with Jose, when she didn't, leading to the later vitriolic accusation of sluttery -- you slept with two dudes under 24 hours. Nevermind the fact that MVP (Mike, Vinny, and Pauly) are either aspiring to or successfully doing this with their respective opposite gender the entire Miami stay.
And then the hammer comes down on her in the form of Mike, formalizing his anger against her and urging every second for her exit. JWoww offers advice to just stay and deal with it, Mike is an asshole, but the damage is done. The pressure is too great, as Mike is a forceful asshole who believes his opinions are synonymous with those of the rest of the house, and besides the advice, she gets no support.
The impetus behind the final argument is a misplaced menstrual pad, though I suspect it was moved by MTV's cameramen or staff. While I believe she is a sloppy and dirty person, I have a hard time believing someone would purposely do something like that -- leaving the alternate hypothesis to be something accidental, like as if she threw it at the trash can, it failed to make it in, and she didn't look back (which is still very dirty). Either way she had deniability.
In any case, her only true crime is being herself. She refused to submit in a culture of misogyny. Simply look at the relatively subdued personalities of the other female cast members, as well as the very one sided accusations of slutty behavior (Mike, for instance, is never criticized for sleeping with many women, rather sleeping with ugly women).
In summary: she is ostracized mainly for not fitting in, and takes abuse from the other house mates on a daily basis for doing this. For refusing to be someone besides herself (when all options are rather morally neutral at best), she is the modern anti-hero. At the very least, she carries the hero's burden. She doesn't want to simply be another guidette, she wants to be Angelina the guidette, and for this she should be commended.
-- Knuttel
9.29.2010
9.26.2010
The downfall of western society: a Pixar story
So I finally saw Finding Nemo.
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
I was dissappointed, but not really. I didn't like it, but it was standard Pixar fare.
Without further ado, I shall now let loose my anger upon Pixar.
All they make are treacly little Oscar-bait pictures. The funny part, of course, is they'll likely never win any best picture Oscars for doing this, as animated pictures rarely ever win the best picture Oscar. Though animated Oscar-bait pictures are usually much more likely to make money than non-animated ones -- plus lower production costs; theyre running to the bank.
But my point is they don't challenge the medium in any way other than technical. They don't treat it like an art, they treat it like an exercise. All the stories are the same tug-at-your-heartstrings bullshit. Oddly enough, all the stories also have a very anti-human message.
I shall go through this latter part in list format, using the list of Pixar films made, according to wikipedia.
Toy Story, 1995 -- While the conflict is mostly between Buzz and Woody, it is brought up mostly by Andy the human kid's temporary taste in toys. Also, there's the kid next door who terrorizes and destroys all toys, though he would be considered a minor-antagonist. Add in the fact that humans aren't supposed to see the toys move ever, and really any human is an enemy of some kind in this movie.
A Bug's Life, 1998 -- I don't remember anything about this movie. It sucked too much for me. Plus it was a blatant knockoff of Dreamworks' 1998 movie Antz. Funny thing is when Dreamworks goes toe to toe with Pixar on films of comparable quality, Dreamworks usually makes the better film. This is the beginning of this trend. Are people even in this movie? Oh man, that's the most evil of all.
Toy Story 2, 1999 -- Already going into the sequel well on their third effort, the antagonist in this mediocre movie is the toy collector.
Monsters, inc., 2001 -- I don't really remember this movie, but I think the antagonist in this movie was the little kid that runs around the monster city.
Finding Nemo, 2003 -- The main antagonist in this movie is the Sydney dentist (how an ocean clown fish managed to survive the trip from the Great Barrier Reef to Sydney is beyond me). All the oceanic "enemies" were merely plot obstacles (were the jellyfish ever aware of their presence?). It is also one of the first movies to make a dramatic stand against people and what people stand for explicity, criticizing the "stealing" of fish from their natural environments, and really people "invading" upon any oceanic habitat. Also, anyone notice how the final "obstacle" was a fishing boat, of which the fish were at least aware of fishing grounds? Not to mention a clown fish would probably get tossed overboard during the sorting process as by-catch. Also, even though Shark Tales was decidedly mediocre, it was still better than this.
The Incredibles, 2004 -- The antagonist is, at first, the humans who ban superhero activities in public. This is used as a plot device to set up the main antagonist, a normal human who captures and fights superheroes with his robots.
Cars, 2006 -- I could only stand about 5 minutes of this crapfest. Too many awful car puns. Anyways, I don't even think humans exist in the "Cars" universe. What is the purpose of a car's existence then, if not to propel the driver? Thus, existentially, humans are, too, the enemy.
Ratatouille, 2007 -- The enemy in this movie is every human which attempts to stop a single rat's attempts at becoming a chef.
WALL-E, 2008 -- The antagonist in this movie is natural human sloth. As people develop better and better technology, they become lazier and lazier, ultimately turning earth into a trash pile. The robots running the ship realize this, using it as their reason to keep the humans away from earth, even though it can now "support" life. Kung Fu Panda was superior to this film in every single way, even in only the first five minutes.
Up, 2009 -- Never saw it, don't plan on seeing it, but I can bet you there's an indictment against humankind somewhere in there.
Toy Story 3, 2010 -- The third sequel of the Toy Story franchise, it improves upon the second one. Humans exist as the usual background foe, special emphasis placed upon the little kids who destroy and go through toys, not understanding their limits. The main antagonist is mob-boss of the daycare, Lotso Hugs, but all of the conflict in this movie is driven by abandonment issues the toys feel from their human masters.
So there you go, Pixar hates people. I expect a Pixar remake of Soylent Green, rewritten as a feel good story.
-- Knuttel
9.24.2010
interesting op-ed articles
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24chernow.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
i'll prolly synthesize the information later on, but i'll just stick it up for now
-- knuttel
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24chernow.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
i'll prolly synthesize the information later on, but i'll just stick it up for now
-- knuttel
9.23.2010
The Demise of Politics
So the repealing of "don't ask, don't tell" failed miserably. Regardless of opinions of the matter, it showed a complete failure in the political process as it it practiced by today's Senate.
Instead of just proposing the bill as a straight vote on what would seem to be a straightforward issue regarding policy, it was attached to the defense spending bill. As the constitution states, the Senate can only affect the military by (officially) declaring war and ratifying treaties. However, the Senate can also control spending, of which the military requires to survive.
This means the bill is no longer about the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No, the bill is now the military budget, and includes something about repealing the policy.
This means that voting against taking away "don't ask, don't tell" is now "voting against the military."
Naturally, the Senate republicans want to pass the military budget, so in order to attempt a compromise, they ask for 20 amendments. What they are, I do not know, but Senate majority leader only included one of them in the final bill.
So now the bill needs 60 votes to pass, because the Republicans are threatening a filibuster if it goes to the floor. The bill looks like it will only get 59 votes, so it just gets dropped.
So misaimed politicking and exclusion doomed the actual passing of this, which by the way an overwhelming majority of Americans would support.
Maybe the moderate Republicans in the house would've voted to get rid of this, but because they were shut out of the discussion on an even larger matter, they refused to cooperate yet again. Of course, it's a given that cooperation is not guaranteed, but I can guarantee that John McCain filibustering a straight vote on an issue like that would not go over well for the entire party. A single action like that could have easily evaporated moderate and independent support in a very hyped election season -- really making the vote something more of an inevitability, a postponement.
Now with the rise of the tea partiers, and their subsequent foray into social conservatism (which, you know, really has a lot to do with their original libertarian stance on limiting government), this could remain an issue for longer.
Frankly I don't understand how "don't ask, don't tell" could even be supported in any context other than maybe the original context -- which was much more limited in scope (basically just don't go to a gay pride parade wearing your uniform) -- not if they are found to have a same sex spouse, or are found in the midst of a homosexual act, or have their emails and other private life items invaded to force one out of the closet and ending their career.
How can we turn away able bodied soldiers, or at the very least force them to live a lie (and hope they don't get caught) in order to serve and protect their country?
-- Knuttel
Instead of just proposing the bill as a straight vote on what would seem to be a straightforward issue regarding policy, it was attached to the defense spending bill. As the constitution states, the Senate can only affect the military by (officially) declaring war and ratifying treaties. However, the Senate can also control spending, of which the military requires to survive.
This means the bill is no longer about the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to serve in the military. No, the bill is now the military budget, and includes something about repealing the policy.
This means that voting against taking away "don't ask, don't tell" is now "voting against the military."
Naturally, the Senate republicans want to pass the military budget, so in order to attempt a compromise, they ask for 20 amendments. What they are, I do not know, but Senate majority leader only included one of them in the final bill.
So now the bill needs 60 votes to pass, because the Republicans are threatening a filibuster if it goes to the floor. The bill looks like it will only get 59 votes, so it just gets dropped.
So misaimed politicking and exclusion doomed the actual passing of this, which by the way an overwhelming majority of Americans would support.
Maybe the moderate Republicans in the house would've voted to get rid of this, but because they were shut out of the discussion on an even larger matter, they refused to cooperate yet again. Of course, it's a given that cooperation is not guaranteed, but I can guarantee that John McCain filibustering a straight vote on an issue like that would not go over well for the entire party. A single action like that could have easily evaporated moderate and independent support in a very hyped election season -- really making the vote something more of an inevitability, a postponement.
Now with the rise of the tea partiers, and their subsequent foray into social conservatism (which, you know, really has a lot to do with their original libertarian stance on limiting government), this could remain an issue for longer.
Frankly I don't understand how "don't ask, don't tell" could even be supported in any context other than maybe the original context -- which was much more limited in scope (basically just don't go to a gay pride parade wearing your uniform) -- not if they are found to have a same sex spouse, or are found in the midst of a homosexual act, or have their emails and other private life items invaded to force one out of the closet and ending their career.
How can we turn away able bodied soldiers, or at the very least force them to live a lie (and hope they don't get caught) in order to serve and protect their country?
-- Knuttel
9.17.2010
Stuff
I probably intended on using these as links/references for my last post, so I'll just haphazardly put them down now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100915/el_yblog_upshot/tea-party-victory-endangers-gops-goal-of-retaking-the-senate
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php?ref=fpa
The latter I see directly correlating, however the former perhaps may have been an egg for a follow-up post. I dunno.
-- Knuttel
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100915/el_yblog_upshot/tea-party-victory-endangers-gops-goal-of-retaking-the-senate
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php?ref=fpa
The latter I see directly correlating, however the former perhaps may have been an egg for a follow-up post. I dunno.
-- Knuttel
9.16.2010
Division
Let's take a break from sports for a little bit. It's getting repetitive anyway.
There is a great political movement occurring right now, the tea party. When it first started, it seemed easy to write it off as a fringe movement, relegate it to third party status.
Instead of becoming a third party, they simply became something similar to a PAC. They either fielded or supported candidates from both parties, at least initially. Public figures, all of whom could be described in some manner as "Washington outsiders" started taking charge of the party.
The tea party grew increasingly on a more and more conservative base. Originally, it appeared to be made from libertarians who were fed up with being on the outside looking in as the government grew larger. Other right wing oriented groups latched on, also on the outside since the democrats took control of both electable houses of government in 2008.
And while the economic crisis continues, anger grows; more and more people become dissatisfied with the manner in which the country is run. The tea party becomes a symbol of those who feel ignored by the government, who feel even when they vote for the old party line, they vote for the same thing.
That is how Christine O Donnell beat Mike Castle for the republican senate candidate in Delaware.
By all accounts, Mike Castle had no reason to lose. He was a moderate republican in a Northeastern state. He had a long and competent service record -- currently serving as Delaware's lone house member, also served as Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Aside from espousing the view that our President was born in the U.S.A., there shouldn't have been any issues, and he likely would have had the support of many democrats, winning the Senate seat.
But that's precisely why he didn't win. The tea party has taken over the right wing of the republican party, adding social conservatism along the way. Simply having a long government career was disastrous, no matter how long or esteemed. Not dealing well with conspiracy theorists also doesn't help when fringe movements close in on a party.
So now all of a sudden, Delaware is a race. What was sure to be a seat for Mike Castle and the republicans is now fair game to both parties.
O Donnel had previously run in the 2006 Primaries for Senate, and also ran on the main ticket in 2008 against Joe Biden. She lost on both occasions, but now has tea party steam backing her up. She's stood for some socially crazy positions, claiming to base it on religion (seeing as how I too am a catholic, I know she's full of shit), and etc, but I'm not gonna point that all out. I'll just direct you to a video which should be up in many places of her on a '90s MTV special when she was in her twenties.
I went to her website to try and figure out what exactly her positions are on anything, and well, I got this. Yeah, it just asks for donations, and doesn't say anything about her campaign or what she stands for. Even funnier, if you click to the next screen, it doesn't have her updated goal of $1,000,000 posted. For a movement that seems to have sprung quickly with the aid of the internet, I am really disappointed in a website like this one.
Why do I care about this? I don't live in Delaware, after all. Well, I live close enough. What happens in Delaware can effect me, and what happens in Delaware could also be a indicator of what is to come in southeastern PA politics. In addition, driving on I-95 in Delaware is already an unpleasant experience, and I do not want this to be even more unpleasant cos some crazy doesn't want to pay maintenance on it. I could decide it's fiscally irresponsible for me to pay car insurance, that doesn't mean I don't need it to drive my car, and doesn't reflect anything about fiscal responsibility.
Maybe conservatives want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to be the figureheads of the democratic party in 2012, but I think liberals would likewise be interested to see Palin, O Donnel, and Angle as figureheads of the republicans.
What the hell ever happened to constructive lawmaking? You can't fix anything if you can't agree damnit.
There is a great political movement occurring right now, the tea party. When it first started, it seemed easy to write it off as a fringe movement, relegate it to third party status.
Instead of becoming a third party, they simply became something similar to a PAC. They either fielded or supported candidates from both parties, at least initially. Public figures, all of whom could be described in some manner as "Washington outsiders" started taking charge of the party.
The tea party grew increasingly on a more and more conservative base. Originally, it appeared to be made from libertarians who were fed up with being on the outside looking in as the government grew larger. Other right wing oriented groups latched on, also on the outside since the democrats took control of both electable houses of government in 2008.
And while the economic crisis continues, anger grows; more and more people become dissatisfied with the manner in which the country is run. The tea party becomes a symbol of those who feel ignored by the government, who feel even when they vote for the old party line, they vote for the same thing.
That is how Christine O Donnell beat Mike Castle for the republican senate candidate in Delaware.
By all accounts, Mike Castle had no reason to lose. He was a moderate republican in a Northeastern state. He had a long and competent service record -- currently serving as Delaware's lone house member, also served as Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. Aside from espousing the view that our President was born in the U.S.A., there shouldn't have been any issues, and he likely would have had the support of many democrats, winning the Senate seat.
But that's precisely why he didn't win. The tea party has taken over the right wing of the republican party, adding social conservatism along the way. Simply having a long government career was disastrous, no matter how long or esteemed. Not dealing well with conspiracy theorists also doesn't help when fringe movements close in on a party.
So now all of a sudden, Delaware is a race. What was sure to be a seat for Mike Castle and the republicans is now fair game to both parties.
O Donnel had previously run in the 2006 Primaries for Senate, and also ran on the main ticket in 2008 against Joe Biden. She lost on both occasions, but now has tea party steam backing her up. She's stood for some socially crazy positions, claiming to base it on religion (seeing as how I too am a catholic, I know she's full of shit), and etc, but I'm not gonna point that all out. I'll just direct you to a video which should be up in many places of her on a '90s MTV special when she was in her twenties.
I went to her website to try and figure out what exactly her positions are on anything, and well, I got this. Yeah, it just asks for donations, and doesn't say anything about her campaign or what she stands for. Even funnier, if you click to the next screen, it doesn't have her updated goal of $1,000,000 posted. For a movement that seems to have sprung quickly with the aid of the internet, I am really disappointed in a website like this one.
Why do I care about this? I don't live in Delaware, after all. Well, I live close enough. What happens in Delaware can effect me, and what happens in Delaware could also be a indicator of what is to come in southeastern PA politics. In addition, driving on I-95 in Delaware is already an unpleasant experience, and I do not want this to be even more unpleasant cos some crazy doesn't want to pay maintenance on it. I could decide it's fiscally irresponsible for me to pay car insurance, that doesn't mean I don't need it to drive my car, and doesn't reflect anything about fiscal responsibility.
Maybe conservatives want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to be the figureheads of the democratic party in 2012, but I think liberals would likewise be interested to see Palin, O Donnel, and Angle as figureheads of the republicans.
What the hell ever happened to constructive lawmaking? You can't fix anything if you can't agree damnit.
9.15.2010
Clarity
I should clarify, perhaps, how the two items in the previous article are related.
The NCAA is going after players who engage in activities which somehow correlate to them getting paid to play football. As an amateur organization, this is forbidden, and players will be dealt with accordingly (usually ruled ineligible, sometimes after the fact).
The NFL has no minor league or developmental league of any kind. Essentially, they draft players from the college ranks (with a few rare exceptions, defensive tackle Eric Swann comes to mind). With the NFL expanding its regular season to 18 games, and decreasing its preseason games to 2, it will be more difficult to ascertain how valuable these fringe players are on a roster. These fringe players are made up of undrafted rookies, late round picks, and career special teamers.
In order to actually develop these players, evaluate how they play in a professional environment, the NFL will have to develop some sort of minor league system. Having it a separate league entirely, such as the UFL seems troublesome and meddlesome. Every other league plays by rules that are either too different or simply doesn't draw the kind of talent required to garner attention. Expanding the practice squad to full size and have the practice squads play each other seems like a good idea, it could be like the reserve system in European soccer.
Frankly, I don't see why the college players aren't paid if they are making so much money for the school. I realize most of what colleges do simply doesn't make money, at least not real money. Research universities can draw in federal money for research grants. Even in this case the professors and research aides are all paid for their time.
Whatevs, I'm starting to get rambly. Time for me to move to other topics.
-- Knuttel
The NCAA is going after players who engage in activities which somehow correlate to them getting paid to play football. As an amateur organization, this is forbidden, and players will be dealt with accordingly (usually ruled ineligible, sometimes after the fact).
The NFL has no minor league or developmental league of any kind. Essentially, they draft players from the college ranks (with a few rare exceptions, defensive tackle Eric Swann comes to mind). With the NFL expanding its regular season to 18 games, and decreasing its preseason games to 2, it will be more difficult to ascertain how valuable these fringe players are on a roster. These fringe players are made up of undrafted rookies, late round picks, and career special teamers.
In order to actually develop these players, evaluate how they play in a professional environment, the NFL will have to develop some sort of minor league system. Having it a separate league entirely, such as the UFL seems troublesome and meddlesome. Every other league plays by rules that are either too different or simply doesn't draw the kind of talent required to garner attention. Expanding the practice squad to full size and have the practice squads play each other seems like a good idea, it could be like the reserve system in European soccer.
Frankly, I don't see why the college players aren't paid if they are making so much money for the school. I realize most of what colleges do simply doesn't make money, at least not real money. Research universities can draw in federal money for research grants. Even in this case the professors and research aides are all paid for their time.
Whatevs, I'm starting to get rambly. Time for me to move to other topics.
-- Knuttel
9.14.2010
How is it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090906372.html?nav=rss_email/components
How is it the NCAA can get away with this?
I realize the specifics regarding this case are vague, but that's precisely what's leaving this player in limbo. I realize the main purpose of college is to provide education.
However, it is clear that in this case, the player will do little else immediately after graduation besides try to play professional football. His jersey wasn't sold for terribly more than it would be worth anyway (ebay that jersey, and it would probably get over a grand). And the NCAA sells his jersey anyway, and keeps all the money from it.
The fact of the matter is the major sports (football and basketball, usually men's but sometimes women's) make a shitton of money for the NCAA and their respective schools. The players, those who produce this money, see little of it.
Assume that a semester at a public university costs $20,000, including everything. That makes a full ride worth $40,000 plus a few field trips. Let's say it's a private university, and everything costs twice as much, that makes it $80,000 the university is giving them.
The NFL rookie minimum salary in 2007 was $285,000, and it has probably risen slightly since then.
Athletics is a field in which there is not much time to make your money. These players are forgoing prime (or developmental depending on the person/position, either way important) years of their life on what amounts to a 4 year internship.
Switching gears, the NFL has also recently stated the season will soon go to 18 games, replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season ones. This kills rookies and fringe players chances of making the team and understanding the game. The NFL would do well to create some sort of minor league to facilitate this development and retainment that they are otherwise sorely losing. The NHL has the AHL, and MLB has the minor league system, hell even the NBA has some semblance of a minor league system in the d-league. The NFL has none of that. They have other leagues that don't pay as much, and often play with very different rules and formats -- The CFL has 12 on 12 football with 3 downs to get 10 yards, the Arena Football League encourages iron-man style play with it's archaic substitution system, and the UFL eschews popular NFL rules such as the tuck rule and a different form of intentional grounding.
The NFL risks collapsing under its own weight if it doesn't make some sort of change regarding this. This has nothing to do with my personal squabbles and boycott of the NFL. If the NFL doesn't amend itself in this way, it can very well lose the relevance it so enjoys -- maybe even people will discover the variety of non-NFL football during a lockout, which could damage its brand (think people discovering faster-paced European hockey with NHL level athletes during its lockout year).
Something's gotta give
-- Knuttel
How is it the NCAA can get away with this?
I realize the specifics regarding this case are vague, but that's precisely what's leaving this player in limbo. I realize the main purpose of college is to provide education.
However, it is clear that in this case, the player will do little else immediately after graduation besides try to play professional football. His jersey wasn't sold for terribly more than it would be worth anyway (ebay that jersey, and it would probably get over a grand). And the NCAA sells his jersey anyway, and keeps all the money from it.
The fact of the matter is the major sports (football and basketball, usually men's but sometimes women's) make a shitton of money for the NCAA and their respective schools. The players, those who produce this money, see little of it.
Assume that a semester at a public university costs $20,000, including everything. That makes a full ride worth $40,000 plus a few field trips. Let's say it's a private university, and everything costs twice as much, that makes it $80,000 the university is giving them.
The NFL rookie minimum salary in 2007 was $285,000, and it has probably risen slightly since then.
Athletics is a field in which there is not much time to make your money. These players are forgoing prime (or developmental depending on the person/position, either way important) years of their life on what amounts to a 4 year internship.
Switching gears, the NFL has also recently stated the season will soon go to 18 games, replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season ones. This kills rookies and fringe players chances of making the team and understanding the game. The NFL would do well to create some sort of minor league to facilitate this development and retainment that they are otherwise sorely losing. The NHL has the AHL, and MLB has the minor league system, hell even the NBA has some semblance of a minor league system in the d-league. The NFL has none of that. They have other leagues that don't pay as much, and often play with very different rules and formats -- The CFL has 12 on 12 football with 3 downs to get 10 yards, the Arena Football League encourages iron-man style play with it's archaic substitution system, and the UFL eschews popular NFL rules such as the tuck rule and a different form of intentional grounding.
The NFL risks collapsing under its own weight if it doesn't make some sort of change regarding this. This has nothing to do with my personal squabbles and boycott of the NFL. If the NFL doesn't amend itself in this way, it can very well lose the relevance it so enjoys -- maybe even people will discover the variety of non-NFL football during a lockout, which could damage its brand (think people discovering faster-paced European hockey with NHL level athletes during its lockout year).
Something's gotta give
-- Knuttel
NCAA Week 2
So the second week of 11 on 11 football has come to pass.
-- Penn State needs to fix the run game somehow. Logic dictates that it shouldn't be Royster, but logic also saw the offensive line pass blocking very effectively. Pass blocking and run blocking aren't directly related, but they're close enough. Against 'Bama, they get somewhat of a pass, but they need to get their ass in gear.
-- Bolden, again, didn't look terrible. However, I get the suspicion that the coaches are unwilling to hand the offense over to him. His offense was very vanilla.
-- Newsome actually looked better than Bolden in the one series he played. The ball was turned over on a wide receiver reverse screen, so we didn't get to see if he could finish a drive, something Bolden struggled with mightily.
-- Speaking of which, Redzone offense sucked. One field goal is unacceptable, regardless of opponent. Scoring 3 points leaves you unlikely to win in any scenario.
-- Does Kevin Newsome have Allen Iverson syndrome? (Practice, you talking about practice? practice? I'm talking about the game!)
-- I see Penn State as a middle of the road Big Ten team this year, though recently they've usually been only upper mid-tier, so that's really not that much of a change. They're clearly not beating either Ohio State or Iowa, and could easily lose to a Michigan or Northwestern. Even an upset to Temple wouldn't be entirely unforseeable.
-- The ACC is looking terrible. Last week Va Tech lost to Boise State, which seemed like it could go either way. But this week Va Tech lost to FCS James Madison, Georgia Tech lost to Kansas, who lost to a 1-AA opponent to open their season, Florida State got trounced by Oklahoma, and Miami lost to Ohio State. Did I miss anything?
-- Virginia held in for longer than expected against USC. They have a shot at beating Va Tech this year for the commonwealth cup.
-- Boise State's victory against Va Tech has been sadly made more unimpressive by Va Tech's loss this weak. It's really a shame you never really know what you're going to get when you attempt to schedule strong out of conference opponents. They attempted to schedule tough and prove themselves, and their opponents haven't bothered as much to do the same. Other big name opponent, Oregon State, lost their opener to fellow mid-major powerhouse TCU.
-- NCAA division 1-A (FBS) needs to get a playoff system. It's not like it takes away the meaning of games anyway.
-- Penn State needs to fix the run game somehow. Logic dictates that it shouldn't be Royster, but logic also saw the offensive line pass blocking very effectively. Pass blocking and run blocking aren't directly related, but they're close enough. Against 'Bama, they get somewhat of a pass, but they need to get their ass in gear.
-- Bolden, again, didn't look terrible. However, I get the suspicion that the coaches are unwilling to hand the offense over to him. His offense was very vanilla.
-- Newsome actually looked better than Bolden in the one series he played. The ball was turned over on a wide receiver reverse screen, so we didn't get to see if he could finish a drive, something Bolden struggled with mightily.
-- Speaking of which, Redzone offense sucked. One field goal is unacceptable, regardless of opponent. Scoring 3 points leaves you unlikely to win in any scenario.
-- Does Kevin Newsome have Allen Iverson syndrome? (Practice, you talking about practice? practice? I'm talking about the game!)
-- I see Penn State as a middle of the road Big Ten team this year, though recently they've usually been only upper mid-tier, so that's really not that much of a change. They're clearly not beating either Ohio State or Iowa, and could easily lose to a Michigan or Northwestern. Even an upset to Temple wouldn't be entirely unforseeable.
-- The ACC is looking terrible. Last week Va Tech lost to Boise State, which seemed like it could go either way. But this week Va Tech lost to FCS James Madison, Georgia Tech lost to Kansas, who lost to a 1-AA opponent to open their season, Florida State got trounced by Oklahoma, and Miami lost to Ohio State. Did I miss anything?
-- Virginia held in for longer than expected against USC. They have a shot at beating Va Tech this year for the commonwealth cup.
-- Boise State's victory against Va Tech has been sadly made more unimpressive by Va Tech's loss this weak. It's really a shame you never really know what you're going to get when you attempt to schedule strong out of conference opponents. They attempted to schedule tough and prove themselves, and their opponents haven't bothered as much to do the same. Other big name opponent, Oregon State, lost their opener to fellow mid-major powerhouse TCU.
-- NCAA division 1-A (FBS) needs to get a playoff system. It's not like it takes away the meaning of games anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)