Monday, July 17, 2006

Hmm I'm getting comment spam - does this mean people read this thing? Apologies if anyone is seduced by hidden links in comments, but I delete them as quickly as possible.

We watched part of the ESPYs tonight, and it was fun watching the Lance-Vince Austin tag team dominate the show. When the Rose Bowl won Best Championship Event, Matt Leinart commented on "getting an award for losing," and I was hoping Vince would respond with "I wouldn't know." Sadly, his writers aren't as good as me.

It made me think though that the Sports Year 2005 has to rank as my best. UT won the Red River Bowl, 2 Rose Bowls, a football national title, and a College World Series, and almost avoided getting shafted on the Heisman. Tim Duncan and the Spurs won their 3rd NBA title. In the year I was a Colts fan (I now have to switch to the Titans), they won 13 in a row and almost beat the eventual-champion Steelers (with Vinatieri they woulda done it). And for my personal record, I was on a church league basketball team in January-April of that year that went undefeated regular season and playoffs, including some incredible games. I wasn't that important to the team, except we often only had 5 or 6 players, so my presence was needed (and I can play well at times). It almost makes me want to quit sports from on top of fandom, except that March Madness and the NBA Playoffs have made 2006 pretty spectacular too thus far. I wonder if I spend too much time on sports, but on the other hand, it's a great release to passively enjoy something more unpredictable than TV/movies, and provides a good social medium. Dunno, but I'm sure I'm spending too much time thinking about if I spend too much time on it. :-)

Still reading Rise of the West - I've been delayed by 2 projects: 1) building a little Access tool for my wife's lab to track orders, and 2) watching West Wing on DVD. Tis much better than the syndicated shortened version - I highly recommend it.
posted by Unknown 12:15 AM | 0 comments

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

It's 1AM and I'm bummed (yep, one of those posts - consider this fair warning). I'm on a friend's mailing list that's primarily liberal politics. An email just came through the list that flames and derides Christian fundamentalists in some of the harsher language possible. I was gonna reply with cautions about stereotyping, but I figure the writer 1) has probably been the target of similar rhetoric from Christian fundamentalists, and 2) doesn't seem interested in discussion. I know both sides have members guilty of patronizing or demonizing the other side, and that most members of both sides are striving for what they think is best. What depresses me is I see no way to bridge this gap - it's kinda like evolution, where most people already know their conclusions beyond possible doubt before any conversation begins.

I think my readership includes every combination of non-/Christian fundamentalist, and politically liberal/conservative. Any suggestions on what would convince people in general, or you if you have a particular beef, to open a dialogue that could find the points people agree on and work towards those? There's always going to be disagreements, but defining relationships by those differences is a quick path toward societal ineffectiveness and isolation.

All that said, I know I flare up. I get downright pissed off at individuals and organizations, for better or worse. But I never mean to denigrate any genericizable group - for example, I can't stand the Republican and Democratic Parties, but have no beef with political liberals or conservatives as a whole, and try to judge individuals' political stances independently of party membership. If I do start stereotyping, call me on it.

And in case Mac reads this, I like the mailing list overall, and wouldn't want anyone not to express their honest opinion. This particular opinion just kinda got me down.
posted by Unknown 12:55 AM | 2 comments

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Was kinda hit by Psalm 136 when I read it last night. Every verse is a statement about God followed by "for his steadfast love endures forever." I don't know if it's the focus on his love as opposed to power/knowledge/existence, or the point that that's the constant through all the best and worst in life, but I liked it. I hope everyone has something in their life that they trust to be always there like that.

Back to my cynicism and desperate attempts at humor in later posts.
posted by Unknown 5:15 PM | 0 comments

So Tuesday, Laura had to go into the lab really early (we're talking 6AM - makes me so appreciate my flex schedule). Since it was a holiday, it won't surprise many of you that I was still asleep when she got back about 9:30 with a dozen Krispy Kremes. Well, kinda. Upon opening the box, there were eleven doughnuts and one sugary grease circle mark. So if 13 is a Baker's Dozen, I encourage everyone to enjoy 11 as a Laura's Dozen.
posted by Unknown 5:12 PM | 0 comments

Sunday, July 02, 2006

If I ever run a D&D game, or write any book with magical items, I'm going to include the Glasses of Identity Hiding. "Too super to go about your daily life? Afraid women will be intimidated by your powers? Put on these glasses, and not only will no one notice your famous physical features, they won't even remember much of anything about you. As an added bonus, no one will ever notice that your blase identity is always in the same town as you, but never in the same room." Ah, comic books.

Anyone want to burn a flag today? I don't - heck, I think it's a pretty stupid form of expression to damage property, but if stupid (even hurtful) expression can be made illegal, there goes most stand-up comedy, a lot of blogs, several cable networks, and (admittedly this is an upside) most politicians' speeches. Scott Adams has a great post on how odd it is for government to focus on this when it hasn't solved any of the problems it's supposed to address - education, foreign policy, budget, etc.

I noticed 2 Republicans voted against the amendment in the Senate - one's Lincoln Chafee, a fairly non-conservative from Rhode Island, and the other was #2 Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. I know he says he opposed it on free speech grounds, but I can't help wondering if the Republican leadership was more interesting in painting Democrats as anti-patriotism in the fall than actually passing a silly, useless amendment. If so, it was executed perfectly. If not, then I might have a little hope if/when McConnell takes over the Republicans in the Senate this fall.
posted by Unknown 12:22 PM | 0 comments