My favorite Monty Python episodes are (in order):
1. Picasso on a Bike - Episode 1 - Whither Canada?
2. Ministry of Silly Walks - Episode 14 - Untitled
3. The Olympic Hide-and-seek Final - Episode 35
4. All of Episode 23 after the opening scene of a French Art Film
5. Johann Gambolputty... von Hautkopft of Ulm - Episode 6 - Untitled
6. Dead Parrot - Episode 8 - Full Frontal Nudity
7. Pornographic Bookshop/Elizabethan Pornography Smugglers - Episode 36
8. The Spam Sketch - Episode 25
9. Working Class Playwright - Episode 2 - Sex and Violence
10. The Piranha Brothers - Episode 14
11. Mosquito Hunters - Episode 21
12. Dennis Moore - Episode 37
13. Lupins - Episode 37
14. Agatha Christie Sketch (Railway Timetables) - Episode 24
15. Exploding Penguin on TV Set - Episode 22
16. Bruces - Episode 22
17. 'Spectrum' - Talking about Things - Episode 12 - Untitled
18. Coal Mine (Historical Argument) - Episode 26
19. Housing Project Built by Characters from Nineteenth-century English Literature - Episode 35
20. Climbing the North Face of the Uxbridge Road - Episode 33
21. Rival Documentaries - Episode 38
22. 'Archaeology Today' - Episode 20
23. The Idiot in Society - Episode 20
24. Election Night Special - Episode 19
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Thursday, November 20, 2003
On Marriage
It staggers my little mind to think that people care so disproportionately much about what gay people do that they would fight against their right to marry. If currently there were a tradition of stringent laws and governmental guidelines about getting married that caused couples to prove officially that they were fit to what...receive partner health benefits, inherit things, be admitted to see someone in the hospital, whatever it might be, then I could understand that people would make a fuss. But in this country, you can marry anybody for any reason, no questions asked. Oh, well just the one, then. "Opposite sex?" Both say "yes", "I do", "I do", "I now pronounce you, governmentally official." Shit, a lesbian could marry a gay man and profess to never have sex with each other and all the government would say is, “Okay, which one of you is Chris?” It’s insane that the state has to give the go-ahead to something that [some] people hold so sacredly.
Why does the holy tradition of marriage, which joins together two souls to eternal life with only each other, involve the government, anyway? You never see a big ceremony and reception for getting a license to fish? Or to drive? Although, if I were Horace Etheridge, I would have a press conference for it. But to do something so personal and private as committing your spirit and essence of being to another person, Mr. Bains from the courthouse has to have you sign a few papers and make it all legal. It cheapens it a bit, would you say?
As you may imagine, especially if you know me well, I don't understand marriage all that much, although I don't condemn it. I don't even mind when people ask me, "So when are you and Amy getting married?" Well, I do object slightly to the "So" part, as if someone my use it to imply that marriage is the top rung on the relationship ladder and an eventuality not to be overlooked by anyone looking for the "perfect" or "blessed" couplehood. I would suggest that divorce might be the top rung, but only up against 52% of the rooftops. I would support such a line of thinking by suggesting that not all of us (possibly not any of us) are meant to spend our whole lives with just one person. And that doesn't mean that every relationship that doesn't last until one of you die is a failure, either. I think that it is perfectly natural to have different kinds of relationships that are healthy, instructive, constructive, happy and fun. I mean, whatever buoyantly supports your nautical vessel, I always say.
Why does the holy tradition of marriage, which joins together two souls to eternal life with only each other, involve the government, anyway? You never see a big ceremony and reception for getting a license to fish? Or to drive? Although, if I were Horace Etheridge, I would have a press conference for it. But to do something so personal and private as committing your spirit and essence of being to another person, Mr. Bains from the courthouse has to have you sign a few papers and make it all legal. It cheapens it a bit, would you say?
As you may imagine, especially if you know me well, I don't understand marriage all that much, although I don't condemn it. I don't even mind when people ask me, "So when are you and Amy getting married?" Well, I do object slightly to the "So" part, as if someone my use it to imply that marriage is the top rung on the relationship ladder and an eventuality not to be overlooked by anyone looking for the "perfect" or "blessed" couplehood. I would suggest that divorce might be the top rung, but only up against 52% of the rooftops. I would support such a line of thinking by suggesting that not all of us (possibly not any of us) are meant to spend our whole lives with just one person. And that doesn't mean that every relationship that doesn't last until one of you die is a failure, either. I think that it is perfectly natural to have different kinds of relationships that are healthy, instructive, constructive, happy and fun. I mean, whatever buoyantly supports your nautical vessel, I always say.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
New Bloggers?
I don't know all those who check this blog, but I would like to extend the list of those who contribute. If you, or someone you love, would like to write incredibly insightful and witty things like "in art, emotions play an important part in that they serve to stimulate the creative process and bring genius out of common thoughts and ideas" or "Grant Hill spends more time on the bench than paint" (Hollywood version would replace "paint" with "Judge Judy")*, then please email me at: gowizards@hotmail.com and I will send you an email by which you can gain membership.
* note high standard of both insight and wit
* note high standard of both insight and wit
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Just the facts...
Incidentally, I was born around midnight on May 15, 30 years ago to two different people. I am doing so-so.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Now you see the violence inherent in the system...
My Score:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
My political compass is closest to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. I hope that they would be/are as happy to be associated with me as I am to be associated with them in this true existential barometer of significant achievement.
If there was nothing else to the survey/test than statement 15 on page 3, I would say that it definitely entertained me for more than five minutes. Take note that I may incorporate that statement into conversations and writing. There is something whimsically fatalistic in "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."
Also, it's times like these (and only times like these) when I wish I had learned more in Geometry, you know, because of the graphs.
Also Also wik... to keep with the Python theme for titles, I would officially recomend "Well I didn't vote for you" for Kyle's entry.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
My political compass is closest to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. I hope that they would be/are as happy to be associated with me as I am to be associated with them in this true existential barometer of significant achievement.
If there was nothing else to the survey/test than statement 15 on page 3, I would say that it definitely entertained me for more than five minutes. Take note that I may incorporate that statement into conversations and writing. There is something whimsically fatalistic in "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."
Also, it's times like these (and only times like these) when I wish I had learned more in Geometry, you know, because of the graphs.
Also Also wik... to keep with the Python theme for titles, I would officially recomend "Well I didn't vote for you" for Kyle's entry.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
In case you wanted to know what Maurice has been up to in New York...
Check out this link: http://wcbs.dayport.com/launcher/6436/?tf=chtopsviewer.tpl or click here
Friday, October 17, 2003
And now for something completely different...?
Kyle, will you try to bring a llama into a Lakers game to see if you could curse them. You should stipulate that the curse would remain while Karl Malone is with the team. I wish I would have thought of this sooner. Maybe I could have cursed his damn MVPs if I could have gone to his house with a mule or something. Many thanks.
Friday, October 03, 2003
Limbaugh on the Media
Rush Limbaugh made some very derogatory statements last week on an ESPN football show that got him into some very hot water with certain groups. I wish very much that I had actually seen it, but I have only read about it and seen some commentary on TV. So my view is limited to one seen through the eyes of other writers. However, I think that it is clear that what he said was a criticism of a group of people and of Eagle Quarterback Donovan McNabb. But which group?
Limbaugh's words have become very unpopular with the Eagles' organization, ESPN, and other groups. I don't think that much good comes from the thoughts of Limbaugh, and even less from his mouth, which is why I stopped listening to him on the radio and on TV after his, oh let's say, third, crackpot theory about how Clinton is an alien or the anti-Christ, or how Democrats are going to hell, or whatever it was that day. But I think that Limbaugh has a valid point, and by that I mean an opinion based in some fact. But back to the offended group.
I understand what Limbaugh said to be a comment on the media and on the quality of McNabb as a quarterback, not on whether blacks can/should/will be quarterbacks. I don't see it as a race issue, but as a race-sensibility issue. The comment is about how race is treated, not about actual race itself. His may be a faulty comment, but I have not heard anyone in the media address this issue and attack his opinion. And that fact actually enhances his opinion of an overly race-sensitive media. Limbaugh said that the media overrates McNabb because the media wants black quarterbacks to be successful, not that McNabb is a quarterback because he is black or that he is not a very good quarterback who is not replaced because he is black. It sounded to me that he was pointing out that the media have a stake in how the public perceive McNabb, and that the media can shape that perception, also that the media have made McNabb out to be better than what he is. Limbaugh backed up this point by saying that the Philadelphia defense was the reason for their success, implying that the offense ran by McNabb was faulty.
I read somewhere that the media-unfriendly Brad Johnson, quarterback for Tampa Bay, who beat the Eagles last year in the NFC championship game, has better statistics (save rushing) and a better win/loss record over a longer period of time than McNabb. I think it is fair to say that Brad Johnson is probably seen by fans as a lesser quarterback/athlete/star than McNabb, and some of that may be because the media can manipulate the opinions of fans by what it writes or who it promotes.
In the case of Limbaugh, the media (especially ESPN, who stands to gain a reputation as a racist network) have bashed Limbaugh by saying that it doesn't matter what color a player is, that [I] watch the people who make plays, period. I just don't see that as a rebuttal to the claim against the media. It goes right to the point of media over-sensitivity that anytime someone mentions the word "black" referring to race, that there must be remarks made to justify its presence in a much more sensitive way that if the word "small" were used to refer to how the media wants short quarterback to be successful. The only remark I hear that was relevant to the criticism made by Limbaugh was that we are not living in the 1980s anymore, and that there are many black quarterbacks that are very good. But that comment still falls short of rebuttal. It barley implies that the media are no longer selling the story of black quarterbacks being held back or struggling for equality like Warren Moon, Doug Williams, Randall Cunningham, and Rodney Peete had to do. Cunningham, maybe more than any other, perpetuated the stereotype of a black quarterback (mostly early in his career and maybe not at all by the end of it) who was very athletic, but not smart enough to play that position, not to diminish his incredible talent and accomplishments. That stereotype finally started to be put to bed by the media when Doug Williams not only won a Superbowl, but played flawlessly in it (and won the MVP). That was the story that started to silence the archaic ideas upon which Limbaugh said the media still played to sell print.
So that story is dead. It still relates, though. Just a few months ago the NFL put into place a step in the Head Coach hiring process to include black candidates. NFL Teams now must officially consider a black person when filling their head coaching jobs. This was done solely to combat the same issue of blacks being kept out of positions that have been somewhat recently deemed "white" positions in the way that quarterback was a "white" position in the past. So what if Limbaugh's comments had used Tony Dungy as a head coach instead of McNabb as quarterback? He could have said that Dungy was an interesting story for the media because he was black and that the media overrates him so that his reputation will be one of more success. That would been a little more relevant, at least.
But was he wrong? I think so. I don't really think that McNabb is overrated by the media because he is black. In fact, I don't know why he is overrated by the media. Actually, I guess I don't really think his is overrated, but I do think it's possible. I also don't think that Tony Dungy is overrated, but I do think that if he were, or if someone thinks that he is, that it could easily be because he looks so humble, thoughtful and smart on TV, and that the media plays on that fact. People want him to succeed because of that, and the media reads people's interest in stories for a living. We should all face that fact that some stories were written before the events happened, and that the media will never stop selling the stories that people want to hear.
In this case of backlash to Limbaugh, the story is that of giving blacks their deserved credit, and anything that comes close to that issue will warrant that story to be told again. Only when people are tired of it and stop buying it, will that story go away. Limbaugh may never say he is sorry for calling McNabb overrated, and he or anyone else shouldn't, but if Limbaugh apologizes for what he said, I hope he does it to the right group, the media.
Limbaugh's words have become very unpopular with the Eagles' organization, ESPN, and other groups. I don't think that much good comes from the thoughts of Limbaugh, and even less from his mouth, which is why I stopped listening to him on the radio and on TV after his, oh let's say, third, crackpot theory about how Clinton is an alien or the anti-Christ, or how Democrats are going to hell, or whatever it was that day. But I think that Limbaugh has a valid point, and by that I mean an opinion based in some fact. But back to the offended group.
I understand what Limbaugh said to be a comment on the media and on the quality of McNabb as a quarterback, not on whether blacks can/should/will be quarterbacks. I don't see it as a race issue, but as a race-sensibility issue. The comment is about how race is treated, not about actual race itself. His may be a faulty comment, but I have not heard anyone in the media address this issue and attack his opinion. And that fact actually enhances his opinion of an overly race-sensitive media. Limbaugh said that the media overrates McNabb because the media wants black quarterbacks to be successful, not that McNabb is a quarterback because he is black or that he is not a very good quarterback who is not replaced because he is black. It sounded to me that he was pointing out that the media have a stake in how the public perceive McNabb, and that the media can shape that perception, also that the media have made McNabb out to be better than what he is. Limbaugh backed up this point by saying that the Philadelphia defense was the reason for their success, implying that the offense ran by McNabb was faulty.
I read somewhere that the media-unfriendly Brad Johnson, quarterback for Tampa Bay, who beat the Eagles last year in the NFC championship game, has better statistics (save rushing) and a better win/loss record over a longer period of time than McNabb. I think it is fair to say that Brad Johnson is probably seen by fans as a lesser quarterback/athlete/star than McNabb, and some of that may be because the media can manipulate the opinions of fans by what it writes or who it promotes.
In the case of Limbaugh, the media (especially ESPN, who stands to gain a reputation as a racist network) have bashed Limbaugh by saying that it doesn't matter what color a player is, that [I] watch the people who make plays, period. I just don't see that as a rebuttal to the claim against the media. It goes right to the point of media over-sensitivity that anytime someone mentions the word "black" referring to race, that there must be remarks made to justify its presence in a much more sensitive way that if the word "small" were used to refer to how the media wants short quarterback to be successful. The only remark I hear that was relevant to the criticism made by Limbaugh was that we are not living in the 1980s anymore, and that there are many black quarterbacks that are very good. But that comment still falls short of rebuttal. It barley implies that the media are no longer selling the story of black quarterbacks being held back or struggling for equality like Warren Moon, Doug Williams, Randall Cunningham, and Rodney Peete had to do. Cunningham, maybe more than any other, perpetuated the stereotype of a black quarterback (mostly early in his career and maybe not at all by the end of it) who was very athletic, but not smart enough to play that position, not to diminish his incredible talent and accomplishments. That stereotype finally started to be put to bed by the media when Doug Williams not only won a Superbowl, but played flawlessly in it (and won the MVP). That was the story that started to silence the archaic ideas upon which Limbaugh said the media still played to sell print.
So that story is dead. It still relates, though. Just a few months ago the NFL put into place a step in the Head Coach hiring process to include black candidates. NFL Teams now must officially consider a black person when filling their head coaching jobs. This was done solely to combat the same issue of blacks being kept out of positions that have been somewhat recently deemed "white" positions in the way that quarterback was a "white" position in the past. So what if Limbaugh's comments had used Tony Dungy as a head coach instead of McNabb as quarterback? He could have said that Dungy was an interesting story for the media because he was black and that the media overrates him so that his reputation will be one of more success. That would been a little more relevant, at least.
But was he wrong? I think so. I don't really think that McNabb is overrated by the media because he is black. In fact, I don't know why he is overrated by the media. Actually, I guess I don't really think his is overrated, but I do think it's possible. I also don't think that Tony Dungy is overrated, but I do think that if he were, or if someone thinks that he is, that it could easily be because he looks so humble, thoughtful and smart on TV, and that the media plays on that fact. People want him to succeed because of that, and the media reads people's interest in stories for a living. We should all face that fact that some stories were written before the events happened, and that the media will never stop selling the stories that people want to hear.
In this case of backlash to Limbaugh, the story is that of giving blacks their deserved credit, and anything that comes close to that issue will warrant that story to be told again. Only when people are tired of it and stop buying it, will that story go away. Limbaugh may never say he is sorry for calling McNabb overrated, and he or anyone else shouldn't, but if Limbaugh apologizes for what he said, I hope he does it to the right group, the media.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Spurrier, huh?
I am proud to say that about Steve Spurrier, not to mention Adolf the Nazi, Attila the Hun, Demi Moore, and other miskarma'd individuals, I can actually find something good, or at least something other than what is appropriately nasty to say. Besides, all the good shots may have already been taken in the prior comment.
I would never portray myself as a pro-Spurrier person, but I can see the past and possible future success that can come from his detestable qualities. Whether or not he cares more about his ego than he does about anything else is not even debatable in my far-off opinion. I think that he likes for people to be worse off than him. Actually, I think that it is more the showing off that really kicks it for him. I think football is attractive to him, as it is to many athletes in every sport who are somehow automatically better than most at something for a change, because it flexes his superiority in people's faces. What a wonderful characteristic to have.
Not to sound too sanctimonious, though, because I, too, have felt those feelings and enjoyed those types of encounters, which is why I so easily recognize it. But I decided to give all that up and quit pissing on others for my enjoyment when I became an adult. But not all of us do that. Spurrier hasn't learned to play well with others, which is why he is so liked and respected throughout football (sarcasm). His need for dominance of his fellow man, however, has lead him to much success.
The truth is that Spurrier made bad teams good (like at Duke) and made good teams great (Florida) because he wants to be the best. Why does he want to be the best, though? Because Spurrier couldn't bear being on the wrong sideline midway through the final quarter while some 19 year old army infantry with helmets scores enough points to make oddsmakers think about pushing next year's spread to triple digits. I mean, of course there cannot be athletic parity through more than 20 or so teams, but there is a difference between a lesser team being embarrassed by their own play in an ugly defeat to a much better team, and a lesser team trying to gracefully live through an afternoon of shielding their eyes at the glaringly enormous gap between their talent and Florida's pro-level talent.
And while I am close to the subject of the integrity of college sports (with football being the top sport), college players on the best college teams are professional. They are paid through laundered booster money and concerned alumni who share Spurrier's contempt for a life lived in harmony with others without pointing out others' shortcomings and rubbing their faces in them.
I predict that Spurrier will have some success in the pros after all, though. I don't think that Spurrier would have even left college football except for the fact that some people discredited him because he was not coaching in the NFL. And an ego with stroke marks like his can have none of that. But in entering the NFL, he did not look for a franchise that would befit him as a coach. Nor did he look for a team whose style and talent could complement his coaching abilities. He didn't even look for a team with young talent or with salary cap room or an already strong defense or quarterback. Those things would not make him feel superior in any way. Instead, he found an owner who would give him more money than any other coach is getting, making him the biggest and baddest. Now that's a lot of unhealthy satisfaction.
So basically, Spurrier coaches football simply for his own selfish issues, and to make other people feel inferior to him. Sometimes I think that when Spurrier walks around Washington and passes a homeless person, he wants to talk football with that person, so that even a destitute tramp can admire the great Steve Spurrier, football coach (and All-American college quarterback, don't forget, I know Spurrier would remind you if you did, though).
~Jason
I would never portray myself as a pro-Spurrier person, but I can see the past and possible future success that can come from his detestable qualities. Whether or not he cares more about his ego than he does about anything else is not even debatable in my far-off opinion. I think that he likes for people to be worse off than him. Actually, I think that it is more the showing off that really kicks it for him. I think football is attractive to him, as it is to many athletes in every sport who are somehow automatically better than most at something for a change, because it flexes his superiority in people's faces. What a wonderful characteristic to have.
Not to sound too sanctimonious, though, because I, too, have felt those feelings and enjoyed those types of encounters, which is why I so easily recognize it. But I decided to give all that up and quit pissing on others for my enjoyment when I became an adult. But not all of us do that. Spurrier hasn't learned to play well with others, which is why he is so liked and respected throughout football (sarcasm). His need for dominance of his fellow man, however, has lead him to much success.
The truth is that Spurrier made bad teams good (like at Duke) and made good teams great (Florida) because he wants to be the best. Why does he want to be the best, though? Because Spurrier couldn't bear being on the wrong sideline midway through the final quarter while some 19 year old army infantry with helmets scores enough points to make oddsmakers think about pushing next year's spread to triple digits. I mean, of course there cannot be athletic parity through more than 20 or so teams, but there is a difference between a lesser team being embarrassed by their own play in an ugly defeat to a much better team, and a lesser team trying to gracefully live through an afternoon of shielding their eyes at the glaringly enormous gap between their talent and Florida's pro-level talent.
And while I am close to the subject of the integrity of college sports (with football being the top sport), college players on the best college teams are professional. They are paid through laundered booster money and concerned alumni who share Spurrier's contempt for a life lived in harmony with others without pointing out others' shortcomings and rubbing their faces in them.
I predict that Spurrier will have some success in the pros after all, though. I don't think that Spurrier would have even left college football except for the fact that some people discredited him because he was not coaching in the NFL. And an ego with stroke marks like his can have none of that. But in entering the NFL, he did not look for a franchise that would befit him as a coach. Nor did he look for a team whose style and talent could complement his coaching abilities. He didn't even look for a team with young talent or with salary cap room or an already strong defense or quarterback. Those things would not make him feel superior in any way. Instead, he found an owner who would give him more money than any other coach is getting, making him the biggest and baddest. Now that's a lot of unhealthy satisfaction.
So basically, Spurrier coaches football simply for his own selfish issues, and to make other people feel inferior to him. Sometimes I think that when Spurrier walks around Washington and passes a homeless person, he wants to talk football with that person, so that even a destitute tramp can admire the great Steve Spurrier, football coach (and All-American college quarterback, don't forget, I know Spurrier would remind you if you did, though).
~Jason
Saturday, September 20, 2003
I oppose Karl Malone.
Last week I found out that the Detroit Shock of the WNBA won their league's championship. Good for them. Good for Detroit, the Shock players, coaches (even Bill Laimbeer) and families. But it may not be all good for the families involved. Consider that the illegitimate daughter of NBA player Karl Malone, Cheryl Ford, plays for said Shock. I'm sure they are both thrilled about the win, even if they cannot be as excited about their relationship. But this win for the family may point to a shortcoming, also. You see, Malone is near the end of a productive career in the NBA and Ford is near the start of what seems to be a successful place in the WNBA. But there is a glaring distinction that I would like to make in the spirit of hostility and anger (somewhat displaced at this point, of coarse).
Malone is entering his 19th season, but ending his time with his only team up to this point, the Utah Jazz. He will be playing this season with the Los Angeles Lakers for one reason: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity...okay two reasons: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity and to leave the game to younger, more talented players...damn, I mean three reason: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity and to leave the game to younger, more talented players and to wear bright shiny gold uniforms... Oh forget it, you get the idea...or ideas.
Anyway, I followed in grief and frustration the career of Karl Malone while he played for the Jazz. In a particularly horrible exhibition of a man-made upset with hopes of curtailing the eventual extinction of the league's actual best player by creating an injustice he would have to correct as the reigning NBA superhero (NBA Finals: Jazz vs. Bulls), I nearly took my own life. Well, I'm exaggerating, I was just mad and kept telling everyone about it. But anyway, Malone made me hate him with his 'style' of play. Mostly with the illegal parts.
Malone was a major force in the NBA, with the help of teammate John Stockton (equal parts fundamental greatness, savvy, control and dirty tactics) and hard-nosed coach and self-made sanctimonious country-boy Jerry Sloan. But we cannot speak of the story of Karl Malone without the most important people to the building of the man the myth, the many incredulous referees who made Malone into the small-market main-attraction player who could not foul out of a game, miss a shot because of defensive pressure, or of course, commit an offensive foul in order to score a basket. But enough about the who and how of his propped-up career and into the white light (reference the aforementioned 'glaring').
Karl Malone will surely be in the Basketball Hall of Fame soon (expletive), but without a championship ring. His Daughter, Cheryl however, won one in her first year playing (take that, Mailman). I like this because Karl Malone has done everything in the NBA but beat the best team in June, I'm relieved to say although I cannot understand giving him an MVP, less a second one. So I hope that Cheryl's ring is a source of reflection for Malone that reminds him of his career in terms of how good he was perceived to be by most, including himself, and how good he really was.
Also, I am neither a Bulls fan, nor a Jazz fan. Incidentally, I do not particularly like bulls or jazz.
~ Jason Boyd
Malone is entering his 19th season, but ending his time with his only team up to this point, the Utah Jazz. He will be playing this season with the Los Angeles Lakers for one reason: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity...okay two reasons: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity and to leave the game to younger, more talented players...damn, I mean three reason: to win a championship like his daughter and to retire with some dignity and to leave the game to younger, more talented players and to wear bright shiny gold uniforms... Oh forget it, you get the idea...or ideas.
Anyway, I followed in grief and frustration the career of Karl Malone while he played for the Jazz. In a particularly horrible exhibition of a man-made upset with hopes of curtailing the eventual extinction of the league's actual best player by creating an injustice he would have to correct as the reigning NBA superhero (NBA Finals: Jazz vs. Bulls), I nearly took my own life. Well, I'm exaggerating, I was just mad and kept telling everyone about it. But anyway, Malone made me hate him with his 'style' of play. Mostly with the illegal parts.
Malone was a major force in the NBA, with the help of teammate John Stockton (equal parts fundamental greatness, savvy, control and dirty tactics) and hard-nosed coach and self-made sanctimonious country-boy Jerry Sloan. But we cannot speak of the story of Karl Malone without the most important people to the building of the man the myth, the many incredulous referees who made Malone into the small-market main-attraction player who could not foul out of a game, miss a shot because of defensive pressure, or of course, commit an offensive foul in order to score a basket. But enough about the who and how of his propped-up career and into the white light (reference the aforementioned 'glaring').
Karl Malone will surely be in the Basketball Hall of Fame soon (expletive), but without a championship ring. His Daughter, Cheryl however, won one in her first year playing (take that, Mailman). I like this because Karl Malone has done everything in the NBA but beat the best team in June, I'm relieved to say although I cannot understand giving him an MVP, less a second one. So I hope that Cheryl's ring is a source of reflection for Malone that reminds him of his career in terms of how good he was perceived to be by most, including himself, and how good he really was.
Also, I am neither a Bulls fan, nor a Jazz fan. Incidentally, I do not particularly like bulls or jazz.
~ Jason Boyd
Saturday, September 13, 2003
NC State v. Ohio State
The NC State football team lost today on the road to 3rd-ranked Ohio State in tripple overtime. Criticism came after the Worfpack used two quarterback sneak plays on 1st and 3rd downs, from the 5 and 3 yard lines, respectively.
Personally, I question the positive effect any 2nd attempt at using a sneak play after the defence had already seen it. Therefore, I think that calling a quarterback sneak with 5 yards to go was the wrong call if the offence would possibly need that play again.
Also, I would not have used it if I were more than 2 yards from the goal. The 3rd down situation was a great time for the sneak, but not after it was called on 1st down with 5 yards to go.
There was also a problem with the 4th down play call. It should have been a handoff play, not a pitch. With only a yard or two to go, a pitch play puts the running back too far back. In a goal-line situation, defensive penatration is going to happen, it is just a matter of where it happens, and how the ball carrier can get past it. The Pack made the whole on 4th down, but the back couldn't get to the line fast enough.
~ Jason Boyd
Personally, I question the positive effect any 2nd attempt at using a sneak play after the defence had already seen it. Therefore, I think that calling a quarterback sneak with 5 yards to go was the wrong call if the offence would possibly need that play again.
Also, I would not have used it if I were more than 2 yards from the goal. The 3rd down situation was a great time for the sneak, but not after it was called on 1st down with 5 yards to go.
There was also a problem with the 4th down play call. It should have been a handoff play, not a pitch. With only a yard or two to go, a pitch play puts the running back too far back. In a goal-line situation, defensive penatration is going to happen, it is just a matter of where it happens, and how the ball carrier can get past it. The Pack made the whole on 4th down, but the back couldn't get to the line fast enough.
~ Jason Boyd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)