A friend of mine has decided to retire from personal blogging for the time being, apparently because his site is pointless.
Which is a pretty good point.
The only reason I continue to half-ass it, really, is as a substitute for something quaint like keeping a journal. Someday when I write my memoirs I can look back through my blog and recall all my pointless ruminations about Creationists, fantasy football, crappy drivers, movies, music and friends. Won't that be useful.
Anyway, stay tuned for posts about fantasy football, crappy Italian drivers and maybe some pictures, if I can figure out how to do it.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Even less to see here than usual
I'll be in Italy for two weeks with my mom, probably without access to email or phones or football. On the plus side, mom sprung for business-class on the flights, so I should be drunk by about 2 p.m. Sunday and not sober again until Aug. 27. Arrivederci...
Monday, August 08, 2005
I am, like, sooo ready for some football
NFL training camps have opened, we're in the last month of summer, and Florida State football players are getting arrested. The most wonderful time of the year is upon us!
So here's how the first round of my fantasy football draft is looking this year. Advice is appreciated:
1. Peyton Manning (4,600 yards and 49 TDs in 2004. 'Nuff said.)
2. LaDainian Tomlinson (had him last year; he struggled with his groin -- heh-heh -- but still produced.)
3. Shaun Alexander (big numbers last year; contract year this year.)
4. Daunte Culpepper (with 4,700 yards and 39 TDs in '04, I'd place him higher -- if he hadn't lost Randy Moss.)
5. Randy Moss (still the only WR worth a first-round pick, I think.)
6. Willis McGahee (a monster in the last half of 2004, and no competition for carries this year.)
7. Donovan McNabb (looks a lot better with Terrell Owens on his team.)
8. Priest Holmes (I'm really hoping I'm not in a position to draft Holmes. At 32, and after a pretty steep drop in production last year, I don't trust him.)
9. Edgerrin James (like Alexander also in a contract year, but has to compete for TDs with Manning.)
10. Tiki Barber (led RBs in our league in scoring last year. A fluke or the emergence of a star?)
Guys I'll be looking to steal later. Suggestions are welcome:
1. Jake Delhomme (had him last year; consistently produced and should be better.)
2. Drew Bennett (Tennessee's number one WR with Derrick Mason gone; put up great numbers the last half of '04.)
3. Byron Leftwich (traded for him last year and didn't regret it. Plus he's the hometown guy.)
4. Jermaine Wiggins (if I can't get Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez for my TE. Culpepper will need someone to dump to, now that he can't just wing it in Moss' general direction.)
5. J.J. Arrington (who I think will be the best of the rookie RB crop -- he's the only one of the big names who doesn't have to compete for carries.)
Guys I'll be looking to avoid like the plague. Again, feel free to advise:
1. Mike Vick (Ron Mexico simply can't throw, and killed me on a couple occasions last year after I took him in the second round.)
2. Jake Plummer (got him late in the draft last year, but because Vick sucked he became my number one guy. Sometimes looked like Brett Favre. Sometimes looked like Mike Vick. No telling who was going to show up.)
3. Tom Brady (a couple of games a year, he has these 99-yard, zero-TD performances but still manages to win, leaving the t.v. guys to all hail his "leadership" and all his fantasy owners fuming.)
4. Torry Holt (drafted him third round last year; he disappeared in more than one game.)
5. Chris Brown (awesome first few games last year, but then seemed to stub his toe in every game and leave in the third quarter. Irritating, and now he's competing with Travis Henry.)
So here's how the first round of my fantasy football draft is looking this year. Advice is appreciated:
1. Peyton Manning (4,600 yards and 49 TDs in 2004. 'Nuff said.)
2. LaDainian Tomlinson (had him last year; he struggled with his groin -- heh-heh -- but still produced.)
3. Shaun Alexander (big numbers last year; contract year this year.)
4. Daunte Culpepper (with 4,700 yards and 39 TDs in '04, I'd place him higher -- if he hadn't lost Randy Moss.)
5. Randy Moss (still the only WR worth a first-round pick, I think.)
6. Willis McGahee (a monster in the last half of 2004, and no competition for carries this year.)
7. Donovan McNabb (looks a lot better with Terrell Owens on his team.)
8. Priest Holmes (I'm really hoping I'm not in a position to draft Holmes. At 32, and after a pretty steep drop in production last year, I don't trust him.)
9. Edgerrin James (like Alexander also in a contract year, but has to compete for TDs with Manning.)
10. Tiki Barber (led RBs in our league in scoring last year. A fluke or the emergence of a star?)
Guys I'll be looking to steal later. Suggestions are welcome:
1. Jake Delhomme (had him last year; consistently produced and should be better.)
2. Drew Bennett (Tennessee's number one WR with Derrick Mason gone; put up great numbers the last half of '04.)
3. Byron Leftwich (traded for him last year and didn't regret it. Plus he's the hometown guy.)
4. Jermaine Wiggins (if I can't get Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzalez for my TE. Culpepper will need someone to dump to, now that he can't just wing it in Moss' general direction.)
5. J.J. Arrington (who I think will be the best of the rookie RB crop -- he's the only one of the big names who doesn't have to compete for carries.)
Guys I'll be looking to avoid like the plague. Again, feel free to advise:
1. Mike Vick (Ron Mexico simply can't throw, and killed me on a couple occasions last year after I took him in the second round.)
2. Jake Plummer (got him late in the draft last year, but because Vick sucked he became my number one guy. Sometimes looked like Brett Favre. Sometimes looked like Mike Vick. No telling who was going to show up.)
3. Tom Brady (a couple of games a year, he has these 99-yard, zero-TD performances but still manages to win, leaving the t.v. guys to all hail his "leadership" and all his fantasy owners fuming.)
4. Torry Holt (drafted him third round last year; he disappeared in more than one game.)
5. Chris Brown (awesome first few games last year, but then seemed to stub his toe in every game and leave in the third quarter. Irritating, and now he's competing with Travis Henry.)
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Why the creationists are winning
In part, because the New York Times identifies their creation myth as a "theory" on par with evolution.
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this nation is slowly devolving into a theocratic idiotocracy. But Jesus H. Christ, Elisabeth Bumiller, you don't have to help the process along.
Gentle reminder: a theory stands up under the scrutiny of scientific testing. Myths, like "intelligent design," do not, and so it is inaccurate to call them theories.
Update: For some guidance, Bumiller could read her own editorial page, where Paul Krugman spells out what's happening.
Double update: I shouldn't pick only on Bumiller. The Washington Post is also guilty. Its reporters at least wait until the fourth paragraph to call creationism a "theory," but then attribute the lack of scientific evidence to a claim by "opponents."
This is a situation where journalists should educate themselves on the subject matter and write with authority: "There is no peer-reviewed science that supports the idea of 'intelligent design,' which is called creationism by many biologists." The end. And when the creationist assholes call to complain, tell 'em to show you the science.
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this nation is slowly devolving into a theocratic idiotocracy. But Jesus H. Christ, Elisabeth Bumiller, you don't have to help the process along.
Gentle reminder: a theory stands up under the scrutiny of scientific testing. Myths, like "intelligent design," do not, and so it is inaccurate to call them theories.
Double update: I shouldn't pick only on Bumiller. The Washington Post is also guilty. Its reporters at least wait until the fourth paragraph to call creationism a "theory," but then attribute the lack of scientific evidence to a claim by "opponents."
This is a situation where journalists should educate themselves on the subject matter and write with authority: "There is no peer-reviewed science that supports the idea of 'intelligent design,' which is called creationism by many biologists." The end. And when the creationist assholes call to complain, tell 'em to show you the science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
