Let's file this as of interest only to me, and perhaps UL compadres Kris Russell and Rob Percy...
But Arsenal are killing me. Killing. Me. They're killing me. Wednesday, which should have been one of the worst days of my life because of the Really Bad Thing that happened, might have been my worst days because the @#$&! Gunners wee-weed away a two-goal lead in the 89th minute at home against their archrival, Tottenham. Both goals were total giveaways.
Then today the Arse were beaten by Stoke City -- a just-promoted and likely-to-be-relegated side that features one guy whose stock in trade is long throw-ins to the box and 10 guys named Nigel. Guess how Stoke scored both goals? On long throw-in to the box. Friggin. A.
On the bright side, I am an official tactical genius. Today was tournament day for my eldest son's soccer team. This was the day that our team, after having its brains beat in weekly for the better part of two months, could forget that all and finish first in the league with three mini-game wins. As assistant coach for the team, and having watched the bunch all year long, I knew we were in for a long day if we played the way we had been all season. So I proposed a change. Most teams in the division, including us, play with three forwards and two defenders. We scored a total of, like, three goals all season so it's not as if having three forwards was doing us any bloody good. So I proposed we play with three defenders and two forwards and just try to prevent goals and see what that would do.
And wouldn't you know it? We were a totally different team. In our first match, against a team that beat us 10-o last week, we settled in nicely defensively and kept the game under control. Then, wouldn't you know it, on our two forwards' first trip downfield -- GOAL! Our first lead of the season! I think the players were the most stunned, after us coaches. And the other team. But they recovered and won, 3-1. Still, it was our best performance by far.
We kept the new alignment and, wouldn't you know it, in game 2 on our two forwards' first trip downfield -- GOAL! Another 1-0 lead. Then, just before half, the girl who scored our first goal had the ball with a wide-open net in front of her. "That's it!" I thought. "A two-goal lead! This one's ours!" And just as quickly she shanked the shot wide by a foot. I wanted to get down on my knees a la Fred the Bishop in Caddyshack and shout "Oh, rat farts!!!!" but I decided against it. Then, with one of our least experienced players in goal for the second half, I watched as one shot hit the post and three golden chances for the other team glanced wide of the post by, I think, a grand total of 18 inches. Somehow we held on. As we lined up to shake hands, one of our players asked me what the score was. "1-nothing," I told her. Her face lit up.
"We won????!!!!" she said.
"Yes, we won," I said.
"We won????!!!!" she said.
"Yes, we won," I said.
"We won????!!!!" she said.
"Yes, yes! We won!" I told her. I'm not sure I could believe it myself.
In the third game, if we'd won, we'd have had a chance to finish first -- after all the miserable beatings we took this year, we had a chance to be first. That's what you have to love about sport. Every time you get in the game, you have a chance to succeed.
It didn't fall for us. The other team, which finished first, beat us 2-0. But we weren't outplayed by any means. Our kids played great and we had several good chances at goal and just didn't cash in. Oh, well. Our kids left the field feeling good about themselves, which hadn't happened for them all season. Good for you, gang. Great job.
Maybe Arsenal needs my tactical help.
-- MJM
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Interesting Week
I'd like to apologize to all my reader (that's you, Mo. Hey!) for my relative silence this week. As you know, a very bad thing happened to me on Wednesday and I've been consumed with that. In retrospect, though, it wasn't so bad. Being fired isn't exactly what I'd recommend as the greatest self-esteem booster but several positives have already come from it. I've found that many people care a lot for me and are willing to help me pick up and move on. At some point in the not-so-distant future, I'll probably have something to say for public consumption.
But I will say this: It's 5:08 p.m. on Halloween. I've spent my day watchig cartoons with my youngest son, going to my eldest two kids' Halloween Parade at school, doing some job-hunt-related stuff and getting ready for trick-or-treat tonight. That sure beats what I went through for the last nine weeks.
-- MJM
But I will say this: It's 5:08 p.m. on Halloween. I've spent my day watchig cartoons with my youngest son, going to my eldest two kids' Halloween Parade at school, doing some job-hunt-related stuff and getting ready for trick-or-treat tonight. That sure beats what I went through for the last nine weeks.
-- MJM
Vote baby vote
Those of you who may remember "Groove is in the Heart" probably have forgotten this little gem from Dee-Lite (Click here for link).
And as for any attempt to match Matt's commentary, I got nothin'. I feel like Wyatt Cenac from the Daily Show on Tuesday night.
-JDE2
And as for any attempt to match Matt's commentary, I got nothin'. I feel like Wyatt Cenac from the Daily Show on Tuesday night.
-JDE2
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
On to even less serious matters
I was trying to come up with a thoughtful, well-written response to Matt's post about unaffiliated voters, but I think I'll stick with what I know.
(Besides, I agree with him. How boring is that?)
By now some of you have probably heard or seen the video clip of Fox's Danyelle Sargent asking Mike Singletary if he called the late Bill Walsh when he got the 49ers job. Of course, that part of the interview wasn't supposed to air. But it got on a satellite somewhere, and then was aired on Mike Francesa's sports show in New York. It has now made the rounds on YouTube.
(An aside: Sargent was also known from her ESPN days. She dropped the f-bomb during a live broadcast.)
Sargent went on the Dan Patrick radio show Tuesday to explain herself. Her explanation that she meant to say something else is certainly believable; how many of us have "misspoken?" And I believe her.
But there are a couple issues here: Let's start with Francesa's patronizing "young lady" comment coming out of the video clip. Hmmm. . . . something tells me, if a male made this mistake, he wouldn't have been held up as a "f-in' idiot," to use one of the kinder descriptions that are being used in the YouTube comments (Speaking of which, I'd love to see the folks leaving the comments do Sargent's job for an hour. 99 percent of them would freeze solid or look even more, ahem, "idiotic.").
Look, I can take or leave sideline reporters. Like all professions, some are good, some not. Sargent hasn't really been around long enough to establish a reputation one way or the other. After all, this was her first sideline assignment. And I think the job of sideline reporter itself has some good parts (sniffing out the story on an injury, for example), and bad parts (is interviewing a coach or player coming off the floor/field really necessary? Even thoughtful, more intelligent ones talk in cliches and never make any worthwhile comments. )
One of my big whin-, er, gripes about broadcast journalism has long been its seeming lack of accountability when compared with print journalism. After all, if there's a screw-up in a newspaper, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of that mistake. However, with YouTube and DVRs, the broadcast media has a level of watchdog that, perhaps ironically, may be unlike anything newspapers have to deal with.
And to use a print journalism analogy, Sargent's error with Singletary was the equivalent of an editor catching a mistake before it reaches the paper. And she started over and asked a different question to do her job.
And when all is said and done, this will blow over. As it should.
- JDE2
(Besides, I agree with him. How boring is that?)
By now some of you have probably heard or seen the video clip of Fox's Danyelle Sargent asking Mike Singletary if he called the late Bill Walsh when he got the 49ers job. Of course, that part of the interview wasn't supposed to air. But it got on a satellite somewhere, and then was aired on Mike Francesa's sports show in New York. It has now made the rounds on YouTube.
(An aside: Sargent was also known from her ESPN days. She dropped the f-bomb during a live broadcast.)
Sargent went on the Dan Patrick radio show Tuesday to explain herself. Her explanation that she meant to say something else is certainly believable; how many of us have "misspoken?" And I believe her.
But there are a couple issues here: Let's start with Francesa's patronizing "young lady" comment coming out of the video clip. Hmmm. . . . something tells me, if a male made this mistake, he wouldn't have been held up as a "f-in' idiot," to use one of the kinder descriptions that are being used in the YouTube comments (Speaking of which, I'd love to see the folks leaving the comments do Sargent's job for an hour. 99 percent of them would freeze solid or look even more, ahem, "idiotic.").
Look, I can take or leave sideline reporters. Like all professions, some are good, some not. Sargent hasn't really been around long enough to establish a reputation one way or the other. After all, this was her first sideline assignment. And I think the job of sideline reporter itself has some good parts (sniffing out the story on an injury, for example), and bad parts (is interviewing a coach or player coming off the floor/field really necessary? Even thoughtful, more intelligent ones talk in cliches and never make any worthwhile comments. )
One of my big whin-, er, gripes about broadcast journalism has long been its seeming lack of accountability when compared with print journalism. After all, if there's a screw-up in a newspaper, there are thousands of pieces of evidence of that mistake. However, with YouTube and DVRs, the broadcast media has a level of watchdog that, perhaps ironically, may be unlike anything newspapers have to deal with.
And to use a print journalism analogy, Sargent's error with Singletary was the equivalent of an editor catching a mistake before it reaches the paper. And she started over and asked a different question to do her job.
And when all is said and done, this will blow over. As it should.
- JDE2
This could really be messy if the Rays come back . . .
From the Las Vegas Review Journal:
"Sports books pay as if Phillies won"
". . . Despite what appeared to happen Monday night in Philadelphia, the Tampa Bay Rays lost Game 5 of the World Series. At least in the view of Nevada sports books, the Phillies won 2-1. . . .
"However, even though the suspended game is scheduled to be completed today, the betting result is final.
According to Nevada gaming rules -- often referred to as "house rules" -- the final score of an official game is determined by reverting to the last completed inning. The Phillies led 2-1 after the fifth."
Yikes. Doesn't Bud Selig know you probably shouldn't piss off Vegas gambling-types?
Click here for the full story.
-JDE2
"Sports books pay as if Phillies won"
". . . Despite what appeared to happen Monday night in Philadelphia, the Tampa Bay Rays lost Game 5 of the World Series. At least in the view of Nevada sports books, the Phillies won 2-1. . . .
"However, even though the suspended game is scheduled to be completed today, the betting result is final.
According to Nevada gaming rules -- often referred to as "house rules" -- the final score of an official game is determined by reverting to the last completed inning. The Phillies led 2-1 after the fifth."
Yikes. Doesn't Bud Selig know you probably shouldn't piss off Vegas gambling-types?
Click here for the full story.
-JDE2
Monday, October 27, 2008
In Defense of the Unafilliated
It's not my schtick to get political but, uh, there is this giant election thingy coming up next week and so this will be my ONE observation on the whole madness.
A couple of times in the past few weeks I have heard disparaged those who don't identify with the Democrats or Republicans. Once was at a pub for an otherwise enjoyable evening watching the Red Sox, when two of my companions -- both ardent Democrats (we were in Massachusetts -- now THERE'S a surprise!!!!) -- were incredulous at the thought that anyone could be unaffiliated. One of them, a generally terrific guy, tried to explain to me how Joe Biden was pro-life -- insert laugh track here -- so I took his rant with a grain of salt, which is how I tend to take most politically-laden rants.
The other was this weekend when the host of "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me" (and as the host of a show on NPR, I think he's contractually obliged to be a Democrat) described the populace "as 45% Democratic, 45% Republican and 10% people who stand outside, looking toward the sky with their mouths open while it rains, and then drown."
Well, by cracky, someone has to stick up for the 10 percenters, and as a proud member of that group, I will do my best.
Here's my reason for being unaffiliated: From where I sit, our two political parties are giant, soul-sucking enterprises that I want absolutely nothing to do with. And those who rise to prominence in the parties tend to: 1. love to talk about themselves and take credit for the sun coming up in the morning; and 2. seek to have you convinced that the other guy/lass eats children for breakfast. Remember kids like that in the schoolyard? We used to hate them, now as grown-ups we elect them.
The operatives of the two parties act in the most appaling ways possible and then ask to be rewarded with the keys to the kingdom. Now, from where you sit, perhaps one party misbehaves more -- maybe even a lot more -- than the other. That's fine. But misbehavior is still misbehavior, and I'm not impressed by any of it.
And people think I'm the strange one???!!!!!
And let's clear one thing up. I'm not unaffiliated because I don't know what I believe. I know perfectly damn well what I believe and neither party stacks up as much of a match for me. Look at a few issues and you tell me which soul-destroying party I should belong to:
Abortion: very pro-life
Immigration: open the borders!
Taxation: progressive -- the rich benefit from the system and I have no problem if they pay more -- within reason. I'm not in favor of punitive taxation. I also think a partial fix for Social Security would be to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes to fund it.
Welfare: I thought Bill Clinton got it right -- provide a safety net but make folks work for it.
War in Iraq: Never liked it, thought Bush administration (Cheney/Rumsfeld in particular) made a huge mess of it. Was never fully convinced of the evidence for going in.
War in Afghanistan: The Taliban had it coming.
Labor: pro-union though I believe the labor movement is misguided and been misleading in its campaign against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. My in-laws are Colombians and I've visited the country three times. The characterization of the country by anti-agreement forces does not square with my experiences of the country nor, I think, the facts. Besides, we in the hedonistic U.S. have helped destroy that country with our fiendish drug habits. The least we can do is help to foster honest work there. That means you, narcotics users -- you have Colombian blood on your hands. I don't see how turning this agreement down helps ordinary Colombians.
Death penalty: very against it.
Education: in favor of public charter schools and think parents should be given tax credits if they enroll kids in private schools -- seeing as they're saving taxpayers money by not having their kids educated in public schools. We offer government grants to 18-year-olds to attend private colleges and no one seems to mind, so why do we treat first-graders any differently? Can't we make the argument that the first-grader needs the support more? (NB: My two eldest children attend a Catholic school and we pay the full freight -- this means I save my town about $15,000 a year by not asking it to school my kids. I don't mind paying taxes to support public education, so I feel like I'm doing more than my share.)
Health care: The ridiculous hodgepodge "system" we have now has to go. I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but we must find a way to cover all Americans and separate peoples' health coverage from job status. For all its warts, a universal payer system will do that. But, again, I'm open to alternatives.
I could go on and on. But I don't see my beliefs consistently backed by one party. Do you? And I'm OK with that. Last time I checked, I don't have to consult the Republicans or Democrats before I make up my mind.
So, vote for the candidate of your choice next Tuesday. Go out there and try to get others to vote for the candidate of your choice, too, while you're at it. Heck, if you're than invested in it, have a ball. But when someone tells you they're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, consider just for a moment that perhaps they have a good reason for where they stand.
-- MJM
A couple of times in the past few weeks I have heard disparaged those who don't identify with the Democrats or Republicans. Once was at a pub for an otherwise enjoyable evening watching the Red Sox, when two of my companions -- both ardent Democrats (we were in Massachusetts -- now THERE'S a surprise!!!!) -- were incredulous at the thought that anyone could be unaffiliated. One of them, a generally terrific guy, tried to explain to me how Joe Biden was pro-life -- insert laugh track here -- so I took his rant with a grain of salt, which is how I tend to take most politically-laden rants.
The other was this weekend when the host of "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me" (and as the host of a show on NPR, I think he's contractually obliged to be a Democrat) described the populace "as 45% Democratic, 45% Republican and 10% people who stand outside, looking toward the sky with their mouths open while it rains, and then drown."
Well, by cracky, someone has to stick up for the 10 percenters, and as a proud member of that group, I will do my best.
Here's my reason for being unaffiliated: From where I sit, our two political parties are giant, soul-sucking enterprises that I want absolutely nothing to do with. And those who rise to prominence in the parties tend to: 1. love to talk about themselves and take credit for the sun coming up in the morning; and 2. seek to have you convinced that the other guy/lass eats children for breakfast. Remember kids like that in the schoolyard? We used to hate them, now as grown-ups we elect them.
The operatives of the two parties act in the most appaling ways possible and then ask to be rewarded with the keys to the kingdom. Now, from where you sit, perhaps one party misbehaves more -- maybe even a lot more -- than the other. That's fine. But misbehavior is still misbehavior, and I'm not impressed by any of it.
And people think I'm the strange one???!!!!!
And let's clear one thing up. I'm not unaffiliated because I don't know what I believe. I know perfectly damn well what I believe and neither party stacks up as much of a match for me. Look at a few issues and you tell me which soul-destroying party I should belong to:
Abortion: very pro-life
Immigration: open the borders!
Taxation: progressive -- the rich benefit from the system and I have no problem if they pay more -- within reason. I'm not in favor of punitive taxation. I also think a partial fix for Social Security would be to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes to fund it.
Welfare: I thought Bill Clinton got it right -- provide a safety net but make folks work for it.
War in Iraq: Never liked it, thought Bush administration (Cheney/Rumsfeld in particular) made a huge mess of it. Was never fully convinced of the evidence for going in.
War in Afghanistan: The Taliban had it coming.
Labor: pro-union though I believe the labor movement is misguided and been misleading in its campaign against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. My in-laws are Colombians and I've visited the country three times. The characterization of the country by anti-agreement forces does not square with my experiences of the country nor, I think, the facts. Besides, we in the hedonistic U.S. have helped destroy that country with our fiendish drug habits. The least we can do is help to foster honest work there. That means you, narcotics users -- you have Colombian blood on your hands. I don't see how turning this agreement down helps ordinary Colombians.
Death penalty: very against it.
Education: in favor of public charter schools and think parents should be given tax credits if they enroll kids in private schools -- seeing as they're saving taxpayers money by not having their kids educated in public schools. We offer government grants to 18-year-olds to attend private colleges and no one seems to mind, so why do we treat first-graders any differently? Can't we make the argument that the first-grader needs the support more? (NB: My two eldest children attend a Catholic school and we pay the full freight -- this means I save my town about $15,000 a year by not asking it to school my kids. I don't mind paying taxes to support public education, so I feel like I'm doing more than my share.)
Health care: The ridiculous hodgepodge "system" we have now has to go. I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but we must find a way to cover all Americans and separate peoples' health coverage from job status. For all its warts, a universal payer system will do that. But, again, I'm open to alternatives.
I could go on and on. But I don't see my beliefs consistently backed by one party. Do you? And I'm OK with that. Last time I checked, I don't have to consult the Republicans or Democrats before I make up my mind.
So, vote for the candidate of your choice next Tuesday. Go out there and try to get others to vote for the candidate of your choice, too, while you're at it. Heck, if you're than invested in it, have a ball. But when someone tells you they're neither a Republican nor a Democrat, consider just for a moment that perhaps they have a good reason for where they stand.
-- MJM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
