The former Division I-AA does it just fine, why can't we in Division I-A? And just imagine how much fun this would be to watch:
That's just four weeks of playing, 2 before christmas and 2 after. It could be done, and it would be incredible. The BCS expires 2010, so hopefully something like this comes together.
(Does anyone actually believe that *MISSOURI* is the best team in the country? I mean, Vegas is currently putting them in as 3.5 point dogs in the Big 12 title game against Oklahoma. Ridiculous.)
"Thanks to everyone who helped make this book possible, especially my recruiter. Without your help none of this would have happened." -Colby Buzzell, author of the memoir "My War: Killing Time in Iraq"
Here are my preferences, in order, for president: Obama (why not, it worked in Blazing Saddles!!) Edwards (decent man, and his wife is freakin awesome) Richardson (first latin pres, pretty awesome concept... unfortunately too fat) Dodd (anti-torture agenda bumps him, even though no one knows who he is) That short fellow from ohio (yeah, you remember him... ummm, he's short... and he's from cleveland... or cincinati... or columbus...) Clinton (she may suck, but she's better than all the "R"s) Huckabee (I *heart* Huckabee... by FAR the best Republican candidate) Hagel (okay, he *says* he's against the war, which is good. but he never actually DOES anything about it; that much still gets him higher than any of the guys below him) Brownback (yawn, typical Republican... at least, typical pre-2002 republican before most of them went batshit crazy) Romney (at least when he flip-flops he isn't spouting crazy batshit, unlike the rest of the nutjobs below him) McCain ("I'm a straight talker" SURE you are, John. That's why you're being so honest about how much your Iraq strategy is going to cost us for your four years in office) Guiliani (Are we seriously going to elect a guy interested in an even MORE powerful executive? seriously, if he wins, game over man. polish your boots and put on your brownshirts) That bigot from colorado (with an italian last name, thank you historical irony...) Nader (FUCK YOU VERY MUCH!)
So my semi-regular poker game was last night, and I was doing fairly crappy. No decent cards, and when I got halfway-decent cards, I played them poorly. The annoyance, to me, was that I was the only one there not smoking up. Now my own personal poker rule is to have no more than a couple beers, and no mixed drinks (or anything stronger). But these guys were smoking... a Lot. And yet, my ass was still handed to me. Annoying.
But this brings me to a larger point. I have Zero inclination to join my fellow players in smoking up. To be perfectly honest, I have never smoked and never plan to. But is this a bit of a cop out? I feel like I'm making the same argument that my acquiantance Lisa "the virgin" makes when she's never had sex. She's never done it, so she doesn't know what she's missing and doesn't care to find out. Am I guilty of the same somewhat-specious argument?
If this were a parliamentary democracy in which some sort of percentage-based share of the national vote determined a political party's number of seats, then a Nader-G candidacy makes sense. Unfortunately for the naive babes-in-the-woods who supported Nader in the past, the reality is the American Presidential Election is a set of 50 zero-sum games, all with differing weights, and the winner of each of those contests (except NH, big whoop) receives ALL of the points. And the first one to 270 wins. Thus Perot, a fantastically more successful third party candidate in 92 than Nader was at his best in 00, didn't receive 1 single vote.
Now, if on the other hand he wants to step into the Democratic primary, I say more power to him, go for it. But those who pine for a legitimate 3rd party candidacy need to 1) OPEN THEIR EYES, and 2) read their history: even TR, a former president and one of the most popular Americans at the time, wasn't able to win in 1912, and in fact swung the election to the other party, does that sound familiar to you somnambulents? IN fact, when was the last time a 3rd party candidacy was successful? You'd have to look to 1860, when the country was literally torn apart over the slavery issue and the Whig party was ripped in two over it. And how'd that turn out again? Oh yeah, over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND Americans died.
Wake up.
P.S. I know most Naderites have, indeed, woken up over the idiocy of the last 6 years, but there are still some out there who continue to insist, in a Chomsky-drone kind of way, that there is no difference between the two political parties.
I read an otherwise unobjectionable article today in the Florida Alligator that quoted an Army Lieutenant, and former UF ROTC cadet, saying that protesting against the war should be, not just unlawful, but treasonous. What follows are the letters I wrote to the Alligator and the Army ROTC Commander, respectively.
Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to Ms Davis' article on ROTC. I believe Mr Ruffner, the Army officer who equates protest with treason, needs to take another look at the Constitution he took an oath to uphold and defend. The First Amendment protects all speech, and included there is speech that neither Mr Ruffner, nor I, would agree with. The difference between us, apparently, is that I still remember the oath I took. In fact, by trying to outlaw speech, people like Mr Ruffner are more of a threat to our way of life than the protesters on 13th Street he wants censored.
Respectfully, [redacted] Veteran 3LS
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Hansen,
I am writing in regards to a recent article about ROTC in the Florida Alligator. In the article, a former ROTC cadet and current Army Lieutenant, Ben Ruffner, said that he believes that not only is lawful protest wrong, but he believes it should be considered treason.
As an American, and as a proud veteran, I find his view morally outrageous. The Constitution that *everyone* in uniform swears an oath to uphold and defend *clearly* protects our freedom of speech, no matter how hateful or idiotic (and that includes war protesters on 13th Street).
True American patriots, a number that I unfortunately cannot include Mr Ruffner among, take to heart what Voltaire said best: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
What I would like to know is, are his views representative of the Army ROTC Program at the University of Florida, and if so, what you propose to implement (perhaps a series of seminars on the Constitution) to change such a view. Thank you very much for your time and for your service.
Very Respectfully, [redacted]
The offensive statement was as follows: "It upsets me because those are the very people that we are going to Iraq to serve for, and they are going to be the first ones there when we get back to tell us we were wrong," he said. "If I had it my way, I'd say that should be against the law. I'd say that's treason."
It was gratifying to hear from the other veteran friend I have here at UF who is incensed about it as I am. I'll update if and when I get replies.
Cheers, [redacted]
EDIT: Sorry about the editing, but I thought it best if my livejournal account stayed a bit more personal - the realization that a more enterprising googler can find me (even with my fairly popular name) kinda brought it out. No need for them to discover just how much of a square I really am.
-Statue of Liberty -Empire State Building -UN -Chrysler building (this and the last are apparently near where mom works) -New York Public Library -Museum of Natural History -MET -Rockefeller Center
Nowadays there's all sorts of baggage that goes along with Christianity. In a minute and a half, the following sketch gets right to the root of it: how Jesus got completely forgotten in the landscape of modern Christianity.
Gotta love the mac vs. pc parody... there's a few more if you click on the 'tube
Also in there is some discussion of the Lieberman race, something I'm less and less conflicted about - Lamont's bid is just democracy at work in my opinion. More thoughts later, I'm starving and Moe's is calling to me :)
It seems like these journals are typically used for people to bitch about whatever problems - typically imaginary or self-involved or blown out of proportion or petty - they have. I'm just not that kind of guy. I think, however, that I am going to start using it as a fit-journal to keep track of my exercising (or lack thereof).
So, to inaugurate this process, right after I'm done typing I'm going over to SW REC and working out.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
hoursgettinlate's journal
