A little while ago I was looking at some pictures online of the Camp Loll Staffs trough out the ages. It is a bit bitter sweet for me as I have never worked on any Camp Loll staff, even though I have worked with many Camp Loll staffers. I often feel like a human watching his elf buddies sail off into the west when the subject of Loll comes up. I don’t mind so much as I am entertained by the stories and the purpose of Loll.
As I was scrolling down the web page I saw familiar faces. One face I saw was a man by the name of Carlo. Then all of a sudden he stopped appearing in the staff pictures. This reminded me that Carlo is no longer with us. It made me sad. I did what anyone would do with this memory; I went and ate a slice of cheesecake. I know that sounds odd but every conversation that I had with Carlo boiled down to how delicious cheesecake was or looking at pretty women. So have a bit of cheesecake, for Carlo.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Royal Season
Ah the NFL season is here in full swing. So many dreams and hopes for so many fans; so many crushed dreams and hopes for so many fans. It is only week two and expectations are being raised and crushed all at the same time. My team, the Stealers, greatest football organization in the history of the NFL, is doing well, but still it is only week two. I was thinking about all the forgotten people in the history of the NFL. Then the nerd in me took over and I created my list of the most underrated quarterbacks of all time. I’m not a sports expert; these are just my uneducated opinions. Remember this not the list of greatest, but most underrated, you could be horrible and still the most underrated.
sp
5. Bernie Kosar. Remember when Cleveland was good? You are probably remembering when Bernie Kosar was there. If it weren’t for the heartbreak of the most hated quarterback ever, John Elway, Bernie might have gotten a little more respect. Is he one of the best quarterbacks of all time? No, but he is good enough where people should remember the guy besides Cleveland fans. He was usually in the top 10 in most statistical categories when with Cleveland.
4. Trent Dilfer. Not much to talk about. Then again when have the Ravens ever gotten to the big show since they got rid of him? He wasn’t a great quarterback, but definitely underrated; especially if you consider he has a championship and the Ravens have yet to produce another.
3. Phil Simms. You know for a guy that won a Super Bowl you would think he’d get a little more props. Basically Simms is a very, very good version of Dilfer. For six years he was in the top ten for TD passes. While the Giants at the time were an awesome team they couldn’t have done it without a good quarterback. I think people forget that Simms was a very good quarterback.
2. Steve Young. He has the best QB rating life time. He has been to the big show and won. The two biggest things said against Steve Young: He had Jerry Rice, John Taylor, TO, and a lot of other talent to throw to, and he is no Joe Montana. Yeah it is true that he had a lot of talent around him, but he did well with it. So what he isn’t Joe Montana, nobody is Joe Montana, not even Joe Montana. You are talking about the greatest quarterback of all time. For some reason nobody puts this guy in the same league as the greats of all times. Why? The response is always well Joe Montana was better. Steve Young is/was the best mobile quarterback ever. Michel Vick could only dream of being as good as Steve Young, and at one time people were talking like Michel Vick was the best quarterback ever.
1. Warren Moon. Statistically speaking, this guy rocked. He is on par with Dan Marino, the most overrated quarterback of all time. If Moon had started his career in the NFL there is a good shot some of those records held my Dan might have been held by Moon. But, if you would ever mention Warren Moon in the same breath as Dan Marino people would just laugh at you. I guess that championship Marino won puts him on a different level than Warren Moon. Warren Moon is 4th in all time pass attempts, completions, passing yards, and 5th in all time passing TDs.
sp
5. Bernie Kosar. Remember when Cleveland was good? You are probably remembering when Bernie Kosar was there. If it weren’t for the heartbreak of the most hated quarterback ever, John Elway, Bernie might have gotten a little more respect. Is he one of the best quarterbacks of all time? No, but he is good enough where people should remember the guy besides Cleveland fans. He was usually in the top 10 in most statistical categories when with Cleveland.
4. Trent Dilfer. Not much to talk about. Then again when have the Ravens ever gotten to the big show since they got rid of him? He wasn’t a great quarterback, but definitely underrated; especially if you consider he has a championship and the Ravens have yet to produce another.
3. Phil Simms. You know for a guy that won a Super Bowl you would think he’d get a little more props. Basically Simms is a very, very good version of Dilfer. For six years he was in the top ten for TD passes. While the Giants at the time were an awesome team they couldn’t have done it without a good quarterback. I think people forget that Simms was a very good quarterback.
2. Steve Young. He has the best QB rating life time. He has been to the big show and won. The two biggest things said against Steve Young: He had Jerry Rice, John Taylor, TO, and a lot of other talent to throw to, and he is no Joe Montana. Yeah it is true that he had a lot of talent around him, but he did well with it. So what he isn’t Joe Montana, nobody is Joe Montana, not even Joe Montana. You are talking about the greatest quarterback of all time. For some reason nobody puts this guy in the same league as the greats of all times. Why? The response is always well Joe Montana was better. Steve Young is/was the best mobile quarterback ever. Michel Vick could only dream of being as good as Steve Young, and at one time people were talking like Michel Vick was the best quarterback ever.
1. Warren Moon. Statistically speaking, this guy rocked. He is on par with Dan Marino, the most overrated quarterback of all time. If Moon had started his career in the NFL there is a good shot some of those records held my Dan might have been held by Moon. But, if you would ever mention Warren Moon in the same breath as Dan Marino people would just laugh at you. I guess that championship Marino won puts him on a different level than Warren Moon. Warren Moon is 4th in all time pass attempts, completions, passing yards, and 5th in all time passing TDs.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Universal Boxes
I remember a while back I posted about how kids are cool. Kids are so cool they can turn the most harden cynic into a softy. Kids also remind me no matter how different two groups of people are there are some universals that transcend race, culture, and religion. What is the unifying element that I observed? Cardboard.
You see kids love cardboard. Cardboard to a kid is like gold. From my memory of my childhood I remember cardboard races down grass/weed hills. Nothing says a good fort to keep icky girls out of like cardboard. You need a sword or club? Cardboard is your answer. You need a shield to block the sword your buddy made? Cardboard is the answer. How tragic a childhood would be without cardboard? I watched a kid use cardboard as a cape, obviously transforming into a superhero of some sort. Then he used it to make wings. Brilliant, that’s absolutely brilliant.
That’s another thing, kids daydream about flying. Anywhere in the world there is a kid dreaming about flying right now.
You see kids love cardboard. Cardboard to a kid is like gold. From my memory of my childhood I remember cardboard races down grass/weed hills. Nothing says a good fort to keep icky girls out of like cardboard. You need a sword or club? Cardboard is your answer. You need a shield to block the sword your buddy made? Cardboard is the answer. How tragic a childhood would be without cardboard? I watched a kid use cardboard as a cape, obviously transforming into a superhero of some sort. Then he used it to make wings. Brilliant, that’s absolutely brilliant.
That’s another thing, kids daydream about flying. Anywhere in the world there is a kid dreaming about flying right now.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Best Minds
I was reading “The Oprah Magazine” or “O”. I will once again claim the defense; my current job leaves limited choices in what I can do for entertainment. I would normally just chalk this magazine as a smarter version of “Cosmo” (yes I read Cosmo too). The thing that prevents me from taking that paradigm when reading O is that Oprah is a cultural phenomenon. For the most part I consider Oprah a force for good in the world, and it appears her heart is in the right place (I really can’t divine this because I don’t know the lady and I make no claims about powers to ascertain the worth of one’s soul by looking into someone’s eyes via the TV.) For those of you unfamiliar with the format of O it generally has your standard beauty magazine kind of stuff, then it usually has a section on how to make your life better, and there always seems to be a couple of articles about making the world a better place.
A reoccurring contribution to O (yes that means I’ve read more than one issue) is a section called, “A Million Ways to Save the World”. The description of the section goes as follows, “Award-winning playwright Eve Ensler resumes her monthly mission: to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas. “ Another statement follows about Ensler’s specific causes, but the ideas/advice gathered from the contributing people varies in their scope. Normally I don’t have too many problems with the advice people dish out. I’ve noticed that the people Ensler selects is a bit thin when it comes to selecting scientist, award winning economist, and experts on international law, but that is to be expected considering Ensler’s background. I’m sure if I were to select my great minds for advice there would be several sectors lacking, it is natural.
Now when it comes to having people give ideas that could radically or subtly change the world there is bound to be a conflict of ideas. I understand I’m not likely to agree with all the ideas presented in the article. This particular issue seemed to bother the heck out of me. There were two contributors that really chapped my rear.
The first bit is by James Gilligan, author of Preventing Violence. He states, “In our thermonuclear era, the most immediate threat to our continued survival is human violence. So how do we prevent it? By eliminating inequalities of power and wealth based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Throughout the world, the most powerful predictor of violence is the size of the gap in income and wealth between the rich and the poor. The answer? Elect a Democrat as president. Historically, that has been the most direct and effective way to reduce the gap. As equality increases, violence decreases. This is love in action.”
My first thought was wow did I just hear a high school debate thermonuclear war argument? Yes I just did. Mr. Gilligan fails to address the concept, something is the most immediate doesn’t necessarily make it the most probable. For instance the moon spontaneously falling out of orbit is much more of an immediate threat to human survival than nuclear war. It is however much less likely to happen. But according to Hume you never know, well non empirically that is. But I’m willing to accept that we should be worried about nuclear weapons. Mr. Gilligan makes some jumps I’m not quit willing to take. The assertion that inequality is an indicator of violence I will grant, but to assert that inequality leads to the kind of violence that leads to thermonuclear war I will not grant. The statement also indicates that in order for violence to be curbed one has to decrease arbitrary inequality between individuals. What about nations? Should it be the prerogative of those in one nation to eliminate cultural inequalities of another nation in order to avoid nuclear war? I think such cavalier notions would cause more hostilities than it could cease. The key to Mr. Gilligan’s assertions comes from this comment, Elect a Democrat President. I’ll accept that historically a Democrat president decreases equality gaps more than a Republican within the USA. Trends however do little to shed light on the instance in this case. My example for examination, Jimmy Carter. During the craziness that was the Carter Era, the economy got so bad that the pure madness of supply side economics seemed like a good idea, and it turned out to be better than Carter’s economic policy. Let me say that again, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, POTUS, had an economic system so bad it made supply side look good. The world was a much more dangerous place and much more likely to go into nuclear war than when a Republican took office. Another factor is the with the powers of globalization inequality gaps that rise in the United States can often lead to decreases in gaps elsewhere. An example of a Democrat leading to the opposite of this is say a Democrat that is a protectionist and while increases average wages in the United States prevents other countries from entering certain sectors of the economy, thus preventing them from having sustainable economic growth that would lead to gaps closing. So while inequalities my decrease at home, where it has been stable regardless, inequalities may grow or be perpetuated abroad where it is less stable. I’m not saying a Democrat would make a bad president or that one shouldn’t vote Democrat. In fact I think there are a lot of Democratic candidates with good ideas, but there are also just as many Republicans with equally valid ideas. Consider the ideas instead of each candidate regardless of their political affiliation. Regardless Mr. Gilligan does convey a good idea about different strategies to curbing violence.
The next brain to pick is an “Award-winning actress and activist”. It is none other than Jane Fonda. Jane Fn’ Fonda. That’s right Jane Fonda. Let me repeat the purpose of the article, “to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas.” So you’re telling me that one of the best minds in the world is an actress who’s most notable accomplishments is a film where she plays a space vixen who crash lands on a planet with a man who wears furs. That’s right Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda that didn’t mind all too much when the Communist party in Cambodia wiped out nearly a third of its population in a genocide fest. The same Jane Fonda that while not calling the Communist war criminals for genocide would gladly and gleefully call US soldiers war criminals. Yes the same Jane Fonda that never apologized for calling US soldiers war criminals, and never once thought maybe just maybe the communist were a bad thing for south east Asia. So what is the advice of Jane, almost a noble peace prize winner, Fonda? Let me quote, “Mothers and grandmothers, teachers, coaches, and mentors, let’s help our boys become emotionally literate.” Yes we need those people because you know fathers can’t possibly help boys become emotionally literate. Yes because I’ve never heard of a man teaching a boy, “it’s okay to cry, to forgive, to express love.” I’m sorry I didn’t realize that was OK for women to be role models to girls, but for heaven sakes don’t let men be a role model to boys. You know what happens when a father tries to teach a boy how to be a man, that boy grows up to be a homicidal maniac that has the emotions of a sociopath that will no doubt oppress every woman he sees. I’m all about teaching boys to be more advanced when it comes to understanding emotions, but when did fathers lose the capacity to teach those things?
A reoccurring contribution to O (yes that means I’ve read more than one issue) is a section called, “A Million Ways to Save the World”. The description of the section goes as follows, “Award-winning playwright Eve Ensler resumes her monthly mission: to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas. “ Another statement follows about Ensler’s specific causes, but the ideas/advice gathered from the contributing people varies in their scope. Normally I don’t have too many problems with the advice people dish out. I’ve noticed that the people Ensler selects is a bit thin when it comes to selecting scientist, award winning economist, and experts on international law, but that is to be expected considering Ensler’s background. I’m sure if I were to select my great minds for advice there would be several sectors lacking, it is natural.
Now when it comes to having people give ideas that could radically or subtly change the world there is bound to be a conflict of ideas. I understand I’m not likely to agree with all the ideas presented in the article. This particular issue seemed to bother the heck out of me. There were two contributors that really chapped my rear.
The first bit is by James Gilligan, author of Preventing Violence. He states, “In our thermonuclear era, the most immediate threat to our continued survival is human violence. So how do we prevent it? By eliminating inequalities of power and wealth based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Throughout the world, the most powerful predictor of violence is the size of the gap in income and wealth between the rich and the poor. The answer? Elect a Democrat as president. Historically, that has been the most direct and effective way to reduce the gap. As equality increases, violence decreases. This is love in action.”
My first thought was wow did I just hear a high school debate thermonuclear war argument? Yes I just did. Mr. Gilligan fails to address the concept, something is the most immediate doesn’t necessarily make it the most probable. For instance the moon spontaneously falling out of orbit is much more of an immediate threat to human survival than nuclear war. It is however much less likely to happen. But according to Hume you never know, well non empirically that is. But I’m willing to accept that we should be worried about nuclear weapons. Mr. Gilligan makes some jumps I’m not quit willing to take. The assertion that inequality is an indicator of violence I will grant, but to assert that inequality leads to the kind of violence that leads to thermonuclear war I will not grant. The statement also indicates that in order for violence to be curbed one has to decrease arbitrary inequality between individuals. What about nations? Should it be the prerogative of those in one nation to eliminate cultural inequalities of another nation in order to avoid nuclear war? I think such cavalier notions would cause more hostilities than it could cease. The key to Mr. Gilligan’s assertions comes from this comment, Elect a Democrat President. I’ll accept that historically a Democrat president decreases equality gaps more than a Republican within the USA. Trends however do little to shed light on the instance in this case. My example for examination, Jimmy Carter. During the craziness that was the Carter Era, the economy got so bad that the pure madness of supply side economics seemed like a good idea, and it turned out to be better than Carter’s economic policy. Let me say that again, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, POTUS, had an economic system so bad it made supply side look good. The world was a much more dangerous place and much more likely to go into nuclear war than when a Republican took office. Another factor is the with the powers of globalization inequality gaps that rise in the United States can often lead to decreases in gaps elsewhere. An example of a Democrat leading to the opposite of this is say a Democrat that is a protectionist and while increases average wages in the United States prevents other countries from entering certain sectors of the economy, thus preventing them from having sustainable economic growth that would lead to gaps closing. So while inequalities my decrease at home, where it has been stable regardless, inequalities may grow or be perpetuated abroad where it is less stable. I’m not saying a Democrat would make a bad president or that one shouldn’t vote Democrat. In fact I think there are a lot of Democratic candidates with good ideas, but there are also just as many Republicans with equally valid ideas. Consider the ideas instead of each candidate regardless of their political affiliation. Regardless Mr. Gilligan does convey a good idea about different strategies to curbing violence.
The next brain to pick is an “Award-winning actress and activist”. It is none other than Jane Fonda. Jane Fn’ Fonda. That’s right Jane Fonda. Let me repeat the purpose of the article, “to canvass the best brains around the globe for their earth-fixing ideas.” So you’re telling me that one of the best minds in the world is an actress who’s most notable accomplishments is a film where she plays a space vixen who crash lands on a planet with a man who wears furs. That’s right Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda that didn’t mind all too much when the Communist party in Cambodia wiped out nearly a third of its population in a genocide fest. The same Jane Fonda that while not calling the Communist war criminals for genocide would gladly and gleefully call US soldiers war criminals. Yes the same Jane Fonda that never apologized for calling US soldiers war criminals, and never once thought maybe just maybe the communist were a bad thing for south east Asia. So what is the advice of Jane, almost a noble peace prize winner, Fonda? Let me quote, “Mothers and grandmothers, teachers, coaches, and mentors, let’s help our boys become emotionally literate.” Yes we need those people because you know fathers can’t possibly help boys become emotionally literate. Yes because I’ve never heard of a man teaching a boy, “it’s okay to cry, to forgive, to express love.” I’m sorry I didn’t realize that was OK for women to be role models to girls, but for heaven sakes don’t let men be a role model to boys. You know what happens when a father tries to teach a boy how to be a man, that boy grows up to be a homicidal maniac that has the emotions of a sociopath that will no doubt oppress every woman he sees. I’m all about teaching boys to be more advanced when it comes to understanding emotions, but when did fathers lose the capacity to teach those things?
Sunday, September 02, 2007
We are how we eat.
I was reading this month’s issue of Backpacker Magazine. The issue focused on global warming and how it impacted the backpacking community. A large section was dedicated to what we could do to cut our carbon foot print. The magazine gave estimates on how much a particular activity (or change of) would cut our carbon output. The section on the methodology for such calculations were vague but for the most part I accepted them as most of the suggestions seemed intuitive. Of the intuitive suggestions, most were geared towards increasing efficiency or decreasing use of carbon producing activities. However there were a couple of suggestions that caught my eye. These suggestions focused on mainly eating habits. The one’s that seemed most likely to be followed were ones like use a drip watering system for your garden, grow an organic (whatever the heck that means) garden for produce, subscribe to a local farming co-op to have fresh produce delivered to you and so on. Then there were the suggestions that I think will not happen. The highest one on my list of things that won’t happen is cutting a serving of meat out of your diet every day. Yep that’s it just cut one serving of meat out of your daily intake.
I wondered why I thought that. I realized that first the USA has a large diet problem as is. It has already been proven beyond doubt that poor eating habit leads to poor health, yet we still do it anyways. Poor eating habits yields pretty immediate and long term consequences, yet, we still has a whole, refuse to change. I found this particularly funny, because as I was thinking all this I was eating a Twinkie. When I ate the Twinkie it tasted well like nothing really good, yet I went and ate another one just to eat it. But back to the point, if we as a people can’t even get it together when it serves all our personal best interest to do so on a concrete matter where there is no dispute, how are we expected to get our eating habits in order to stave off global warming? Just a side note I believe that global warming is a concrete matter where there is no real dispute, but I’m talking about societies perception as a whole, and plus there is a lot of nuance to the issue that I just can’t seem to articulate at the moment.
Meat is expensive. Gandhi once asked the question of what we could do if we spent our recourses that we spent to acquire meat to something nobler. I often wonder how noble we are when we are asked to give up just a little of a perceived convince as a society and yet refuse to do so. I think that speaks volumes as to who we are. Then again it might not be such a simple task as Gandhi did say that of all things the pallet was the most difficult to master.
I wondered why I thought that. I realized that first the USA has a large diet problem as is. It has already been proven beyond doubt that poor eating habit leads to poor health, yet we still do it anyways. Poor eating habits yields pretty immediate and long term consequences, yet, we still has a whole, refuse to change. I found this particularly funny, because as I was thinking all this I was eating a Twinkie. When I ate the Twinkie it tasted well like nothing really good, yet I went and ate another one just to eat it. But back to the point, if we as a people can’t even get it together when it serves all our personal best interest to do so on a concrete matter where there is no dispute, how are we expected to get our eating habits in order to stave off global warming? Just a side note I believe that global warming is a concrete matter where there is no real dispute, but I’m talking about societies perception as a whole, and plus there is a lot of nuance to the issue that I just can’t seem to articulate at the moment.
Meat is expensive. Gandhi once asked the question of what we could do if we spent our recourses that we spent to acquire meat to something nobler. I often wonder how noble we are when we are asked to give up just a little of a perceived convince as a society and yet refuse to do so. I think that speaks volumes as to who we are. Then again it might not be such a simple task as Gandhi did say that of all things the pallet was the most difficult to master.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
