I've been having some good luck when it comes to the radio lately. On Wednesday I finished up at practicum and started my car to hear some great numbers from my past: Rage Against the Machine's Killing in the Name Of, followed by Coldplay's Yellow, followed by Nirvana's All Apologies, which took me all the way home. Very nice sequence for me. Takes me back to my college days.
Then when I came home today I was treated to U2's new single (which somehow doesn't make me want to vomit yet despite the frequency with which it's played), which was followed my favorite song by my favorite band (Radiohead's Karma Police), with Pearl Jam's Better Man rounding out my trip.
This sequence of good going home music is all thanks to 98.7. They play all my favorites. I'm almost as thankful for them as I am for a 3-song commute. On the rare days that I can drive, that is.
And henceforth KROQ shall be known (at least to me) as KROQ of KRAP.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
11/6/2009, 6:37am
A transcript...
Darcy: Did you know you can buy soap now that has caffeine in it? It's supposed to make you more alert.
Adam: I think that really says something about our culture.
Darcy: Yeah.
Adam: Specifically that it's AWESOME!
Darcy: What do you think it would be like to come from a culture that you're actually proud of?
Adam: You know, I've never really thought about that before.
Darcy: Did you know you can buy soap now that has caffeine in it? It's supposed to make you more alert.
Adam: I think that really says something about our culture.
Darcy: Yeah.
Adam: Specifically that it's AWESOME!
Darcy:
Adam: You know, I've never really thought about that before.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
braylon edwards
"Out-standing effort by Braylon Edwards!"
-CBS commentator Dick Enberg
That's something I haven't heard said non-sarcastically for quite some time ... maybe he just likes having a quarterback who's able to throw the ball.
-CBS commentator Dick Enberg
That's something I haven't heard said non-sarcastically for quite some time ... maybe he just likes having a quarterback who's able to throw the ball.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
quote of the day (so far)
"(Vikings head coach) Brad Childress can't be happy about those two balls popping out."
-FOX commentator Thom Brenneman
... Chester Taylor had fumbled and recovered and Adrian Peterson lost the ball after being tackled within about five minutes of each other. With hilarious results.
And why does FOX insist on showing me an animated robot jamming on an electric guitar when we come back from commercial? Robot? Guitar? What does any of this have to do with football?
-FOX commentator Thom Brenneman
... Chester Taylor had fumbled and recovered and Adrian Peterson lost the ball after being tackled within about five minutes of each other. With hilarious results.
And why does FOX insist on showing me an animated robot jamming on an electric guitar when we come back from commercial? Robot? Guitar? What does any of this have to do with football?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
planting seeds
September 8, 2009. A day that shall live in infamy. The day Barack "Hoo-Sane" Obama brainwashed the collective mind of America's youth with his socialist agenda. Or maybe he just told them to work hard and stay in school. It's hard to make such distinctions these days.
Well one thing has become pretty clear in the past few weeks: the Republican strategy to defeat meaningful healthcare reform. It pretty much comes down to obstruct, obfuscate, mislead, and derail the process with scare tactics until anything that's going to be even marginally effective at actually solving problems is excised from the bill. And when that happens pretty much everyone's a winner; Democrats get to pass an utterly useless piece of legislation and celebrate that brave accomplishment and Republicans get to prevent meaningful reform from taking place. Everyone's a winner, that is, except the American people, specifically the middle class and working poor. But, then, no one's cared much about them in a long time.
The major remaining question whether an emasculated reform bill is actually worse than no reform at all. I say YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES since it will give conservatives the opportunity to say, 10 years from now, "Hey look at what was done 10 years ago - that didn't work well at all. Let's not try anything like that again" and they'll be able to blame all of the ineffectiveness on the Democrats who gutted the bill in a futile attempt to woo a moderate Republican senator or two. In case anyone's keeping track, that's pretty much what happened with the climate bill earlier this year as well. Can't wait to see what Obama has to say about this mess tomorrow.
Well one thing has become pretty clear in the past few weeks: the Republican strategy to defeat meaningful healthcare reform. It pretty much comes down to obstruct, obfuscate, mislead, and derail the process with scare tactics until anything that's going to be even marginally effective at actually solving problems is excised from the bill. And when that happens pretty much everyone's a winner; Democrats get to pass an utterly useless piece of legislation and celebrate that brave accomplishment and Republicans get to prevent meaningful reform from taking place. Everyone's a winner, that is, except the American people, specifically the middle class and working poor. But, then, no one's cared much about them in a long time.
The major remaining question whether an emasculated reform bill is actually worse than no reform at all. I say YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES since it will give conservatives the opportunity to say, 10 years from now, "Hey look at what was done 10 years ago - that didn't work well at all. Let's not try anything like that again" and they'll be able to blame all of the ineffectiveness on the Democrats who gutted the bill in a futile attempt to woo a moderate Republican senator or two. In case anyone's keeping track, that's pretty much what happened with the climate bill earlier this year as well. Can't wait to see what Obama has to say about this mess tomorrow.
Monday, August 17, 2009
healthcare debate
There’s something I’ve noticed lately. People are vehemently resistant to the notion of “some bureaucrat in Washington” making decisions regarding their healthcare. The ironic thing is that if you are one of the Americans lucky enough to have health insurance (and there are 47 million who are not as fortunate), then – quite literally – you already have bureaucrats making decisions regarding your healthcare. Is a bureaucrat in Chicago or Hartford or Des Moines really that much more worthy of our trust? I think not.
See, insurance companies are corporations and the primary purpose of every corporation is to make money for shareholders. And the only way to make money is to take in more than you pay out. Thereore, insurance companies really don’t have our (customers') best interests at heart. How could they? The natural inclination of every insurance company is to take your money and deny your claim. There are only a couple of things, as far as I can see, that prevent this from happening:
1) fear of litigation
2) fear of losing customers to the competition if customer satisfaction falls below the industry average
So even when insurance companies pay a claim they’re only doing it keep the money rolling in. The even have a word for canceling your policy once you get sick: rescission. And it's legal even if you've been paying into the same plan with the same company for decades. Isn't the reason that you pay into a plan year after year when you're healthy so that it's there when you get sick and need it? Compare that to a government who issues no-bid contracts and fights to keep buying more obsolete bombers that have never seen action in combat. I think I prefer the wasteful apparatus of the federal government to the corner cutting, bottom-line-obsessed machinations of the insurance industry when it comes to making decisions about the quality of my healthcare. But that's just me. More thoughts to follow...
See, insurance companies are corporations and the primary purpose of every corporation is to make money for shareholders. And the only way to make money is to take in more than you pay out. Thereore, insurance companies really don’t have our (customers') best interests at heart. How could they? The natural inclination of every insurance company is to take your money and deny your claim. There are only a couple of things, as far as I can see, that prevent this from happening:
1) fear of litigation
2) fear of losing customers to the competition if customer satisfaction falls below the industry average
So even when insurance companies pay a claim they’re only doing it keep the money rolling in. The even have a word for canceling your policy once you get sick: rescission. And it's legal even if you've been paying into the same plan with the same company for decades. Isn't the reason that you pay into a plan year after year when you're healthy so that it's there when you get sick and need it? Compare that to a government who issues no-bid contracts and fights to keep buying more obsolete bombers that have never seen action in combat. I think I prefer the wasteful apparatus of the federal government to the corner cutting, bottom-line-obsessed machinations of the insurance industry when it comes to making decisions about the quality of my healthcare. But that's just me. More thoughts to follow...
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
scrappiness
I was at the Dodgers-Brewers game tonight and Craig Counsell came up to bat. My first thought was: "shouldn't he be providing color commentary for a minor league affiliate in Duluth by now?" An inning or so later Jason Kendall came up to bat and my first thought was: "I could have sworn he was dead."
That's about the time I got the idea for a team made up entirely of diminutive white guys who, despite a near constant stream terrible stats year after year, still - somewhat inexplicably - make it onto big league clubs year after year. They are commonly referred to as "scrappy."
Side note: Only white players can be labeled "scrappy." It's an unwritten law of sports journalism. If you're small, white, and not particularly athletic you're scrappy. Especially if you play middle infield.
Well, the backbone of my team would be Craig Counsell and Jason Kendall. And right off the bat (so to speak) I added David Eckstein and Dustin Pedroia to my roster of hardworking munchkins. A little more thought brought me to journeyman Adam Kennedy and the A's Mark Ellis. Once I got home, five minutes on ESPN's website (your worldwide leader in sports) led me to add Scott Posednik and Ryan Freel into the mix. Let's toss Ryan Theriot in there as a totally superflous utility player as well. The great thing about this team is that it doesn't really matter who plays where on defense, because they're all pretty much the same player. And they're all so scrappy and selfless that they'll gladly play any position. Truth be told, most of them are just happy to be on a big-league roster. That just leaves leaves a pitcher - and is there anyone better for this little thought experiment than the wily veteran Tim Wakefield? I think not. You don't really need anyone else on your staff when your ace is that crafty. And Craig Biggio would be my manager.
And there you have it: a team that would hit 50 home runs over the course of a season, but would have 300 ground ball base hits. They'd grind games by scores like 2-1 and 3-2 with smart baserunning and gritty defense and by running out ground balls like it's their first day in the pros. And everyone's jersey would be dirty by the third inning. It would be the most boring baseball ever.
That's about the time I got the idea for a team made up entirely of diminutive white guys who, despite a near constant stream terrible stats year after year, still - somewhat inexplicably - make it onto big league clubs year after year. They are commonly referred to as "scrappy."
Side note: Only white players can be labeled "scrappy." It's an unwritten law of sports journalism. If you're small, white, and not particularly athletic you're scrappy. Especially if you play middle infield.
Well, the backbone of my team would be Craig Counsell and Jason Kendall. And right off the bat (so to speak) I added David Eckstein and Dustin Pedroia to my roster of hardworking munchkins. A little more thought brought me to journeyman Adam Kennedy and the A's Mark Ellis. Once I got home, five minutes on ESPN's website (your worldwide leader in sports) led me to add Scott Posednik and Ryan Freel into the mix. Let's toss Ryan Theriot in there as a totally superflous utility player as well. The great thing about this team is that it doesn't really matter who plays where on defense, because they're all pretty much the same player. And they're all so scrappy and selfless that they'll gladly play any position. Truth be told, most of them are just happy to be on a big-league roster. That just leaves leaves a pitcher - and is there anyone better for this little thought experiment than the wily veteran Tim Wakefield? I think not. You don't really need anyone else on your staff when your ace is that crafty. And Craig Biggio would be my manager.
And there you have it: a team that would hit 50 home runs over the course of a season, but would have 300 ground ball base hits. They'd grind games by scores like 2-1 and 3-2 with smart baserunning and gritty defense and by running out ground balls like it's their first day in the pros. And everyone's jersey would be dirty by the third inning. It would be the most boring baseball ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)