Charter Member of the Sub-Media

September 21, 2007

Leave Herm Edwards Alone! « Kansas City Chiefs »

...there will be more of these parodies.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 20, 2007

Another Example of Patriot/Bill Bellichick Cheating « Link O' Admiration »

When will the madness end?!?!?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
McNabb Interview « For Jeremy Gilby »

...sort of.

It doesnt matter if I complete a pass, people are always asking me about the four incompletions before that, said McNabb. About how I overthrew Brian Westbrook on a four-yard route, or I how I somehow threw the ball right into the ground even though L.J. Smith was a few feet away from me. Or how I threw up all over the ball and then fumbled it. I mean what, I cant get nauseous? I have to be good and have an iron stomach, too? See what I mean? The expectations are ridiculous.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:35 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

September 18, 2007

This Bothers Me « Media Distortions »

Check this out:

Debbie Stabenow can't shake those photographs.

First there was that speech in Congress standing in front a sign that said "Dangerously Incompetent." Some Stabenow aide should have been fired for that one, but the Senator took the ribbing graciously.

Now she is in the main illustration of a New York Times story on the campaign-contribution bad boy, Norman Hsu. She's clearly having a good time with the guy. The senator takes the hit even though everybody in Congress is guilty of money-grubbing. It's the way the system works, what with contributions declared free speech.

Even Hillary got sucked in by Hsu and gave back $850,000 in loot.

The GOP does the same thing: Take the money no matter where it's from.

No proof. No evidence. Just a line that reveals the writer assumes Republicans are guilty as charged...and making sure the charge is constantly repeated.

I don't doubt that there are plenty of corrupt Republican lawmakers. But it seems to be evidence of bias when news outlets can talk for paragraphs about a Democratic Party politician's foibles without mentioning party affiliation, and has no problem not mentioning Democratic corruption in an article about Republican corruption, but feels the need to include an unsupported claim of Republican graft totally unrelated to the topic at hand. It seems like it is merely a knee-jerk reaction of liberal ideology: anything Democratics are bad/wrong about, Republicans are as bad or worse.

There simply is no evidence that Hsu has anything to do with Republicans, but we still get the wild assertion. No report of Democratic wrongdoing can go by without tarring Republicans with the same brush, rightly or wrongly. Yet our "unbiased" media actively downplayed Democratic connections to lobbyist Abramoff (particularly Senator Harry Reid). Why the double standard?

Oh, yeah. Silly of me.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:14 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)
Google Trolling « Blogging »

I wish I had more information on Northern Rock
Pervez Musharraf
Lehman Brothers
Michael Mukasey
Harry Potter Sierra Leone
Steve Jobs
Barack Obama
Bill Belichick
Nova Scotia
the UF student Tasered at Kerry forum
the typhoon bearing down on China
Iraq death rates
mentos bird commercials
President George W. Bush's choice of former judge Michael Mukasey to be his new attorney general
OJ Simpson
The Emmy Awards
or the fact that the Denver Broncos suck

...but I don't. I'm sorry.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:07 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Evidence for Evolution Strengthened (More or Less) « Link O' Admiration »

Snarky take on factual reports over at Scrappleface.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:53 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)
It's All About the Oil!!! « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

Space-based solar power harvesting beamed to earth.


We need this.

After spending weeks in information-gathering mode, a Pentagon analyst says the idea of putting satellites in orbit to harvest solar power and beam it down to Earth has lots of merit - and a test of the concept could be set in motion by 2015.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:32 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

September 17, 2007

"Trophy" Wife Credits « Link O' Admiration »

A truly interesting concept.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

September 16, 2007

Attractive Young Chinese Women III « China/Taiwan »

Continuing the theme.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2007

Attractive Young Chinese Women II « China/Taiwan »

Slideshow here.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 14, 2007

"General Lies and Power" « For Jeremy Gilby »

Ever wonder what might happen if Move-On existed 65 years ago?

Well, now you have your answer.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Attractive Young Chinese Women I « China/Taiwan » « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

Pictures of attractive young chinese women applying to become flight attendants.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:31 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)
Invisible Water « Link O' Admiration »

Not really, but cool, nonetheless.

Here's the trick:

Read More "Invisible Water" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:14 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

September 13, 2007

Bill Belichick Penalized for Cheating « Kansas City Chiefs »

I saw the news first at David/Zombyboy's...
The hard facts:

The NFL has fined New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick and the team a total of $750,000 for videotaping an opponents signals. The team also has been told to forfeit draft choices.

The Pats were caught videotaping the New York Jets defensive signals during last Sundays 38-14 win at the Meadowlands.

CBS 2 HD has learned Belichick was hit with a $500,000 fine by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The team will have to hand over $250,000.

The Patriots will also have to forfeit at least one draft pick in 2008, but that will depend on how they finish this season. If they make the playoffs, they will lose a first-round pick. If they dont make the postseason, they will give up their second-and third-round picks.

David's take:

I dont have a strong opinion about the appropriateness of the fines and penalties--I have no idea how serious or how important the spying was to any of the Patriots victories. The funniest part of the whole scandal is that, irritating as he is, Belichick really is a brilliant coach and the Patriots have had phenomenal talent for years. I doubt they needed to cheat to win.

My feelings are complicated. At least, it is hard for me to draw the line where cheating begins, and strategy/skill ends.

Meaning, having a 2nd string QB that can read lips doesn't seem like cheating, but using technology to do so clearly me.

Sort of like, working out with a personal trainer isn't cheating, but taking steroids is.

So here the Patriots, supposedly so good, so talented that they don't need to cheat. Here is Belichick, supposedly so brilliant he doesn't need to cheat.

Oh? Well, if Belichick is so brilliant, why did he stink so badly when he coached the Browns?

Dan Reeves called in to ESPN and answered questions. He was very dismissive and it bothered me. It was like his whole attitude was, "Aw, shucks, it probably didn't make any difference."

Oh? Then why were Bill and the Patriots doing it?

Dan said that the only possible advantage it might bring is that if you can read the defense's play calls, you can call it in to the QB while he is in the huddle, or breaking the huddle and at the line of scrimmage. Dan's point was that there wasn't much time for a team to do much with that call.

Well, if your QB can audible a WR into the hole left by a blitzing LB, you look pretty freaking brilliant, don't you?

But that's just the gameday advantage.

Tom Brady is known for being an extremely intelligent QB, always making the right decision with the ball. How do defenses beat great QBs? By confusing them, by disguising coverages. If you videotape an opposing defense's calls, then you can know exactly what play was called, and compare it to what the defense showed before the snap. Voila! Disguised coverages aren't so disguised anymore.

It's similar to just looking at game film...but goes just that bit too far. It's cheating.

They should lose all their draft picks for a year. The actions were completely unacceptable.

But what do I know? I'm so naive I think it is wrong for a playoff game to be delayed because the visiting team's O-line has a slippery substance smeared all over their jerseys.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Great Football Articles « Kansas City Chiefs »

If you can have a guaranteed All-Pro at only one position, what position should that be?

The quality of your center is the best predictor of a team's success.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:45 AM | Comments (284) | TrackBack (0)
Cool Synthesization « Car Issues »

...of a BMW and a Russian jalopy. The results are pretty cool.

I'd call it Impressively Retro.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:08 AM | Comments (277) | TrackBack (0)

September 10, 2007

Good, Bad, and Ugly; 9 Sep 07 « Kansas City Chiefs »

Yeah, that sucked. It was a winnable game, and we didn't do it. The offense couldn't execute, and the defense couldn't stop them forever. Our kicker missed a chip-shot field goal. Welcome to the 2007 season! Here's hoping the events of our first game of the year are aberrations, rather than trends.

The Good
-Top two RBs both had 4+ ypc.
-Jarrad Page had a nice INT and made some good tackles.
-Bernard Pollard did a nice job knocking down a pass.
-The O-line gave Huard plenty of time, and the D-line put some nice pressure on Schaub.
-Converted 64% of third down opportunities (9/14)
-The defense gave up only 13 points; the one TD was a mistake that is fixable

The Bad
-Only 72 yards rushing on only 17 attempts.
-Three fumbles, two lost
-0/2 in Red Zone opportunities
-dropped passes by Bowe, Parker, Webb, Gonzalez

The Ugly
-Horrible play by Pollard to give up a TD
-An easy missed FG by our rookie kicker
-Some freakish turnovers made it impossible to get any momentum

Interesting Points:
-The defense looks pretty good, except for the one major lapse.
-The injury bug is causing us problems again, with both a starting CB and starting WR out for most of the game. Those are the two positions with the least experience behind the starters.
-Huard didn't look very good, but he didn't look very bad, either. A better game plan could have helped, but he delivered the ball on time and on target, and dropped balls and "lucky bounce of the week" turnovers ruined any chance for Huard's unspectacular, methodical style to be effective. Huard isn't the QB who will go out and win games for you, but he is one who won't lose the game with stupid decisions. The only bad decision I saw him make all game was when his shovel pass to LJ was picked off, but the game was already a lost cause at that point.
-Huard had time to throw longer passes. I think the coaches saw that we were going up a defense that featured multiple (three!) high 1st round on the D-line, and tried to use high-percentage plays to keep the chains moving while protecting the QB. But our WR drops made that approach fail. With as well as our O-line did protecting Huard in the first half, I think we'll see the Chiefs open it up a little more next week.
-Page and Pollard look quite good. Page may make the Pro-Bowl this year. I would be surprised if he doesn't have more than 6 picks by the end of the season.
-The Chiefs start slow, and it's hard to start on the road. A loss is a loss, no matter what the point of the season. The Chiefs are not going to 0-16, I guarantee it. We now can say without a doubt they won't go 16-0, either...but anyone reasonable knew that before the season started, anyway. I have seen many quality teams have worse games, so the key will be how the Chiefs respond to this. The Chiefs are entirely capable of going into Chicago next week and getting the strong showing, or perhaps even the upset win, that they need to jump start the march to the playoffs. But even a loss won't really prove much until we've played two games at home.

Bottom Line:
Don't jump off the bandwagon yet, or you'll look stupid trying to climb back on when we make the playoffs later.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

September 07, 2007

Snapshot: Chiefs, Opening Day 2007 « Kansas City Chiefs »

It's official. The 2007 NFL season has begun. A clean slate. A new beginning. Everyone is a potential Super Bowl champion. Every team has the potential to earn the #1 pick in the 2008 draft. Pre-season is, in the final analysis, meaningless; stats are erased, and the standings reset at zero. How will the Chiefs do? What is Herm thinking and planning? Well, it's not all guesswork. There are few things we know from perusing recent interviews and articles.

It's official. The 2007 NFL season has begun.

A clean slate. A new beginning. Everyone is a potential Super Bowl champion. Every team has the potential to earn the #1 pick in the 2008 draft. Pre-season is, in the final analysis, meaningless; stats are erased, and the standings reset at zero.

How will the Chiefs do? What is Herm thinking and planning? Well, it's not all guesswork. There are few things we know from perusing recent interviews and articles.

Five Things We Know (all links point to the source articles; all emphasis mine):

1) Drummond is not part of the passing game. We are only four deep at the WR position.

Q: What is Bowe's role going to be?

EDWARDS: "His role is going to be he's in the rotation. He's going to play a lot along with [Jeff] Webb. All four of those guys are going to play. Now, we will do different things and as we start playing you will see it all come to fruition. We've got to block 'em when we throw them the ball and when we throw it they've got to catch it too. He's involved in the offense. He and Webb will be involved in the offense, no doubt about it. They need to be. No different than the two defensive players we drafted. They're involved in our defense. They're in our rotation. I think you've got to do that with this football team at this point. When you've got some talent and you draft guys you've got to let them play."

2) Turk McBride is ready to contribute, but not to stand out. The coaches saw enough to keep him around with the expectation of future improvement, obviously, as he wasn't cut.
However, please note the depth chart:

Turk McBride is the only 3rd string player on the D-line, and Jimmy Wilkerson will play ahead of him in the rotation. That isn't a huge vote of confidence. On the other hand, Herm said:

"Now, we'll go with a seven man rotation [along the defensive line] and when Jared comes back it'll be eight man. All those guys will play probably 25 to 30 plays, which is good for us. We couldn't do that last year defensively."

That means Turk is already considered better than Sims was last year.

3) Herm is a cerebral coach who analyzes everything. Furthermore, he intends to score TDs when he gets in range, and plans on his defense holding the opponents to FGs. Burn this into your memory:

"Generally you get the ball around 12 possessions [a game] unless you turn the ball over a bunch. Out of those 12 possessions probably five times you're going to be inside the Gold Zone [inside the opponent's 30-yard line]. What do you do when you're there? Do you score touchdowns or kick field goals?

"When you look at us in the pre-season we had the ball an average of 11 times but our problem was we only got in the Gold Zone 2.8 times. That's not good. You want to average five or six if you can. I have a possession chart I always carry with me on the side so that after eight possessions I kind of know we're probably only going to get the ball back four more times.

"What you do inside that goal area is very important. Our players are starting to understand that. They need to learn that. That's a big part of football, something we talk about a lot. Our defense has done a pretty good job in the Gold Zone and hasn't allowed a lot of touchdowns. We've made them kick field goals.

"We kind of structure our practice that way, the way we think. Players have to think like coaches and at the end of the day they have to know you only touch the ball this many times. Just start counting. Within those possessions you get about six plays when you average them all out. You might go on a 12-play drive, but there might be a three-play drive. Generally it's about six plays for every possession. Know the situations and where you're at."

That's analysis and number-crunching worthy of Dick Vermeil.

4) The Chiefs are going to aggressively headhunt the rest of the NFL to assemble the most talented, deepest team, stocking the team with young players who don't command big salaries. There will be competition every year at every position. If the Chiefs are successful, this will set a new trend in player acquisition, in the same way that the Patriots set a trend with using marginal veterans in specific, limited roles. The Patriots got the most out of their roster with age/experience. The Chiefs intend to get the most out of their roster with youth, energy, and speed:

"What we've done this year is we've had another draft at the back end of our 53," Edwards said. "We've added three guys we liked leading up to the draft, guys who went elsewhere. When they became available and we claimed them (on waivers) we were able to add three more draft choices from this year's class. That gives us 10 draft picks from 2007 on our roster.

"And we are getting them for free, they aren't costing us anything. Can they play? Can they help us? We'll find out. But you can't find that out unless they are here."

5) The other teams better watch their back. Herm seems to have gotten more value out of the 53-man cut-down than any other team has in recent history. We should be able to see if it pays off by the end of the season.

" always have another hand that you're playing. You're always playing poker. They were actually trying to sneak him through on the practice squad. We kind of anticipated that and it kind of worked out for us."

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Public Service Announcement II « Blogging »

For that matter, there are no pictures of Kyla Ebbert, nude or otherwise, on this blog, either.

There are here, though.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:01 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

September 06, 2007

Public Service Announcement « Blogging »

There are, of course, no pictures on this blog of Vanessa Hudgens, nude or otherwise.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:07 PM | Comments (390) | TrackBack (0)
Not So Much Fun With Polls « Politics As Usual »

Zogby poll: 42% of Democrats think Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen.

The Hot Air article points out that believing Bush caused or let 9/11 happen is roughly analagous to Rethuglicans (heehee) thinking that the Clintons had Vince Foster whacked. But an assassination seems to be totally different than a massive attack; on scale if nothing else, but also the difference between murdering someone out of anger and just killing pedestrians by running them over. Does anyone think a Christian could allow the murder of 3k people, especially when any rationale estimate of casualties from a 9/11 attack would be no less than 10k deaths?

So I consulted my Flaming Lefty friend (she's not that flaming, but she Plays One on TV...meaning, she is very good at understanding other peoples' point of view) and she said:

I think it depends on (excuse me for sounding clintonesque) what your definition of "let" is. Some people come from the school of thought that if something *does* happen on your watch, you *let* it happen, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. So, I am going to assume that might be at play with a small percentage. Then there's "did he let it happen because he didn't have enough efforts directed towards Bin Laden?" and so forth.

I do believe that a significant number of people
questioned if the Bush administration turned a blind
eye to what they might have perceived to be asmall
potential attack on American soil, to prove the
necessity of going to Iraq. Am I in that percentage?
No. But these are some of the things I hear.

At the very least, I can see how a very small misunderstanding of the phrase "let it happen" can result in huge differences in responses. Just imagine the various ways "responsible" can be misinterpreted.

Sometimes our language sucks.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Yet Another IPR vs Technology Rant « Stuff Important to Me »

Ridley Scott says video players like iPod and PSP are ruining cinema. Silicon Hutong says they will save it.

In my opinion, Silicon Hutong gets it wrong from the very first sentence:

Because, you see, the problem is not technology.

But he comes closer as he continues:

It is Scott and people like him, people who really like Things the Way They Are, because Things the Way They Are have made them rich and famous and lets them make expensive movies and take home little trophies. These folks do not particularly like technology (watch Scott's movies - he hates tech), do not understand people who do, and are deep down in places they do not talk about at Malibu parties they are just plain scared of anything with a microchip.

They see all of this change happening and are smart enough to understand that it means The End of the World As They Know It. And they are terrified. Hence Ridley's mobile device fixation.

Which is all correct. But Silicon Hutong goes off the rails again when he says:

Technology, in its different forms, is getting set to bring about a cinematic renaissance. More people can make films, make them cheaper, and get them in front of audiences faster and easier today than anytime since Mayer, Zukor, Laemmle, Cohn, Fox, Warner, and Disney showed up in L.A. and started buying orange groves. Green screens, cheap gear, and powerful software means that you don't have to spend $200 million to make an epic - you just need a script, a camera, and a Macintosh.

Starting to see what's bugging Ridley?

I don't think that's totally correct.

Yes, technology is going to create a cinematic renaissance.

What bothers Ridley and his ilk is that what technology provided, technology also is in the process of taking away.

Technology allowed the recording of a performance; thus, a single person was able to create a "performance" of art that could be disseminated in near-perfect copy at a cheap distribution price to mass audiences (in the thousands and millions) at a high viewing cost.

How it all worked:
The performer only had to do it once, but the audience could experience it at another time, or even multiple times, without increasing the cost to the performer. But that required a massively expensive studio infrastructure that individuals could not afford, and the cooperation of the performer.

The next enabler was equipment that could reproduce the performances extremely cheaply, but was expensive enough to be a barrier to individuals (which expense became relative cheap when the costs were spread out through mass sales).

The supply was then limited to a single company that controlled the master copy of the performance. Some technology allowed other copies of the performances to be made, but the product was invariably extremely inferior. Thus, the production/distribution company could set whatever price the market would bear. Mass production and economies of scale allowed that price to be low enough to attract millions of viewers, but with a production cost that was a tiny fraction of the viewing price.

That process made the artist and the production/distribution company very rich.

But it is an artificially restricted supply.

Digital technology allows an individual with cheap equipment to make an extremely cheap near-exact single copy of a performance.

Digital emancipation from the production/distribution overlords. Now they can't get rich on a single performance. Now the artists can reach their audience directly without help...without an opportunity for a corporation to make money on each transaction.

And the artist is now under pressure to produce or perish. One performance can quickly leave the control of the creator. If he can stimulate demand, he has a window to make money while the supply is limited. But natural diminishing returns will end the cash train much more quickly than before.

And what's wrong with that?

Is there a rule that someone who writes a simple little three-chord song should become a millionaire just because someone 20 years ago could by doing the same thing?


I am a creator, by the way. Not just by what you see here on this blog. I make music; I sing, I play guitar, I will be seeing some of that here soon. I hope you like it and decide to purchase some CDs from me, or individual songs. I think I can make enough money to make it worth my while before people start copying it (...or it might not be any good and I won't make any money at all). I can put low-quality copies, or truncate the performance to stimulate you to purchase the complete work. But eventually people will start "pirating" copies; I won't care, though, because each copy that gets made will be an advertisement for my future works. And there will always be people willing to pay for the convenience of getting the recorded performance directly from me.
I also write. And no technology can duplicate holding a book in your hand...I think I can eventually get published; and I will put some (or maybe all) of my books online for free after they are published, because I doubt it will make me lose any revenue. They will be advertisements for future sales.

Bottom line:
Don't depend on technology-produced artificial limits on supply.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:10 AM | Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)

September 05, 2007

Bad Nuke Handling in the USAF « Militaria »

I'm very NOT proud of this.

But it was a screw-up. For screw-ups to happen, an incredible string of coincidences have to occur. But materials are handled thousands of times. Processes are run thousands of times a day. Every once in a long while, enough people make a minor mistake, and enough people assume it was a deliberate choice beyond their clearance/knowledge (the Someone Else's Problem effect described in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Series) that a blunder occurs.

It's human nature.

Boredom and routine war with responsibility.

Sometimes, the process designed to prevent accidents ends up creating them through its reassuring and attention-numbing drudgery.

I'm just glad no one was hurt or killed.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Bad Science in Movies « Media Distortions »

Blatant link.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Why You Should Not Withhold Your Vote « Politics As Usual »


See what I mean, about karma? Certainly no one of the "true conservatives" who sat out the 1976 election because they thought Ford was "too liberal" thought the result would be the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of radical state Islamism but it followed, and there is good reason to think it was a consequence. Nor did conservatives who sat out 1992 plan to see the military decimated, and multiple attacks effectively go unanswered. But the election went to Clinton, and that's the way the balls fell.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 06:32 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

September 04, 2007

UltraCapacitors! « For Jeremy Gilby »

Even though he was indirectly insulting (but in a good way) in the previous post, I still want to make sure he knows about this patent item under development that was linked by Instapundit.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:51 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Audience Participation Time, II « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

What is your favorite Bumper Sticker ready quote from Brainfertilizer?

Read More "Audience Participation Time, II" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:00 AM | Comments (315) | TrackBack (0)
Audience Participation Time « Quotes You Can Steal »

From the last time:

I once thought I was schizophrenic, but something inside me said that was crazy.
I once thought I was paranoid, but later realized I was probably overreacting.
I once thought I might be a kleptomaniac. I have no idea where I picked that idea up from.

Your Turn:

I used to be indecisive, but now.....oh hell, I don't know, maybe, maybe not.

posted by Sharp as a Marble on December 10, 2004 11:05 AM


I used to have suicidal tendacies. I could just kill myself for thinking that way.

I used to think I was sick all the time, turned out to be hypochondria. See there? I KNEW there had to be SOMETHING!

posted by spacemonkey on December 10, 2004 11:34 AM


I once thought I had Attention Deficiency Dis...HEY! Is that a platypus?

posted by Sharp as a Marble on December 10, 2004 11:52 AM


I once thought I was getting forgetful, but I wasn't.

posted by Sharp as a Marble on December 10, 2004 11:53 AM


I once thought I was getting forgetful, but I wasn't

posted by Sharp as a Marble on December 10, 2004 11:54 AM


I once thought I had delusions of grandeur, but then I thought, "ME!? Have delusions of grandeur? How absurd!"

posted by McGehee on December 12, 2004 05:34 AM


(Minor variation of the last one):
I used to be afraid I came across as too self-absorbed. What do you think, do I seem that way to you?

posted by Nathan on December 12, 2004 06:54 AM


I used to procrastinate, but I never got around to doing anything about it.

posted by JAB on December 12, 2004 06:08 PM


"Are you always right?"

"Well, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."

posted by Chrees on December 13, 2004 11:31 AM


I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV

posted by Jeremy on December 14, 2004 09:39 AM


I never use to be able to finish things, but now I

posted by HailToTheKing on June 15, 2005 06:46 AM

What can you come up with this time?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The MSM Gets it Wrong, An In-Depth Study « Liberal Democrats Are on the Losing Side of History » « Media Distortions »

From Karl, guest-blogging at Protein Wisdom.

I can't really blockquote anything, because it's all that good.

Go check it out. Well worth your time. Lots of links to specific examples.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 03, 2007

Strategery « Kansas City Chiefs »

The Chiefs have demonstrated some extremely canny front office moves this season.

Nowhere more so than in the cuts down to the 53-man roster.

They held on to extra DBs and RBs; both areas where we have strong starters, but only rookies and 1st-year free agents with promise as backups. They waited one day while everyone else combed through the release rosters, and did some combing themselves. They saw a number of draft picks teams were trying to sneak through to their practice squad and pounced: they picked up a 5th-round pick LB from the Lions, a 7th-round pick QB from the Vikings, and a 6th-round pick CB from the Eagles. To make room, we released Derrick Ross, Chad Williams, and Bobby Sippio...but now they were all released at least a day after all the other teams had already made waiver claims and established most/all of their practice squad. That leaves Ross and Williams on their couches, available to be signed if we have an injury, and already knowing the system. It let Sippio slip through the waivers to join our practice squad. It still leaves us a little heavy in our LB corps and CB corps, but that may shake out within the first two weeks of the season.

But we did everything we wanted to, and the only player I saw claimed off of waivers from the Chiefs was Chris Hannon. But he's on the Panthers practice squad, so we can grab him at any time we want to sign him to the 53-man roster...just in case we have a rash of WR injuries.

Bravo, CP and Herm!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Cool Star Wars Snark « Snark »

There's some good stuff here.

That's not the main page, though. I pointed to that page (8 nitpicks of The Empire Strikes Back) because I assume you are skilled enough in webpage navigation to find the main page, and I really wanted to highlight this quote:

Nitpick #7 Luke's Scream In the original version of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke makes the ultimate heroic decision. He decides that rather than join the evil Darth Vader (who he's just learned may be his own father!) he will leap from a thousand feet, possibly to his own demise. The look in Luke's eyes, the triumph as he realizes he would rather die than join Vader, the sound of John Williams' horns followed his expression as he slowly let go and plummeted, possibly to his death.

In the "Special Edition" of The Empire Strikes Back the scene is unchanged except for one small detail: Luke screams like a little bitch* the entire time he's falling. Even though he'd]just displayed an expression of unspeakable heroism and bravery, he seems to have reconsidered once he is actually falling.

In the "Even More Special Edition" of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas has opted to remove the scream. This could be viewed as a good change except that the scream should never have been included to begin with. The very fact that the scream exists at all, in any form, is enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. The additional fact that it's been removed begs the question: Why was it added in the first place?

*This is in no way intended to offend anyone. I don't mean to sound offensive or misogynistic, but it's just what he does. There's no other way to put it than, "he screams like a little bitch". If you don't believe me, watch the movie.

I think the explanation truly established the humorous nature of that entire comment. I had an involuntary 5-minute giggle over the whole piece, especially due to the explanation of how Luke screams can't be described any other way...

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:52 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

September 01, 2007

Cuts to KC Chiefs' Final 53 Man Roster Are In « Kansas City Chiefs »
Chiefs President Carl Peterson announced on Saturday that the club has made 21 transactions in order to comply with todays NFL mandatory roster cutdown to 53 players. NFL teams can designate an eight-man practice squad beginning on Sunday, September 2nd.

Kansas City placed RB Priest Holmes on the Reserve/Non-Football Injury List (NFI). The Chiefs released WR Brad Ekwerekwu, S Marlon Fair, DT Kiki Gonzalez, WR Chris Hannon, FB Gilbert Harris, DE Michael Heard, G Rob Hunt, DT Patrice Majondo-Mwamba, DE Montez Murphy, T James Newby, RB Marcus OKeith, CB Justin Phinisee, CB Will Poole, QB Casey Printers, WR Ean Randolph, LB Nick Reid, LB Rich Scanlon, G Tre Stallings, QB Jeff Terrell and TE Keith Willis

Here's the new depth chart.

So I was wrong about Hannon keeping the job over Sippio; I'm not surprised they kept Parker, although that still isn't the choice I would have made, and I think I will be shown to be correct. I was right about Boomer Grigsby making the team. I was wrong about the Chiefs keeping Chad Williams...I can only think that move was because they still expect to deal Wesley to another team, and want to make sure no one takes their designated backup S (which is Chad Williams). I was wrong about them keeping Derrick Ross; I guess they figure they can fix his fumbling problem, because I figured that made him undependable and a sure cut. I was surprised they cut Casey Printers; the Chiefs must want to bring in another QB from somewhere else...maybe Byron Leftwich, about whose trade/release from the Jags there are rumors floating? I was not surprised they kept Kendrell Bell over Scanlon, even though I still wanted Bell to be cut; I'm mildly surprised that Nate Harris made the team over Scanlon, but I guess Scanlon's versatility isn't necessary with him being no higher than the 3rd option at every LB position. I was wrong about the Chiefs keeping Tre Stallings; I guess they don't expect to have injury problems at both RG and C at the same time; in an emergency, Herb Taylor could probably play RG, too.

Bottom line: the Chiefs went lighter than I expected (than the NFL norm) on QBs, and O-line. That allowed the team to go slightly heavy on RB/FB/TE (although there is some overlap with Kris Wilson, which is why I can't say they went heavy on each position), allowed them maintain the standard numbers at D-line (8), LB (7), CB (5) and WR (5), while still carrying an extra S (not many teams carry 5, and we won't do so for more than a few weeks, I'm sure).

Practice Squad:
-Either Brad Ekwerekwu or Chris Hannon (WR), but probably not both
-Marcus O'Keith (RB)
-James Newby (T/G)
-Jeff Terrell (QB), since Printers has supposedly refused to be on our practice squad
-Patrice Majondo-Mwamba (DT) or Kiki Gonzalez (DT), but not both
-Montez Murphy (DE)
-Gilbert Harris (FB) to keep practicing at FB in case Grigsby doesn't mature into a fully-capable blocking back

I know that's 7...but those are my top choices. I don't think Harris makes the cut, but predicting what an NFL team wants from the PS is something I don't really understand yet.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)