I'm pissed.
As if this country needed a further degradation of the quality of mainstream media outlets, today the FCC voted to relax the rules governing ownership of outlets in the same market. Under the new rule, a corporation could own a newspaper and either a TV or a radio station in the same market, with a few conditions - the station can't be among the top four in that market, there have to be at least eight other independently owned-and-operated outlets left over and the new allowance would only apply in the nation's 20 largest markets.
For 2007-08, Nielsen Media Research ranked the top media markets in the U.S. See the full list here. (Sorry for the Wikipedianess, but Nielsen's Web site is a bear to navigate...) Charlotte is #25, Raleigh/Durham/Fayetteville (WTF?) is #28 and the Triad is #46.
By the way, the vote was 3-2. The two Republican committee members and Republican chair voted to undo the 32-year old ban on multiple-outlet ownership, and the two Democrat members voted against the relaxed rules.
I guess that's why I'm pissed. Today's vote was nothing but an obviously partisan sop to the handful of corporations that can afford to buy more than one outlet in a market large enough to be eligible under the new rule. It's not going to dramatically affect who owns the newspaper and one TV station in my hometown (yet). But unfortunately my local paper and TV news stations get the lion's share of their national and international content from, you guessed it - media outlets in New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago and the other Top 20 markets targeted by the FCC.
And here I thought "media partnerships" (everything from story-sharing to outright event sponsorship) were a bad idea...now my local media outlets - alreadly understaffed and underfunded - will have even less variety in perspectives to choose from in filling their broadcasts or pages.
A monopoly of media is just as dangerous as a monopoly of any other service - in fact, even more dangerous because if you (say, Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner) control the flow of information, you control your opposition. You control the world. Not to mention the standard monopolies-are-bad argument that competition increases quality. And if there's one thing our MSM could use a little more of, it's quality.
Which is why I'm mildly amused, if not totally surprised, that it was the Republican FCC representatives who voted to change the very rule that promoted healthy competition in the media industry. (Unhealthy competition, too, to be fair - would we have 24-hour news and screaming heads if outlets didn't have to fight for viewers?) It's funny how so many Republicans are all down on welfare and socialist protectionism until they're the ones who need protecting. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I thought you boys were capitalists...?
On the plus side, four Republican Senators joined with 21 others on a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin on Monday, warning that if the ban were overturned they would take legislative action. Now that the ban has in fact been stripped, we'll see.
By the way, the White House is reportedly completely behind the FCC on this one. Of course. In a totally unrelated story, USA Today reported in 2004 that executives from media outlet-hoover Clear Channel weren't at all shy about their apparent support of President Bush in that year's election. Nope, no connection there whatsoever.
It's a good thing we have so many disparate perspectives among our major media markets, so all the subtleties, like details of various parties' motivations, don't get lost in the shuffle...Oh, wait.
[One more thing...this may be my favorite part of the story. In defending the FCC's move, Commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez said that the FCC has "crafted changes that appropriately take into account the myriad of news and information outlets that exist today."
So, what's scarier? The spectre of all of the nation's news feeding out from a handful of corporate sources, or a Cabinet-level official who doesn't know the correct usage of "myriad"?]
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Give that man a cookie!
*sarcasm alert*
All thanks and praise to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who yesterday announced that he would pardon a female rape victim.
Pardon the victim? Yes, you read that correctly. According to various news accounts, a 19-year-old woman and a male friend were riding together in a car when they were kidnapped, taken to a remote location and raped by up to seven men (both the woman and the man were raped). The woman, who had recently married, says she was with the male rape victim to retrieve a photo of them together. The Saudi government says the two were having an affair.
Me, I could give a sh*t why they were together. But in Saudi Arabia, apparently the fact that an unmarried, unrelated man and woman were riding in the same car is as big a deal, if not more, than the fact that both of them were kidnapped and gang-raped. (Let me pause for a moment to give thanks for the fact that I live in a country that punishes its rape victims figuratively, rather than literally.)
So both the man and woman were sentenced to six months jail time and 90 lashes for breaking Saudi Arabia's strict laws against mingling with non-relatives of other genders. After the woman's attorney objected to this blame-the-victim punishment, her sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and the court revoked her lawyer's license. Wow, the Saudis don't really do dissent well, huh?
Yes, it's a good thing that the so-called "Qatif Girl"'s case received so much attention. I'm heartened by the number of her fellow Saudis who decried the draconian sentence. And above all I'm thrilled that this woman who has been through so much physical and emotional trauma has gotten a reprieve.
But, lest we forget...Conservative Saudis are livid that outside influence (including a tepid finger-wag from the U.S.) may have contributed to the pardon. The woman has gotten death threats even from her own family. The laws themselves haven't been changed - it's still a place where criminals can target unmarried couples, knowing that their "illegally mingling" victims will now be even less likely to report an assault. This could happen again tomorrow. And very well might, considering that the Saudi government keeps insisting the sentence wasn't wrong.
But the main thing that bothers me is that today is the first time I'd read about the male rape victim, because it was the first time I'd read about this case on something other than an American news outlet's Web site or feminist blog. At the very end of today's BBC.com story, there's an "oh, by the way" coda saying that they counldn't confirm that his 90 lashes would be dropped as well. Maybe not, since he didn't get the publicity. Shame on the people who've left someone - who was just as victimized - out of this story.
Good for King Abdullah, for dropping this medieval horsesh*t, even if it was only a one-time thing. But pardon me if I skip the victory parade.
[BTW, a special thanks to the Saudis for yet another glimpse of what life in a theocracy is like. Anyone still think this is a swell idea?]
All thanks and praise to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who yesterday announced that he would pardon a female rape victim.
Pardon the victim? Yes, you read that correctly. According to various news accounts, a 19-year-old woman and a male friend were riding together in a car when they were kidnapped, taken to a remote location and raped by up to seven men (both the woman and the man were raped). The woman, who had recently married, says she was with the male rape victim to retrieve a photo of them together. The Saudi government says the two were having an affair.
Me, I could give a sh*t why they were together. But in Saudi Arabia, apparently the fact that an unmarried, unrelated man and woman were riding in the same car is as big a deal, if not more, than the fact that both of them were kidnapped and gang-raped. (Let me pause for a moment to give thanks for the fact that I live in a country that punishes its rape victims figuratively, rather than literally.)
So both the man and woman were sentenced to six months jail time and 90 lashes for breaking Saudi Arabia's strict laws against mingling with non-relatives of other genders. After the woman's attorney objected to this blame-the-victim punishment, her sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and the court revoked her lawyer's license. Wow, the Saudis don't really do dissent well, huh?
Yes, it's a good thing that the so-called "Qatif Girl"'s case received so much attention. I'm heartened by the number of her fellow Saudis who decried the draconian sentence. And above all I'm thrilled that this woman who has been through so much physical and emotional trauma has gotten a reprieve.
But, lest we forget...Conservative Saudis are livid that outside influence (including a tepid finger-wag from the U.S.) may have contributed to the pardon. The woman has gotten death threats even from her own family. The laws themselves haven't been changed - it's still a place where criminals can target unmarried couples, knowing that their "illegally mingling" victims will now be even less likely to report an assault. This could happen again tomorrow. And very well might, considering that the Saudi government keeps insisting the sentence wasn't wrong.
But the main thing that bothers me is that today is the first time I'd read about the male rape victim, because it was the first time I'd read about this case on something other than an American news outlet's Web site or feminist blog. At the very end of today's BBC.com story, there's an "oh, by the way" coda saying that they counldn't confirm that his 90 lashes would be dropped as well. Maybe not, since he didn't get the publicity. Shame on the people who've left someone - who was just as victimized - out of this story.
Good for King Abdullah, for dropping this medieval horsesh*t, even if it was only a one-time thing. But pardon me if I skip the victory parade.
[BTW, a special thanks to the Saudis for yet another glimpse of what life in a theocracy is like. Anyone still think this is a swell idea?]
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Seriously...
...How many national championships do we have to win before y'all in the rest of the country (including a few folks at ESPN) learn how to pronounce "Appalachian"?
Sheesh...
Sheesh...
Friday, December 14, 2007
There will be blood, and other thoughts for the weekend
I can't believe I've been so slack about posting...I think the problem is that there's *too* much that I want to write about, and I can't seem to pick out just one thing long enough to really do it justice. And, you know, my job and all. (Actually, I think I'll go with blaming the job. It makes me look borderline responsible.)
So, in no particular order, here are a few of the things that have been flitting across my brain today...
- Hey, look! It only took four years! Look for other rosy pre-war predictions to start finally coming true as well. U.S. troops will be greeted as liberators any day now, I'm sure.
- RE: The Mitchell Report on the use of steroids in pro baseball. Great work - I'm going to file it under "no shit" along with the "revelation" that Jodie Foster is gay. And then I'll go right back to ignoring the irrelevant, corrupt, train-wreck that is the MLB.
- I finally watched "Knocked Up" this week. Well, to be strictly accurate, I watched the first 16 and a half minutes of "Knocked Up" before ripping out of my DVD player. Seriously, Netflix is lucky they're getting this one back in one piece. After calming down and thinking on it for a few days, I've concluded that it wasn't just that I didn't like it - after all, sloppy, unfunny movies come out every day. Just like with my epic, ultimately fruitless campaign against "Titanic" back in high school, the real issue isn't my dislike for a film, it's my frustration with the people who insist that it's the best film of the year/ever made, etc. I feel like an Omega Man, screaming at the world full of Judd Apatow-loving vampire/zombies, "Did you people SEE the same movie I saw???"
When "Knocked Up" came out last summer, I actually heard more than one reviewer describe it as "sweet." Um, that's probably the last word in the dictionary that I would use. I've never seen such a collection of mean-spirited characters; even the little kids are nasty to each other. The way I see it, "funny" is a club. And if you're not in the club, if you don't speak the language, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to find something funny. "Knocked Up" wasn't funny for me because I wasn't in the club - there wasn't a single character with which I felt any identification. I couldn't get a toe-hold, so when it pissed me off, the movie didn't get my usual benefit of the doubt. That's why I say it was sloppy. It's a filmmaker's job to give viewers that toe-hold (unless he's just making the film for himself. That's not art, it's a middle-schooler's post-break-up poetry.), to show them the secret hand-signals or whatever that will get them into the club, and it's really not that hard. Try writing dialogue that does more than just zing, like revealing character and motivation, for starters. "Anchorman" does more in its first 16 seconds than "Knocked Up" mangaged in 16 minutes.
And if I'm Julianne Moore, I'm finding Judd Apatow and kicking his ass. Seriously, if he pulled that shit on me he'd spend large chunks of his future crying like a baby.
- Speaking of movies, I saw a trailer for Paul Thomas Anderson's (didn't we used to call him "P.T."?) upcoming film, which stars Daniel Day-Lewis. I have no idea if it's going to be any good, but the title - "There Will Be Blood" - is just really cool. (WAY better than the title of the Upton Sinclair novel on which it's based: simply "Oil!")
- "There Will Be Blood" would make an excellent title for the game I'm most anticipating this weekend - not my Panthers vs. Seahawks, alas, but what I hope will be an epic smackdown for the ages: Patriots vs. Jets. This matchup was going to be sweet even before the revelation this week that the Jets have a few video cameras of their own. It was the whining of Jets coach Eric Boygini (he is not a man) in Week 1 that triggered what Bill Simmons has called the "F@ck You Season." The Patriots remind me of those serial killers who follow their own media coverage so closely that, when a reporter speculates that Killer X would never dump a body in Location Y, that's exactly where the next victim shows up. The Patriots run up the score? Okay, we'll take a knee at the end of the Colts game, just to screw with people. A certain Pittsburgh d-back, in his inexperience, guarantees a win? Okay, let's torch him for a few touchdowns. Bill Belichick strikes me as a person with a long memory and a sense of drama. I can't wait to see how many different ways he makes New York cry on Sunday.
While we're on the subject - why are the Patriots cast as the villains here? When Peyton Manning persuaded Tony Dungy to unleash the Colts offense so he could break Marino's single-season touchdown record (NOT because it was always the best way to win), I felt like the only person in America who thought the naked record-grab was unsportsmanlike. To begin the season, every Pats-hater with an ax to grind crowed that one rules violation negated three Super Bowls - as if Brady, Moss & Co. needed any outside help to beat a team that's gone on to win what, three games? All the Pats are doing now is definitively proving those yakking-heads wrong. And if going undefeated is unfair to the competition, why do we keep rolling Don Shula out to pop the champagne every year? Glorify winning, don't glorify it - all I'm asking is that we pick one and stick with it.
I can't think of any scenario more fitting than for the Patriots to match the '72 Dolphins, the same year that the current Dolphins fail to win a single game. I think that would be hilarious.
- Every now and then - okay, regularly - I have to explain to people why we still need to keep pushing feminism, when we've "won" so much. Seriously pisses me off - okay, first? We won what we have now because we fought for it! No one just gives away their power to an oppressed minority. Second - I don't give a shit what I have now that my mother or grandmother didn't, I want what any man has now. Don't frackin' pat me on the head and tell me to be grateful for what I have. Argh. *steam coming out of ears*
So, is feminism still relevant and necessary? Read about these recent cases, and you tell me: First, an Australian judge frees nine men who admitted that they'd gang-raped a 10-year-old girl. In Canada, Judge calls rape victim "stupid." And, before you get all self-righteous, in our own land of the free and home of the brave, some bloggers are questioning the claims of an ex-Halliburton contractor that she was raped in Iraq and that her employer covered it up. Hey, everybody's innocent until proven guilty. But why is rape the only crime where the victim is consistently belittled and held in suspicion? People commit insurance fraud every day by pretending to have been robbed or by burning down their houses, but if my house gets broken into I'm probably not going to have to worry about some a-hole Internet goon calling me "Murtha-esque" or "Beauchampian."
Well...Happy Friday - and don't miss any football!
So, in no particular order, here are a few of the things that have been flitting across my brain today...
- Hey, look! It only took four years! Look for other rosy pre-war predictions to start finally coming true as well. U.S. troops will be greeted as liberators any day now, I'm sure.
- RE: The Mitchell Report on the use of steroids in pro baseball. Great work - I'm going to file it under "no shit" along with the "revelation" that Jodie Foster is gay. And then I'll go right back to ignoring the irrelevant, corrupt, train-wreck that is the MLB.
- I finally watched "Knocked Up" this week. Well, to be strictly accurate, I watched the first 16 and a half minutes of "Knocked Up" before ripping out of my DVD player. Seriously, Netflix is lucky they're getting this one back in one piece. After calming down and thinking on it for a few days, I've concluded that it wasn't just that I didn't like it - after all, sloppy, unfunny movies come out every day. Just like with my epic, ultimately fruitless campaign against "Titanic" back in high school, the real issue isn't my dislike for a film, it's my frustration with the people who insist that it's the best film of the year/ever made, etc. I feel like an Omega Man, screaming at the world full of Judd Apatow-loving vampire/zombies, "Did you people SEE the same movie I saw???"
When "Knocked Up" came out last summer, I actually heard more than one reviewer describe it as "sweet." Um, that's probably the last word in the dictionary that I would use. I've never seen such a collection of mean-spirited characters; even the little kids are nasty to each other. The way I see it, "funny" is a club. And if you're not in the club, if you don't speak the language, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to find something funny. "Knocked Up" wasn't funny for me because I wasn't in the club - there wasn't a single character with which I felt any identification. I couldn't get a toe-hold, so when it pissed me off, the movie didn't get my usual benefit of the doubt. That's why I say it was sloppy. It's a filmmaker's job to give viewers that toe-hold (unless he's just making the film for himself. That's not art, it's a middle-schooler's post-break-up poetry.), to show them the secret hand-signals or whatever that will get them into the club, and it's really not that hard. Try writing dialogue that does more than just zing, like revealing character and motivation, for starters. "Anchorman" does more in its first 16 seconds than "Knocked Up" mangaged in 16 minutes.
And if I'm Julianne Moore, I'm finding Judd Apatow and kicking his ass. Seriously, if he pulled that shit on me he'd spend large chunks of his future crying like a baby.
- Speaking of movies, I saw a trailer for Paul Thomas Anderson's (didn't we used to call him "P.T."?) upcoming film, which stars Daniel Day-Lewis. I have no idea if it's going to be any good, but the title - "There Will Be Blood" - is just really cool. (WAY better than the title of the Upton Sinclair novel on which it's based: simply "Oil!")
- "There Will Be Blood" would make an excellent title for the game I'm most anticipating this weekend - not my Panthers vs. Seahawks, alas, but what I hope will be an epic smackdown for the ages: Patriots vs. Jets. This matchup was going to be sweet even before the revelation this week that the Jets have a few video cameras of their own. It was the whining of Jets coach Eric Boygini (he is not a man) in Week 1 that triggered what Bill Simmons has called the "F@ck You Season." The Patriots remind me of those serial killers who follow their own media coverage so closely that, when a reporter speculates that Killer X would never dump a body in Location Y, that's exactly where the next victim shows up. The Patriots run up the score? Okay, we'll take a knee at the end of the Colts game, just to screw with people. A certain Pittsburgh d-back, in his inexperience, guarantees a win? Okay, let's torch him for a few touchdowns. Bill Belichick strikes me as a person with a long memory and a sense of drama. I can't wait to see how many different ways he makes New York cry on Sunday.
While we're on the subject - why are the Patriots cast as the villains here? When Peyton Manning persuaded Tony Dungy to unleash the Colts offense so he could break Marino's single-season touchdown record (NOT because it was always the best way to win), I felt like the only person in America who thought the naked record-grab was unsportsmanlike. To begin the season, every Pats-hater with an ax to grind crowed that one rules violation negated three Super Bowls - as if Brady, Moss & Co. needed any outside help to beat a team that's gone on to win what, three games? All the Pats are doing now is definitively proving those yakking-heads wrong. And if going undefeated is unfair to the competition, why do we keep rolling Don Shula out to pop the champagne every year? Glorify winning, don't glorify it - all I'm asking is that we pick one and stick with it.
I can't think of any scenario more fitting than for the Patriots to match the '72 Dolphins, the same year that the current Dolphins fail to win a single game. I think that would be hilarious.
- Every now and then - okay, regularly - I have to explain to people why we still need to keep pushing feminism, when we've "won" so much. Seriously pisses me off - okay, first? We won what we have now because we fought for it! No one just gives away their power to an oppressed minority. Second - I don't give a shit what I have now that my mother or grandmother didn't, I want what any man has now. Don't frackin' pat me on the head and tell me to be grateful for what I have. Argh. *steam coming out of ears*
So, is feminism still relevant and necessary? Read about these recent cases, and you tell me: First, an Australian judge frees nine men who admitted that they'd gang-raped a 10-year-old girl. In Canada, Judge calls rape victim "stupid." And, before you get all self-righteous, in our own land of the free and home of the brave, some bloggers are questioning the claims of an ex-Halliburton contractor that she was raped in Iraq and that her employer covered it up. Hey, everybody's innocent until proven guilty. But why is rape the only crime where the victim is consistently belittled and held in suspicion? People commit insurance fraud every day by pretending to have been robbed or by burning down their houses, but if my house gets broken into I'm probably not going to have to worry about some a-hole Internet goon calling me "Murtha-esque" or "Beauchampian."
Well...Happy Friday - and don't miss any football!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Goodness gracious, what whiny boys!
I'm just reading ESPN.com's Hashmarks blog over lunch, and of course the talk is all about last night's Monday Night Football game where the Patriots narrowly defeated Baltimore. Now, I understand that the Baltimore players were in a pretty emotional place when they said the things reported here - having dominated New England all night only to fall apart in the last five minutes of the game. But still, this stuff is just laughable:
Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs on officiating: "Everybody is kind of cheering for them to go undefeated and break all the records." If by "everybody," Suggs means "Patriots fans," then yes, he's exactly right. Pretty much everybody I talk to on a daily basis is actively rooting for Tom Brady to get hit by a truck. And did he watch the Pats-Colts game? Anyone who says New England gets all the calls is either consumed with blind hatred or doesn't understand what the expression "get all the calls" means.
Suggs on the infamous 4th-down timeout called by the Ravens sideline: " I don't know. It looked like all 22 men on the field played as if no timeout was called. But if it was called, it was called. I don't get into that part of the game. I just do my job." If it was called? Before he mouths off to the press, Suggs should maybe watch a replay of the incident. Before the snap, you can clearly see the Ravens coaches signalling the most bone-headed timeout call in the history of the NFL. Yes, it was monumentally stupid in hindsight. You could tell from the reactions of the Ravens players how bad it sucked to realize that your coach just undermined a brilliant defensive stop. But that's football. No conspiracy.
Ravens linebacker Bart Scott on the timeout: "I didn't hear a timeout. That was very convenient." If the timeout call had come from the Patriots bench, I'd agree. But it didn't. So unless Scott is implying that the Ravens' own coaches are in on the alleged fix...
Ravens receiver Derrick Mason: "Allow the players to dictate how the game is going to go, especially the last couple of seconds. It's kind of like basketball. There's three seconds on the clock. Let the guys play. The best team is going to win." Yup. Looks like it did, alright.
More from Mason: "It's kind of like that old Bulls team when they were running the tables. You were playing against Jordan, Pippen and the bunch and it was hard to beat them because everyone was on their side." Or, you know, 'cause they're just flat better than you. That could be a factor...maybe.
This is the thing. The Patriots didn't make Billick or whoever it was call that timeout. They didn't make Bart Scott throw the official's flag into the stands, which in part led to the Pats getting an extra 40 yards on their final kick-off. The Ravens cracked, the Patriots didn't. End of story. There's a reason one of those teams is undefeated and the other is fighting for its playoff life.
Me, I have zero problem with a team that's this scary-good running the table. This kind of true excellence happens once in a lifetime - why would you want to denigrate it? I sincerelly hope the Pats go 16-0, especially if this is coupled with the Dolphins going 0-16. Karma's a bitch, you champagne-popping old farts.
Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs on officiating: "Everybody is kind of cheering for them to go undefeated and break all the records." If by "everybody," Suggs means "Patriots fans," then yes, he's exactly right. Pretty much everybody I talk to on a daily basis is actively rooting for Tom Brady to get hit by a truck. And did he watch the Pats-Colts game? Anyone who says New England gets all the calls is either consumed with blind hatred or doesn't understand what the expression "get all the calls" means.
Suggs on the infamous 4th-down timeout called by the Ravens sideline: " I don't know. It looked like all 22 men on the field played as if no timeout was called. But if it was called, it was called. I don't get into that part of the game. I just do my job." If it was called? Before he mouths off to the press, Suggs should maybe watch a replay of the incident. Before the snap, you can clearly see the Ravens coaches signalling the most bone-headed timeout call in the history of the NFL. Yes, it was monumentally stupid in hindsight. You could tell from the reactions of the Ravens players how bad it sucked to realize that your coach just undermined a brilliant defensive stop. But that's football. No conspiracy.
Ravens linebacker Bart Scott on the timeout: "I didn't hear a timeout. That was very convenient." If the timeout call had come from the Patriots bench, I'd agree. But it didn't. So unless Scott is implying that the Ravens' own coaches are in on the alleged fix...
Ravens receiver Derrick Mason: "Allow the players to dictate how the game is going to go, especially the last couple of seconds. It's kind of like basketball. There's three seconds on the clock. Let the guys play. The best team is going to win." Yup. Looks like it did, alright.
More from Mason: "It's kind of like that old Bulls team when they were running the tables. You were playing against Jordan, Pippen and the bunch and it was hard to beat them because everyone was on their side." Or, you know, 'cause they're just flat better than you. That could be a factor...maybe.
This is the thing. The Patriots didn't make Billick or whoever it was call that timeout. They didn't make Bart Scott throw the official's flag into the stands, which in part led to the Pats getting an extra 40 yards on their final kick-off. The Ravens cracked, the Patriots didn't. End of story. There's a reason one of those teams is undefeated and the other is fighting for its playoff life.
Me, I have zero problem with a team that's this scary-good running the table. This kind of true excellence happens once in a lifetime - why would you want to denigrate it? I sincerelly hope the Pats go 16-0, especially if this is coupled with the Dolphins going 0-16. Karma's a bitch, you champagne-popping old farts.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Sports madness
I'm going to pull a mini-Peter King here and just ramble about a few sports stories that are totally unrelated except for the fact that they happen to be on my mind...
- Went to the Panthers game yesterday, where my boys mercifully ended a 377-day at-home losing streak. (Yes, I know, they technically weren't playing at home most of those days, but there's nothing like the phrase "377-day at-home losing streak" to properly evoke the feelings of utter frustration and futility we fans have been feeling for some time now.) I met with some friends before the game, and we came to the consensus that, this week, we should chant "We want MATT!" since apparently the previous week's chant, "We want Moore!", was too confusing for the homonym-challenged David Carr.
Speaking of merciful...with Vinny Testaverde's old man spine back in good health, Carr is once again firmly where he belongs - on the bench. Do you know who David Carr reminds me of? Me - in middle school, in every PE class where I was forced to play softball. Each time I stepped up to the plate, I was praying only for the three strikes to come quickly so I could get back to the dugout where my book was waiting. That's Carr. He just doesn't look like a guy who wants to be out there on the field.
As terrible as the Panthers' offense has been this year, there are a couple of bright spots: 1) As promised, new defensive coordinator Jeff Davidson has done a fair job rediscovering the tight end position, which I'm not sure Dan Henning knew existed. This season has seen TD passes to my current crush Jeff King, Christian Fauria and, on Sunday, Dante Rosario; and, 2) by the time next season rolls around, Steve Smith should be nice and pissed off and ready to put up a 2,000-yard year.
- Guilford's men's basketball team was picked to win the ODAC conference, and they may very well do so. But as good as the men's team is, the women's basketball team might be the conference's sleeper. I saw them play for the third time tonight, and I'm deeply impressed. At this point my personal stand-outs are junior Tracey Croner, who put up 24 points tonight, sophomore Ann Seufer, whose name the announcer just to say after she drains yet another 3-pointer ("Annnn...SEUFER!") and junior Shevon Hackett, whom I dubbed "The Coach" for her non-stop, unabashedly vocal support and instructions for the rest of the team - I swear, she talks the whole time; I LOVE that.
The only downside for me tonight was that the team the Quakers beat 92-68 was my own Salem College Spirits, who showed enough fight to make me wonder what they could've done if they'd had more than eight players (one of the hazards of small-college life.)
The Quakers open the spring schedule at home against my basketball nemesis, Emory & Henry. I'm predicting a bloodbath, because it makes me feel good to think about it.
(While we're on the subject, I love that I see so many of Guilford's athletes in other sports at the games. I'm a little jaded, having had to put up with so many, say, football players, who think their team is the only one that really matters. I'm impressed by the support, especially of the women's team.)
- Looks like Tim Duncan will be okay. Whew. Tim Duncan may be the sole reason I follow the NBA, and is definitely the only reason I like the Spurs. Yes, the Spurs play 10 states away, but I'm allowed to pull for them according to Sports Guy's Rules for Being a Sports Fan, Rule 19-d:
"You follow your favorite college star (and this has to be a once-in-a-generation favorite college star) to the pros and root for his team du jour ... like if you were a UNC fan for the past 20 years, and you rooted for the Bulls (because of MJ) and then the Raptors (because of Vince). Only works if there isn't a pro team in your area."
(But what about the Charlotte Bobcats?, you say. Doesn't Rule #18 state that, if your area fields a pro sports team, you're obligated to pull for that team? I would respond with the corollary of Rule #19-e: said team's owner betrays the fans, therefore fans are released from obligation. Also, I'm not sure if the Bobcats count as a pro team.)
- Am I the only one who thinks that college football overtime rules are crap? What is this, kindergarten? Get the ball, score, or don't get the ball and keep the other team from scoring. Screw this "both teams must have the chance to score" BS. (Especially from the 25-yard line - WTF??? I could score from there.) Reason number 197 why college football exists solely to give middle-aged men something to argue about while looking down on their "Grey's Anatomy"-loving wives.
Me, I don't watch "Grey's Anatomy," for the same reason I don't watch college football. If I want soap, I take a shower.
And to further extend the Peter King-ness, here's my annoying/aggravating travel comment of the week:
It took me for frickin' EVER to get to Charlotte yesterday. I kept getting stuck behind drivers who were apparently unfamiliar with the "slower traffic keep right" concept. I can't tell you how many - it seemed like every quarter-mile or so I'd run into yet another traffic snarl caused not by a wreck, but by some idiot doing five or 10 under the speed limit in the passing lane. Folks, there's a reason it's called the "passing lane"! And while I hate to pass on the right, if I have enough time to get around you in the right lane, that should probably indicate to you that, um, that's where you should be - with the other slow-pokes. I don't care if you're doing 80 - if the car behind you is doing 85, get the hell out of its way.
- Went to the Panthers game yesterday, where my boys mercifully ended a 377-day at-home losing streak. (Yes, I know, they technically weren't playing at home most of those days, but there's nothing like the phrase "377-day at-home losing streak" to properly evoke the feelings of utter frustration and futility we fans have been feeling for some time now.) I met with some friends before the game, and we came to the consensus that, this week, we should chant "We want MATT!" since apparently the previous week's chant, "We want Moore!", was too confusing for the homonym-challenged David Carr.
Speaking of merciful...with Vinny Testaverde's old man spine back in good health, Carr is once again firmly where he belongs - on the bench. Do you know who David Carr reminds me of? Me - in middle school, in every PE class where I was forced to play softball. Each time I stepped up to the plate, I was praying only for the three strikes to come quickly so I could get back to the dugout where my book was waiting. That's Carr. He just doesn't look like a guy who wants to be out there on the field.
As terrible as the Panthers' offense has been this year, there are a couple of bright spots: 1) As promised, new defensive coordinator Jeff Davidson has done a fair job rediscovering the tight end position, which I'm not sure Dan Henning knew existed. This season has seen TD passes to my current crush Jeff King, Christian Fauria and, on Sunday, Dante Rosario; and, 2) by the time next season rolls around, Steve Smith should be nice and pissed off and ready to put up a 2,000-yard year.
- Guilford's men's basketball team was picked to win the ODAC conference, and they may very well do so. But as good as the men's team is, the women's basketball team might be the conference's sleeper. I saw them play for the third time tonight, and I'm deeply impressed. At this point my personal stand-outs are junior Tracey Croner, who put up 24 points tonight, sophomore Ann Seufer, whose name the announcer just to say after she drains yet another 3-pointer ("Annnn...SEUFER!") and junior Shevon Hackett, whom I dubbed "The Coach" for her non-stop, unabashedly vocal support and instructions for the rest of the team - I swear, she talks the whole time; I LOVE that.
The only downside for me tonight was that the team the Quakers beat 92-68 was my own Salem College Spirits, who showed enough fight to make me wonder what they could've done if they'd had more than eight players (one of the hazards of small-college life.)
The Quakers open the spring schedule at home against my basketball nemesis, Emory & Henry. I'm predicting a bloodbath, because it makes me feel good to think about it.
(While we're on the subject, I love that I see so many of Guilford's athletes in other sports at the games. I'm a little jaded, having had to put up with so many, say, football players, who think their team is the only one that really matters. I'm impressed by the support, especially of the women's team.)
- Looks like Tim Duncan will be okay. Whew. Tim Duncan may be the sole reason I follow the NBA, and is definitely the only reason I like the Spurs. Yes, the Spurs play 10 states away, but I'm allowed to pull for them according to Sports Guy's Rules for Being a Sports Fan, Rule 19-d:
"You follow your favorite college star (and this has to be a once-in-a-generation favorite college star) to the pros and root for his team du jour ... like if you were a UNC fan for the past 20 years, and you rooted for the Bulls (because of MJ) and then the Raptors (because of Vince). Only works if there isn't a pro team in your area."
(But what about the Charlotte Bobcats?, you say. Doesn't Rule #18 state that, if your area fields a pro sports team, you're obligated to pull for that team? I would respond with the corollary of Rule #19-e: said team's owner betrays the fans, therefore fans are released from obligation. Also, I'm not sure if the Bobcats count as a pro team.)
- Am I the only one who thinks that college football overtime rules are crap? What is this, kindergarten? Get the ball, score, or don't get the ball and keep the other team from scoring. Screw this "both teams must have the chance to score" BS. (Especially from the 25-yard line - WTF??? I could score from there.) Reason number 197 why college football exists solely to give middle-aged men something to argue about while looking down on their "Grey's Anatomy"-loving wives.
Me, I don't watch "Grey's Anatomy," for the same reason I don't watch college football. If I want soap, I take a shower.
And to further extend the Peter King-ness, here's my annoying/aggravating travel comment of the week:
It took me for frickin' EVER to get to Charlotte yesterday. I kept getting stuck behind drivers who were apparently unfamiliar with the "slower traffic keep right" concept. I can't tell you how many - it seemed like every quarter-mile or so I'd run into yet another traffic snarl caused not by a wreck, but by some idiot doing five or 10 under the speed limit in the passing lane. Folks, there's a reason it's called the "passing lane"! And while I hate to pass on the right, if I have enough time to get around you in the right lane, that should probably indicate to you that, um, that's where you should be - with the other slow-pokes. I don't care if you're doing 80 - if the car behind you is doing 85, get the hell out of its way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)