Throughout the day, I get these great ideas for blog entries. Or at least I think they are great. They seem great to me, but I suppose they wouldn't necessarily appeal to everyone.
Unfortunately, when I get the time to sit down and focus on making a blog entry, either the idea has flown away or the steam necessary to run the writing engine has cooled down.
Sometimes I think I overthink what I want to write which leads to the paralysis of analysis (which is a phrase I picked up from my days in Amway over 15 years ago). And sometimes I only have a shred of an idea which I don't take time to think out at all.
The upside to all this is this: without an idea to develop, my blog entries can be shorter.
Much shorter.
And they won't take as much time, effort or discipline to carry out.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Spam
Please note that if you plan on leaving spam messages on my blog, they will be deleted. I receive emails whenever a comment is left, so I know when it happens.
So, really, don't waste your time.
So, really, don't waste your time.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Scutaro Signing
I found this post on Boston.com and thought it funny. So I'm reposting it here:
redroverredrover wrote: Yikes. The guy had one good year and now he's our starting SS? Sounds like the next Julio Lugo to me. However, I'm glad we've got another player to add to the list of silliest Red Sox names, joining the likes of:
Heathcliff Slocumb
Arquimedez Pozo
Coco Crisp
Izzy Alcantara
Nomar Garciaparra
Gar Finnvold
Please add to this list. I know I'm missing some gems.
redroverredrover wrote: Yikes. The guy had one good year and now he's our starting SS? Sounds like the next Julio Lugo to me. However, I'm glad we've got another player to add to the list of silliest Red Sox names, joining the likes of:
Heathcliff Slocumb
Arquimedez Pozo
Coco Crisp
Izzy Alcantara
Nomar Garciaparra
Gar Finnvold
Please add to this list. I know I'm missing some gems.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Can we get some clarity?
There's a common thought in the world of sports news pundits.
It is this: Defense wins games.
I beg to differ.
Defense, technically, prevents the other team from winning the game. If there's good defense, but little to no offense, then there's often no win for that team.
Occasionally, the defense will score points. Take, for instance, an intercepted pass in the NFL which is then run for a touchdown. But in this case, the defense has become offense because defense, by its very nature, does not score points. It tries to prevent the other team from scoring points.
'Nuff said.
It is this: Defense wins games.
I beg to differ.
Defense, technically, prevents the other team from winning the game. If there's good defense, but little to no offense, then there's often no win for that team.
Occasionally, the defense will score points. Take, for instance, an intercepted pass in the NFL which is then run for a touchdown. But in this case, the defense has become offense because defense, by its very nature, does not score points. It tries to prevent the other team from scoring points.
'Nuff said.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
What's so Classic about it?
A lot is made in educational and literary circles about reading the "classics." We must read the "classics" to be considered intelligent, well-read, enlightened, and (the unspoken implication) NOT red-necked, lowlife trailer trash.
There is a certain snobbishness that goes along with reading the "classics."
I've read enough "classics" to know this: the term "classic" doesn't necessarily equate to "well-written" or "interesting."
As a student, I had no choice but to read the "classics" assigned to us or get a failing grade when I could not pass the quizzes on those "classics." As an adult, I can pick one up and decide in the first page whether or not I want to devote a portion of my life to reading it.
Last night, I decided I would try reading, The Turn of the Screw, by Henry James. I've had it for over 25 years. Two minutes later I put it down. I don't think I'll try to read it again. The reason?
This sentence:
"The case, I may mention, was that of an apparition in just such an old house as had gathered us for the occasion – an appearance, of a dreadful kind, to a little boy sleeping in the room with his mother and waking her up in the terror if it; waking her not to dissipate his dread and soothe him to sleep again, but to encounter also herself, before she had succeeded in doing so, the same sight that had shocked him."
Had we written a sentence like this in school, the teacher would have circled it in red and called it a run-on sentence. This sentence by James has 81 words. 81 words!
It took a couple reads for me to realize that what happened was this.
A little boy saw a ghost that scared him. He woke up his mother so she could see the ghost as well.
I wrote that in two sentences totaling 22 words and said the same thing. They say brevity is the soul of wit. Apparently, Henry James wasn't a particularly witty person.
Yet his work is considered "classic."
I have read others that I found less than impressive as well. I thought Moby Dick was dull, Crime and Punishment tedious, and Great Expectations pretentious. As I read Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow, I kept waiting for one of the characters to speak, but it never happened. The whole story is pure narrative.
There are some "classics" I've enjoyed. I liked Thomas Hardy's The Return of the Native, Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, every Mark Twain book I've read, and many others. And there are some contemporary tales that I would place in the category of "classic" though only time will really determine that.
Time and whatever future snobbish intellectuals determine to be called "classic."
Given the trends in the creative world, though, the criteria for establishing such labels will probably be vastly different from that which has been employed to date.
There is a certain snobbishness that goes along with reading the "classics."
I've read enough "classics" to know this: the term "classic" doesn't necessarily equate to "well-written" or "interesting."
As a student, I had no choice but to read the "classics" assigned to us or get a failing grade when I could not pass the quizzes on those "classics." As an adult, I can pick one up and decide in the first page whether or not I want to devote a portion of my life to reading it.
Last night, I decided I would try reading, The Turn of the Screw, by Henry James. I've had it for over 25 years. Two minutes later I put it down. I don't think I'll try to read it again. The reason?
This sentence:
"The case, I may mention, was that of an apparition in just such an old house as had gathered us for the occasion – an appearance, of a dreadful kind, to a little boy sleeping in the room with his mother and waking her up in the terror if it; waking her not to dissipate his dread and soothe him to sleep again, but to encounter also herself, before she had succeeded in doing so, the same sight that had shocked him."
Had we written a sentence like this in school, the teacher would have circled it in red and called it a run-on sentence. This sentence by James has 81 words. 81 words!
It took a couple reads for me to realize that what happened was this.
A little boy saw a ghost that scared him. He woke up his mother so she could see the ghost as well.
I wrote that in two sentences totaling 22 words and said the same thing. They say brevity is the soul of wit. Apparently, Henry James wasn't a particularly witty person.
Yet his work is considered "classic."
I have read others that I found less than impressive as well. I thought Moby Dick was dull, Crime and Punishment tedious, and Great Expectations pretentious. As I read Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow, I kept waiting for one of the characters to speak, but it never happened. The whole story is pure narrative.
There are some "classics" I've enjoyed. I liked Thomas Hardy's The Return of the Native, Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, every Mark Twain book I've read, and many others. And there are some contemporary tales that I would place in the category of "classic" though only time will really determine that.
Time and whatever future snobbish intellectuals determine to be called "classic."
Given the trends in the creative world, though, the criteria for establishing such labels will probably be vastly different from that which has been employed to date.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Bah
So the Yankees won #27.
Good for them. Lousy for everyone else.
I don't care for the Yankees. I think it's genetic. I don't hate the players - I don't even know them. You should never hate someone you don't know due to lack of justifiable cause. But I don't like them, will always root against them.
I tend to think their fans are obnoxious. And, yes, they probably say the same thing about Red Sox fans. Their gloating makes me want to block their news feeds on Facebook. I am not a fan of gloating.
So the Yankees won #27.
From what everyone is saying, it sounds like they think that the team as it is currently comprised won all 27 World Series. But that can't be right.
It has been 9 years since their last WS victory. Back then, their starting roster looked like this:
Lineup
Jorge Posada*
Tino Martinez
Chuck Knoblauch
Scott Brosius
Derek Jeter*
Ricky Ledee
Bernie Williams
Paul O'Neill
Shane Spencer
Starting Pitchers
Roger Clemens
David Cone
Orlando Hernandez
Denny Neagle
Andy Pettitte*
Bullpen
Randy Choate
Jason Grimsley
Jeff Nelson
Mike Stanton
Mariano Rivera*
Joe Torre was managing and George Steinbrenner was micromanaging.
So, while the Yankees NAME has won 27 championships, the current Yankees TEAM has only won one. I wouldn't call the current team a dynasty. Nope, not at all.
The General Manager Meetings start Monday in Chicago.
Good for them. Lousy for everyone else.
I don't care for the Yankees. I think it's genetic. I don't hate the players - I don't even know them. You should never hate someone you don't know due to lack of justifiable cause. But I don't like them, will always root against them.
I tend to think their fans are obnoxious. And, yes, they probably say the same thing about Red Sox fans. Their gloating makes me want to block their news feeds on Facebook. I am not a fan of gloating.
So the Yankees won #27.
From what everyone is saying, it sounds like they think that the team as it is currently comprised won all 27 World Series. But that can't be right.
It has been 9 years since their last WS victory. Back then, their starting roster looked like this:
Lineup
Jorge Posada*
Tino Martinez
Chuck Knoblauch
Scott Brosius
Derek Jeter*
Ricky Ledee
Bernie Williams
Paul O'Neill
Shane Spencer
Starting Pitchers
Roger Clemens
David Cone
Orlando Hernandez
Denny Neagle
Andy Pettitte*
Bullpen
Randy Choate
Jason Grimsley
Jeff Nelson
Mike Stanton
Mariano Rivera*
Joe Torre was managing and George Steinbrenner was micromanaging.
So, while the Yankees NAME has won 27 championships, the current Yankees TEAM has only won one. I wouldn't call the current team a dynasty. Nope, not at all.
The General Manager Meetings start Monday in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
